a question of respect.

And yet, a bird in a cage still sings.

It is in the nature of a person to do neither until one is ready to do so.

Perched upon a shakey branch, if one is not aware of one's position even the slightest breeze can cause a fall.

But yet it is the same respect.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The perch is a pretty analogy but it hardly fits.

Birds within the luxury of a cage sing safely enough.
Birds in the wild also squawk with alarm, with fear and pain, and people do the same. It depends largely upon their awareness of experience. The more one sees of the truth of life in all its awful detail the wilder it gets to be and in that respect beliefs are by the way, except to the extent that a belief may nurture the bliss of ignorance. Experience exhibits a nasty tendency to transcend belief, and with no permission to do so.

Respect is definitely not all the same to me, if what somebody thinks I chose is not what I'd thought I'd chosen, and not what I'd said that I had chosen.

That is an interesting observation, a mild form of "made my life a living hell". On a good day a lost argument evolves to a semantic quibble, a disputed interpretation. On the bad days ad hominem abuse is usual, "you don't see yourself and your own actions at all", that sort of thing, whatever it takes to elude the unwelcome point.

A sort of sour grapes of the intellectual process sets in. In an extreme case it tends toward the toys chucked out of pram syndrome, along with something like "Do you think that coming to an understanding of truth is a matter of intellectual capabilities?", like what else would be the purpose to put the question to an internet forum.

"Nothing is so firmly believed as that which is least known." (Montaigne)

"A man can be a pure logician only if it makes him feel good." (William Ross Ashby)


--- Ron.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If one is unaware of beliefs which are not stable, it does not require truth to find oneself successfully attacked.

Does a bird in a cage have an easier life than a bird in the wild? Which is more difficult: Being what you are, or being what another wants you to be? Being free to learn or being kept from learning?

Which is the reason the ability to choose is respected; through that any choice can be respected. Even if that choice is something which goes against everything one teaches.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Snakelord,

Before I continue, let me just say this. From a linguistic perspective this discussion is interesting enough, but from a Christian perspective I can't really see the point of it. If you have the same aversion to hatred that I share as a Christian, then your argument is a simple demonstration of what Jesus was saying. If Jesus preached hatred, then loyalty to God's moral law would require distancing yourself from it - no matter how cherished the relationship was. So in that respect, we end up on the same page, although in your case "God" is the moral itself.

As for the issue of "hate", there's little more I can say that hasn't been said before. The word, as translated from Greek, is 100% accurate, and it's even more accurate when placed in context: it says exactly what Jesus wanted to say. The essential difference between our stances is that you think the idiom has already been explained in the text, so that what it says in English should only be understood in an English context, while I think the idiom is implicit - it needs no further translation (they already did an excellent job), but it requires further understanding. Especially if your interpretation is so diametrically opposed to the generally accepted one.

For that I tried to show why the generally accepted interpretation is so generally accepted. It has to do with the use of the word "hate" in a Semitic context, rather than an English one. In Eastern language (not Greek), hate had a broader meaning than it has in Greek (and English). Not different (so "hate" is still the best translation), but broader, so it could include a variety of related attitudes (incidentally, their use of "love" was the same - it could describe even the most casual approval). The most commonly cited precedent is Gen. 29:30-31:

"Jacob lay with Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah. And he worked for Laban another seven years. When the LORD saw that Leah was not loved [sane': hated], he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren.​

Looking at what is to be "hated" this way, in Luke 16 you'll see that even your own life is among those things. Obviously if the goal of hating your life is to preserve it eternally, there is more at stake than just hating life for its own sake - it has to do with letting go of something precious to obtain something more precious, as the Greeks themselves said, "a man must count his own life his enemy for the honour of Sparta!".

But only purpose, greatest purpose, overriding purpose? Those assumptions would need additional support.

When people worked together in their own interests, only their own interests were being served. Being able to do anything and get away with it sounds great, because no matter what the plan is, it would succeed. The same moral argument applies here: if everyone did something, that doesn't make it right. Justice (the sword) demands division between right and wrong, and in the Bible, God is the only impartial Judge of mankind. That's not up for debate.

Living in peace is one thing, but where that peace leads to is another. Germany, Italy and Japan were at peace with each other during World War II. We could be at peace and still destroy ourselves or our planet and miss the purpose for which God created us. If we could manage to live in peace and actually use if for the betterment of the whole planet (not just ourselves), we would at last be doing God's will as he expressed it at the beginning. Peace requires exactly the kind of love that God requires.

It's relevant, because it's part of my answer. I told you I would prefer a world where Jesus sacrifice wasn't necessary, a sinless world, but that alone doesn't mean Jesus won't still be there. That's what I mean by he isn't optional. On the other hand, we don't have to sin (which implies not believing what Jesus said) - so it's optional, though it's obviously not always the easy or convenient option.

True, nobody is without sin, but it's not because everybody purposely sinned. Everybody is in the same trouble, but not everybody is in trouble because they got themselves there. Either way, Jesus' sacrifice and salvation was necessary because of sin was already there. Now it's up to us whether to continue past or begin anew.

What makes you guilty depends on the law you're under, and we're under a moral law. That's the simplest way to explain it. As for Jesus' sacrifice, think of it as someone standing in with his life for something that would take yours. That's the principle of all sacrifices. That Jesus could survive death was a testimony to his relationship with God, something that sin prevents anyone else from having.

But you were making it sound as if Jesus was bringing no peace at all, which doesn't take into account the words "on earth". It may be everything you believe in, but it wasn't everything Jesus or his disciples believed in. Remember: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place" (John 18:36).

Because God's kingdom is already available on earth, it's the only kingdom that ensures peace, and the only one that God will allow to stand.

You want me to suppose that Jesus brought hatred according the meaning you attribute to the word - to "imagine him in a negative light" - and I took it at least as seriously as you took superluminal's post. I can imagine it, but so what? Do you want me to believe it as well?

You have yet to demonstrate that support (and to let it sink in that I consider the translators to be right, and your interpretation to be wrong). That's why I said there is no argument. There are only statements of what you believe to be true.

Maybe it's a testament to the power of faith (or perhaps naivety) that despite God's intervention, people still believe that nothing is impossible for them without Him.

When wasn't that division there, and whose conditions will everyone have to accept for it not to be there in the future?

I agree with Ron, squabbling over words is usually the last throes of a dying discussion. Which is part of why I think that if this whole debate was stillborn if it hangs on the use of "hate" in Luke 14:26. Which isn't much more than a "complaint" against Jesus and the Bible that is lodged in a debate/discussion about greater things like meaning, linguistics and morality.

Perhaps God divides kingdoms that are on a path of self destruction so that everyone in those kingdoms don't share the same fate. It should be interesting to test my hypothesis against the examples you have in mind.

The Bible is a library of books, and just like you expect to find in a library, there are different literary genres. Revelation falls under apocalyptic literature, which is easily identified as symbolic. The texts themselves usually dictate by their form how they should be read. Nobody says it's always easy, but that's what study is for, isn't it?

And even something that's symbolic or figurative or metaphorical still refers to something real. Who says ignore anything?

But of course, if you want to argue that the harlot in Revelations is a woman of flesh and blood or that death, famine, pestilence and war will really have horses, you're more than welcome. It should be a short discussion.

PS. I found an interesting side-note regarding the fourth horseman at Wikipedia:

"The word used to describe the color of the 'pale' horse is the Greek word chloros or green. It is meant to convey the sickly green tinge of the deathly ill or recently dead. Since the literal translation 'green' does not carry these connotations in English the word is rendered 'pale' in most English translations."​

An interesting question that arises: is "pale" an accurate translation, or not?

The truth is I would also like to know why some point at Hebrews and others choose to ignore certain passages. That way they will only get what they're looking for, and never find out if there is a middle way that explains both sides. It's just the way you put the questions to yourself that seemed strange to me.

PS. I was looking for the following example, and now that I found it I think I will leave it with you:

"For this reason the good is preferred to every intimate relationship. There is no intimate relationship between me and my father, but there is between me and the good. "Are you so hard-hearted?" Yes, for such is my nature; and this is the coin which God has given me. For this reason, if the good is something different from the beautiful and the just, both father is gone, and brother and country, and everything. But shall I overlook my own good, in order that you may have it, and shall I give it up to you? Why? "I am your father." But you are not my good. "I am your brother." But you are not my good. -- Epictetus, The Discourses, Book 3 ch.3 (55-135AD)​

 

More difficult for who?
I prefer to be as I am.
Trying to learn what another wants is too much like hard work.
Is that what you mean by being kept from learning?
I wonder why you ask.
For an account of a bird's life, ask a bird.

-- Ron.

 

As you said, life is reputed to be difficult.

 

Yes, but what about the talking through?

I am still wondering about the purpose of the talking through.

-- Ron

 

Sorry, I can sometimes be quite dense, to which talking through are you referring?

 

Oh dear.

Come to think of it, I don't know either, what I was referring to, so now we have that at least in common.

Maybe it has got something to do with not seeing myself and my own actions.

--- Ron.

 

Here I would disagree. It would be "generally accepted", because the masses will invariably listen, believe and trust in the man with the collar that is paid to tell them jesus loves them and that's that. Worth finding statistics if such a thing exists, but I wonder how many people have actually read the bible, including christians.

It has been taught from generation to generation, from father to son for millennia. At times if you even questioned it, you'd end up dead - and so it's now normal not to question. The minute you disagree with someone about a specific biblical topic, you just make your own version of christianity which will undoubtedly do just as well as any other version of christianity given some time, effort and funding.

It's ended up with thousands of differing christian sects - all 'misunderstanding' certain biblical passages. You'd probably claim all these other sects are "ignorant" of the bible and they would undoubtedly do the same in return.

But by and large I have left Luke alone - and yet you still keep bringing it up although I have focused more on Matthew 10, Babel - and will add more passages that cannot be put down to "hate does not mean hate".

Part of the overall plan for mankind. Descension, division - ending in the mother of all wars.

Problem with building a city?

You're trying to make it sound as if their friendly co-operation was leading to granny rape - and yet that's not what the passage implies - but that god had issues with their accomplishments - with man actually gaining ability and knowledge.

It has always been the way of the religious - to shun knowledge and human advancement. Saint Bernard of Clairvauz summed it up pretty well when he said;

"The pursuit of knowledge, unless sanctified by a holy mission, is a pagan act, and therefore vile."

Sure it is.

What purpose is that?

And yet he specifically made it that there would not be that peace. That's the point Jenyar. You can't really argue that, because if he had have decided to make it so, then this would be 'heaven', not earth. The point of earth is what exactly? In every step of the bible he's the one that causes division. Babel was one such example, but there are countless - where he instructs "his people" (a clear division in it's own right), to war and slaughter others, his setting up of the original fall of man, (unless you're going to say the snake sneaked in there unawares, as did the tree) and so on.

You could say heaven is his plan of a place of peace, earth is his plan for a place without that peace.

You cannot help but 'sin', (which means it isn't optional). You claim otherwise?

Guess you agree. And what do you mean "purposely sinned"? You can accidentally bonk your neighbours wife?

He didn't stand in with anything. The dude's god, he simply cannot die no matter what you do.

Well, according to many it would simply be a testimony that he is god - and thus can't die.

Where's that then?

god himself attests to it. The only reason it remained impossible is because god divided mankind.

Uhh.. before mankind was divided by god.

But it doesn't. You've become obsessed with Luke whereas I have barely even mentioned it - being far more concerned with Matthew 10 and other passages. Let me know when you've actually read my posts.

Which invariably leaves you complaining about my complaining - or were you just debating with me?

Perhaps, although I don't think you can make claims towards Babel being on a path of self destruction, especially with god implicating the opposite. When it comes to kingdoms on a path of self destruction, doesn't he just drown them or firebomb them?

To someone that doesn't want to take them seriously, much like to some the rest of the bible is complete and utter bollocks.

Certainly, and there are people that have studied as much and more than you have that consider the bible as literal - from a universal creation some 7000 odd years ago to the end times depicted in revelations. While I can almost cringe at your apparent belief in your own superiority, I would certainly admire them more simply because they have the unwavering belief in their god and his word that you 'pick and mixers' lack.

 

I think this thread topic is put forward wrong.
Because -- When people are confronted, directly (like here), they are more likely to come up with a prepared story, and their statement thus will not necessarily reflect how they behave in actual situations.

 

Actions speak louder than words.

Follow the money.

 

Charles asked whether the act of being friends with a non-Christian necessitates a lack of respect for their beliefs.

Not whether someone he has a personal vendetta against has indeed been disrespectful, which happens in all beliefs.

 

The original question:

if you are a christian, and you are friends with someone who isn't a christian, how can you claim to have respect for their beliefs?

rather seems to me to suggest that actions do not necessarily correspond to claims, and I am not then so sure that a "vendetta" would not represent a belief, except to the extent that to call it a personal vendetta betokens a lack of respect.

That is the sort of thing that follow the money would allude to, the sneaky way that real World issues overtake the noblest of spiritual claims when caught off guard.

--- Ron.

 

Agreed, but "how can you claim" asks a different question than "how will you act" - and it's hard to read actions, isn't it? (See rules 2, 4, 5, 63 and 67).

The real world catches up with most claims, including this one. And money can be followed in two directions.

 

Yes, commendably, magnanimously respectful but do you not yet know that for evil to succeed you need only to give the benefit of the doubt, once too often and how often then do you get the benefit of the doubt in return?

I think it easy enough and fair enough to recognise certain traits, the tantrums of a spoiled child for instance.

Total withdrawal is also a fair indicator of personal shame, not the way that a responsible adult would usually behave.

The question then arises, what there is to respect anyway.

This for instance

does not sound to me like much of a belief to respect.

When we fixate on hundreds of little things, we miss the bigger picture, n'est ce pas?

If you are going to rely upon a superstition or a fantasy narrative you may as well invent your own.

If you rather take it from somebody else you'll end up with the same psychosis.

You are a fair match for most of them intellectually Jenyar but emotionally weak and feeble, easy prey in the victim persecutor rescuer game.

--- Ron.

(doubled word edited)

 

I've been accused of being an emotional ivory tower as well. Interesting how perspective shapes a person in our minds. Perhaps people associate better with weakness than with strength? Accusations are always of weakness; nobody ever accuses anyone of showing strength (which probably creates the desire to assert it). But between asserting and accusing we swallow our own tails. I prefer to see it all as a single landscape we inhabit (or visit).

There are two gates of sleep. One is of horn, easy passage for the shades of truth; the other, of gleaming white ivory, permits false dreams to ascend to the upper air. (Virgil's Aeneid)​

 

For every predator that preys on the least,
There is a victim that prays for a feast -
and there may be no distinction:
one released is the other deceased.

 

Shows of strength occur because of emotional weakness and vise versa.

The weakness is in the craving, the ultimate strength being the lack of want.

For as long as you want to know... what did I do wrong... etc..... you are still there on the end of the hook, ready to be reeled in at any time.

Asserting and accusing are another version of the same, the want of judgment.

Let it be.

--- Ron.

 

When it became evident I didn't know what went wrong when, between not caring and trying to find out, I chose the latter. I wanted to learn from it, and I wanted transparency, which was probably naive. But I had (and have) nothing to hide. I didn't have the 99 commandments, and my own rule of thumb was "do or don't do, there is no try". Whether I cared too much or too little is a matter of perspective, and opinion still oscillates between the two, but cared I did.

On the hook or off, it is of my own volition. I don't mind being on the hook, and I said so; I don't even mind being reeled in, as far as I'm willing to go, but after that I become part of the victim-persecutor-rescuer game (and I often was). But when you become aware of it, it's time to get off and stop playing the game that got you there.

Weakness isn't a problem. It can be turned into strengths - resilience, character, perseverance even love, hope or faith. But striving for strength (even if through trying to be "untouchably" weak) is a craving of pride, and you inevitably lose what you crave. So I agree: let it be.

Shall we?