Mike,

I read the first bit of your post, but it was hard for me to read more, but I did my best to get through it. It's not that I have disdain for your position -- I don't. It's not that I think you are unintelligent or because your position is so weak -- I don't. It's because I not willing to listen to you speak to me and treat me as you have consistently done in this thread, so I just can't deal with what you might be saying against me, and the kind of attitude and tone behind your saying of it. It has gone beyond simply disagreeing and gotten personal on your part.

Here is what I did get from your post. You felt the comments in the article I posted eariler were directed at you. Well, since they weren't MY WORDS, I would already find your retort directed specfically at ME to be unfair. Secondly, if you honestly thought I picked out that whole article because I wanted to somehow "discredit" YOU you are very mistaken.

I believe I said this IN THAT VERY POST: the original point of this thread was NEVER to fight about whether you were right or I was wrong or whatever. The orignal point of this thread was about questions you had asked about liberal interpretations.

The article was quoted -- I believe I expressed stated that to -- it was not my words. I witheld the name of the author, in case that person was associated negatively in your mind. The only reason I put it up was to attempt to get a thread that had degenerated into nothing more than you treating with maximum sarcasm and disdain back on to higher ground. It was an example of how some liberal people interpret a passaage of the gospel. I don't care if its right or wrong, I wasn't evaluating it for that purpose. I was providing it for understanding of a different point of view.

You attacked the article as though it was a war of some kind. But the only one fighting is YOU. You came back with fifty thousand reasons why the article was wrong, and on top of that managed to get a good jab in at your favorite target. The only problem is, not one is argueing THAT with you. The articule was just for exmaple, not to be like "HA, I have hearby destroyed all of Mikes views." You seem to be the only one interested in destroying anything. I think that while we may disagree, I have no right to mistreat you or to publically go on a campaign to make sure everyone else knows you are not a Christian. Let me make it clear: I have no reason to believe you are not a Chrisitan. And more than that, I don't feel like its my place to judge. More than that, even if I did judge I wouldn't not treat you as though I couldn't stand the sight of you or hated you.

Next, you mentioned the post on moral absolutes verse moral principle. The issue was not simply steal or die. In fact the issue wasn't about dying. The issue where I got so insensed was when you said that hypotheically, if a woman was in iminant danger of being raped by a violent assailant, and the woman in her panic could only see one way of escape, and that road of escape would be to steal a car -- YOUR POSISTION is that she should allow herself to be RAPED in all the brutality that this entails, rather than break some law of property. I did not call you incompetent, I said that you posistion is morally represhensible. There's a big difference. When we began to cited referecnes from the bible, I said that your legalistic interpretaion of the law seemed to have more in common with the pharisees -- still a bit far from the level and severity of the biterness and disdain you've shown me.

Mike, I'll tell you what I sense -- I sense that you wanted to step by step get me to answer a specific set of questions, so you couldn force me to some specific conclusions so that you could disprove my way of thinking. When I wouldn't PLAY as easily as you liked, you kept trying, kept fishing, just waiting for me to say the "right" thing so that you could "pounce." When I still would not play, you simply said, "Oh well," and then played for me, so that you could still make the statements about me that you make here.

Based on the historical evidence, do I conclusively know that hitler is alive? No. Do I conclusively know that he is dead? I might.... do they have some of his body or something? If they have proven it, then YES I know that he is dead. And even if they haven't proven it, I can say YES I believe that he is dead. But unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it is still a belief.

About Jesus, historically do I know he rose from the dead? No. I do know that some people felt that he did and that nobody has his body. Do I know that he is still dead? No. I don't know that he is actually dead there is no conclusive evidence availible.

Now, you ask me what I believe. As a matter of Christian faith, I don't believe anything about it. It is not a matter of me not being able to make up my mind. I have made of my mind very resolutely about what I believe to be the significance of the ressurection account, and I've never thought it had ANYTHING to do with his historicity.

If you want to know if outside the realm of Chrisitan faith what I believe about the body of Jeuss historically, then I can say while I can't prove it, I see no reason to think his body didn't go the way of every other life on the face of this planet. To me, though I know you disagree it has no bearing on the meaning of power of the christian message.

I don't feel like I've been coy about this.
If you want to say, "ah-ha! You admit you don't believe Jesus rose!" Well, that's not quite true -- I said as a matter of history there is no reason to believe anything unusual happened to Jesus when he died. However, as a matter of Christian faith, whether something did or something didn't is completely beside the point.

My bible also says this:


43
"You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

...

46
If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
47
And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

...

Matthew 22
36
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
37
Jesus replied: "`Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
38
This is the first and greatest commandment.
39
And the second is like it: `Love your neighbor as yourself.'
40
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

...

John 13
34
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
35
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

...

John 15
11
I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.
12
My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.

...

John 15
17
This is my command: Love each other.

...

1 Corinthians 13
1
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3
If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9
For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10
but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
11
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
12
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

...

Romans 12
19
Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
20
On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."
21
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

...

Matthew 7
19
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20
Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

...

Galatians 5

22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23
gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.


I believe that the references to compassion, love, gentleness, peacemaking, mercy, forgiveness, tenderness and sincerity far, far, far far outweigh and far more accurately portray the message of the gospel than your single quote. I'm not asking you to take me into your home. You don't need to become best friends with me -- you only need to love me, and treat me as love treats others. This you have not done I'm sad to say.

That's all I have to say. If you want to discuss an issue reasonably, thoughtfully and with an open-mind, then you can email me privately starting with the phrase, "I apologize for how I treated you lately."

Otherwise, while I'll respond to posts on threads when I believe I can clarify something or feel you might be in error, I will not get dragged into another one on one with you, where the end result is you finding a soapbox for your cynicism, sarcasm, bitterness and disdain for someone like me.

Andrew


[This message has been edited by Captain Bloodloss (edited January 17, 2001).]

Captain Bloodloss,

The only reason I put it up was to attempt to get a thread that had degenerated into nothing more than you treating with maximum sarcasm and disdain back on to higher ground. It was an example of how some liberal people interpret a passaage of the gospel. I don't care if its right or wrong, I wasn't evaluating it for that purpose. I was providing it for understanding of a different point of view.

Forgive me for saying so, but this, to me, is irresponsible. There is enough error going around. When we post, we should post because we are reporting what we believe is true. I thought that when you posted the "Christpower" argument, you posted it because you thought it was a valid way of interpreting Scripture. If you didn't think it was, you should have said so -- better yet, you should not have posted it. We live in a world that favors error over truth. To contribute to the world's effort to obscure the truth is in no way beneficial to humanity. Post what you believe to be true. There's nothing to be gained in posting alternatives to the truth except confusion, and there's enough of that going around.

My bible also says this:....

Matthew 5:43-44,45-47, 22:36-40; Romans 12:19-21; Galatians 5:22-23 -- I realize I haven't said things to you in the nicest possible ways. I do apologize for all the times when I could have chosen to say something nicely and did not. Sometimes I chose to speak harshly to demonstrate just how vehemently I disagree with the views you have presented, and sometimes I have spoken harshly to provoke you to answer my questions rather than dodge them. Other times, I was indeed making jabs, though I always thought you would be thick-skinned enough to shrug them off, as I have often had to be on this forum. This is not a friendly place, and the level of civility does fluctuate from time to time, and I am not immune to the temptation to sink in that area. I ask your forgiveness for those portions of my posts in which I sank beyond what was necessary.

John 13:34-35, 15:11-12,17 -- These commands of Christ refers to relations among Christians, though I suppose it wouldn't hurt to follow them on a more general basis where appropriate.

1 Corinthians 13:1-13 -- I find it very likely that I have been a "clanging cymbal" to you at times, but I direct your attention to verse 6 in which it is said, "Love does not delight in evil...." It's harder than you might expect to keep love present when there is so much evil being posted, and I do consider some of what you have posted to be evil even if you posted it with good intentions.

Matthew 7:19-20 -- "Fruit" is not restricted to how we behave; it also applies to what we preach. I could direct this right back at you for the ideas you have promoted here which are contrary to the truth of Christ.

Again, I do not get angry when people disagree with me. People disagree with me all the time on this forum without receiving any rebuke from me. It is only when people present certain views under the heading "Christian" which can in no way be attributed to the Christian faith that I get my hackles up, for the very reason I am on this forum is to dispel some of the myths about God, Christ, and Christianity which I saw when I first came here. For me to see more myths and mistakes being contributed, no matter how well-meant the intentions, is extremely annoying, for it means I have to stay here that much longer.

--Mike

[This message has been edited by mpartyka (edited January 18, 2001).]

O Grand Inquisitor---

You're only here to stamp out heresy among the Christian/Theist posters??? Well, you can spare us/them. And you were extremely rude to a very nice person. When does "Blessed Assurance" become "Overweaning Condescension"?? It's not a rhetorical question. You crossed that line long ago.

Masque,

And you were extremely rude to a very nice person.

I realize that, and I apologize for that.

--Mike