Sabine Grant

Seems to me that you are still not providing evidence of the words you claim I wrote.....as far as getting out of your face, this forum encourages members to express their opinions freely within rules of decency. You can always use the ignore mode. Again it was your choice to not honor my polite request to not make assumptions on my account and not attribute thoughts to me that I may not have.

Sabine Grant

Bonjour AJ113....

Mat 5:17 : as part of the Sermon on the Mount ,Christ is clarifying his mission as he is about to demonstrate to people how the Law should be practised. The fulfillment means that the Law is not to produce blind obedience and application but to be the result of what he defines in verses 37 thru 40 of chapter 22.... that is the intimate relation between the love a believer has for God which must inspire love for others.
Mat 22:40..." all the Laws and prophets hang on these two commandments". Christ had been challenged by the Pharisees and accused to break the Law. He then demonstrates how the Sabbath is to be applied which is not from a legalistic angle anylonger. But from the angle of using common sense which results in a positive outcome ( he illustrates it by asking if one would let his best sheep drown in a well begause it is the Sabbath). A second illustration of how the Law is to be applied under the precept of " loving your neighbor as yourself"is his rebuttal of the mad crowd wanting to stone the adultress. He everturns an OT law which commanded the killing of adulterers and prevents it from occuring. He demonstrates how his followers are to handle an adulteress.
Those verses reflect Christ's intent to insure that his followers would not misunderstand his rebuttal of how the Law had been applied with permissivity where people would engage in murder, stealing etc.....as a teacher ( rabbi), he had to cover all angles to insure that his words would not be used as a justification to ignore the respect of the Mosaic Law. That is why he conludes with the first commandment of the Mosaic Law which is to inspire how his followers are to treat others.

I will now bring your attention to Matthew 23. He refers to the Pharisees as " teachers of the Law" a total of 6 times. He gives a detailed list of the crimes that were accomplished under the Law pointing to the contradictions in its application. " oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! how often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you would not let me. And now look, your house is left to you empty and desolate". Christ is pointing to the effect the application of the Law under the ancestral leadership of the priests of the Temple.
In verse 36, he states " I assure you all the accumulated judgement of the centuries will break upon the heads of this very generation". He refers to centuries of crimes and misuse of the Law.
Was he possibly aware that some of the Ot Laws were man made for the purpose of a self serving agenda to allow men to control and terrorize members of their tribes?
I am curious as to your opinion if whether or not Christ's intent was to restore an authentic image of God to mankind rather than allow the continuation of what the OT writings had been projecting.

Sabine Grant

I think that I was still awaiting for you to provide a medical definition of the words " dementia" and " psychosis" when I last commented in that thread.
I looked for the definition of the word " hypocrite" which according to the American Heritage Dictionnary of the English Language is spelt with a final "e" rather than your own spelling.

I found that definition under "hypocrisy" : The practice of professing feelings, beliefs or virtues that one does not hold or possess.
Under humanism : a system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacity and worth.2 concern with the interests needs and welfare of humans 3 A cultural and intellectual movement of the Renaissance that emphasized secular concerns as a result of of the rediscovery and study of the literature, art and civilization of ancient Greece and Rome.
Under humanist : a believer in the principles of humanism.2 one who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans.

I do consider my father's demeanor in the way he treated other human beings to be the product of humanistic beliefs. He was mostly influenced by his 35 years of membership to the GOF ( Grand Orient de France) which is one of the two predominant masonic orders in France. Both the GLF ( Grande Loge de France) and GOF are secular orders who promote authentical masonic ideology. I will add that they differ from some american lodges who allow religious individuals to be members.
My father was indeed concerned with the interests and welfare of humans. He displayed a desire to look for the worth and capacity of people in general. Moreso, he did not confine his beliefs in humanistic principles to intellectualism but to the application of those principles taught to him by french masonic ideology. Very few knew he was a mason for in France masons identify themselves mostly only to other members of the lodge.

The French freemasonry has produced great humanists such as Jean Moulin head of the French Resistance. I suggest you research more about that great man and his accomplishements.

Nowhere357

This was not directed at me.

As I see it, it's irrelevant whether god caused the choice or merely knew about it. That the decision was knowable at all is sufficient to disprove the existence of will.

Perhaps god's greater vision allows it to predict with startling accuracy, but if we have will, then our choices cannot be known until they have been made.

Sabine Grant

My personal experience on how I came to this personal choice of entrusting Christ as a path to spirituality was never imposed on me. There was no flaming bush popping in my home, no thundering voice commanding my mind to abide, no revelation escorted by smoke or self proclaimed angel.No gun held to my head. No upbringing in a white picket fence church in a cozy little town. There were a multitude of cultures and religions in my upbringing any of which I could have chosen from. I followed my father's path for a while until I came to term with the sense I needed in my own life.
That is my claim..... EXPERIENCE. I am accountable for my own choices every instant of my life. In my relation to Christ, He gives me a direction where He wills for me to go..... however..... I am accountable for the choice to follow it or ignore it. That choice is mine ultimatly.
That ability to choose was not taken away from me by my faith. Faith has given me a direction to go from and where. However, the paths I choose whether it be a pleasant highway or a dusty rocky road I am accountable for. In other words, each time I make a choice which results in harming another person whether it be verbaly or physicaly or emotionaly, it is not Christ's choice. It is mine.
If Christ were to control my choices without giving me the ability to choose, I would have lost my humanity which is the very essence of each human being.

Sabine Grant

In a thread I discussed with Mageth the humanistic impact of Christ....which he supported that Christ's teachings on human behavior were humanistic. If a " cherry picker" or liberal christian recognizes that aspect too, how is it a problem if the application results in accomplishing the same as a humanist would.... which is to display concern for the welfare of mankind.
Where you refocused on the problems, I want to discuss the possible solutions.
If I have no problems with humanism as a way to contribute to the welfare and betterment of mankind if , only if, it is applied thru behavior which results in enhancing rather than demeaning mankind ( I am talking about application not intellectualism) why should the intent of " cherry pickers" wha may strive to accomplish the same goal be a problem ?
If joined efforts setting aside the source of the ideology which inspires the positive accomplishements result in a modification of difficult circumstances for other human beings..... why should we focus on the problems?
Should you evaluate the positive impact Dr Martin Luther King had based on how he was inspired or on the accomplishements?
I look at the accomplishements. And I maintain that both humanism and christianity if focused on the same goal should join efforts to modify the flaws of society.
American United for example fights for the Separation of Church and State despite of being christians.

Biff the unclean

If a " cherry picker" or liberal christian recognizes that aspect too, how is it a problem if the application results in accomplishing the same as a humanist would.... which is to display concern for the welfare of mankind.
Because that would make the end justify the means. Were these means (Christianity) only directed at this end I'd say "go for it" event though it's based on a myth. However the long history and current state of Christianity show it to be harmful to mankind as a whole.
why should the intent of " cherry pickers" wha may strive to accomplish the same goal be a problem ?
Because there are "cherry pickers" and there are "cherry pickers." For every cherry you can pick out of the Bible of Jesus being humanistic you can pick another with him being misanthropic. Some parts of the bible Jesus is a genius, brilliant. But in others he's an idiot. You'd have to wonder who tied his sandals for him. Some parts he's all warm and loving, others he's hateful. He brings peace, he brings the sword. Honors his parents, he breaks up families. He honors the nobility of man; he glorifies the suffering of people. Total forgiveness, absolute vengeance.
If you don't cherry pick but take Jesus' personality as a whole he comes off looking like a "split personality" or an idiot savant.
But this is the same problem I was talking about before. This time instead of plot contradictions the problem is in character development. This loving Jesus who will sent you to the pit of Hell (funny cause the Jews didn't believe in Hell) this sweet guy who loves the little children and tells you to gouge out your own eye is fictional. His character development has the same problem the plot development has. There was no real Jesus to base the character on so the different authors just made him up as they went along. And they each made a different person.
If you can ever lay your hands on Gnostic bibles you'll find even more personalities attributed to Jesus than all the different ones in the NT.

If joined efforts setting aside the source of the ideology which inspires the positive accomplishements result in a modification of difficult circumstances for other human beings..... why should we focus on the problems?
It's a matter of integrity. To base your efforts on a lie, and to promote that lie which has caused such suffering in the world by your efforts is immoral.
Humanism developed as a response to the atrocities of the Christianity of the middle ages. It is not part of Christianity.

I maintain that both humanism and christianity if focused on the same goal should join efforts to modify the flaws of society.
I maintain that Christianity has been around for a couple of thousand years and in that time has promoted a philosophy of anti-humanism.
We see it again and again on these boards--every time a Christian sees something good in the world they try to claim that it is part of Christianity. Science we are told comes from Christian thought. Democracy isn't from pagan Greece but is completely Christian. Humanism, long considered the scourge to the church (now damned under the title "Secular Humanism") is now a Christian ideal.
Why can't you content yourself with honesty. Humanism has nothing to do with Christianity. If you find Humanism to have merit and wish to promote it and live by it's ideals then by all means do. But don't pretend that it is Christian and give Christianity the credit for it. That would be like giving the Nazis credit for the good work of the French Resistance because it was the Nazis who inspired them to do it.
American United for example fights for the Separation of Church and State despite of being christians.
But who is it that they are fighting to preserve our freedom? Atheists? Jews? Moslems? Wicca? Nope, none of those groups would even exist without freedom of religion. They are fighting Christians and only Christians. Call a spade a spade.
Just like Dr King was promoting American ideals of freedom instead of Christian fostering and acceptance of slavery, the AU are promoting American ideals of freedom and not pretending that they are Christian ideals.
The same honesty, one would hope, should be extended to Humanism. It has it's own merits.

Sabine Grant

Do you apply lack of integrity and the notion that it was immoral for Dr King to rely on his faith to find the motivation to promote american ideals of freedom? The man was a christian and a minister. Or did he separate from his beliefs to accomplish what he accomplished? did he leave his faith in the lobby ? did he reject the "lie" or did he find inspiration in the " lie" ?
Like it or not most members of American United are christians and led by a minister. Actualy Christ promoted separation between biblical laws and the laws of the land. " render what is Ceasar's to Ceasar". He did not break any Roman Laws...PP found himself unable to charge him with any violations against the laws implemented by the Roman government.
By the way have you revised your perception that my understanding of humanism thru my father was soly based on the father love now that I have given more details as to his ideological heritage? Should I post it again ?

Sabine Grant

BIFF : it is possible you did not get to that response since I addressed it to BRETTC in a previous post. But it also addresses your claim that my understanding of humanism is soly based on " a personalized definition based on father love" your quote directly extracted from your post on June 4th at 10:04 pm.
Of course you can refute the claim I made that the french freemasonry promotes humanistic beliefs and values.

AJ113

Good try, but you forgot about the prophets. They were OT. You have also failed to comment on the next two quotes, jumping instead to Matthew 22:40. Jesus said all the prohets and the law prophesied until John. If he didn't accept the OT as being the truth he would not have said this.

Mat 22:40..." all the Laws and prophets hang on these two commandments". Christ had been challenged by the Pharisees and accused to break the Law. He then demonstrates how the Sabbath is to be applied which is not from a legalistic angle anylonger. But from the angle of using common sense which results in a positive outcome ( he illustrates it by asking if one would let his best sheep drown in a well begause it is the Sabbath). A second illustration of how the Law is to be applied under the precept of " loving your neighbor as yourself"is his rebuttal of the mad crowd wanting to stone the adultress. He everturns an OT law which commanded the killing of adulterers and prevents it from occuring. He demonstrates how his followers are to handle an adulteress.
Those verses reflect Christ's intent to insure that his followers would not misunderstand his rebuttal of how the Law had been applied with permissivity where people would engage in murder, stealing etc.....as a teacher ( rabbi), he had to cover all angles to insure that his words would not be used as a justification to ignore the respect of the Mosaic Law. That is why he conludes with the first commandment of the Mosaic Law which is to inspire how his followers are to treat others.

This is just waltzing around the issue. The fact that he references the prophets and law means that he is validating them. In other words he is validating the OT. He is never quoted as saying something like: "forget the OT it's all made up anyway."

I will now bring your attention to Matthew 23. He refers to the Pharisees as " teachers of the Law" a total of 6 times. He gives a detailed list of the crimes that were accomplished under the Law pointing to the contradictions in its application. " oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! how often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you would not let me. And now look, your house is left to you empty and desolate". Christ is pointing to the effect the application of the Law under the ancestral leadership of the priests of the Temple.
In verse 36, he states " I assure you all the accumulated judgement of the centuries will break upon the heads of this very generation". He refers to centuries of crimes and misuse of the Law.
Was he possibly aware that some of the Ot Laws were man made for the purpose of a self serving agenda to allow men to control and terrorize members of their tribes?

Did he say that? No he did not. You're making it up.

I am curious as to your opinion if whether or not Christ's intent was to restore an authentic image of God to mankind rather than allow the continuation of what the OT writings had been projecting.

False dichotomy. I do not believe Christ had any intent because I do not believe he existed. I am merely stating that the character of Christ in the bible validates the OT by frequently referencing to it.