Old Question Revisited - Who is Jesus?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
chansen said:
And there are always going to be others who embrace the bad stuff, and question the good. And at the very least, you'd have a debate on your hands as to who was being more faithful to the bible.

And hey, I can appreciate that you are agnostic and questioning. Your rejection of the bad parts of the bible is to be commended. But those parts will always be there, waiting for the next person to take them seriously.
Click to expand...

I know, they will, for now. But I have faith that they don't have to be. I'm an agnostic believer/ SBNR who identifies as Christian but ultimately doesn't like labels and categories anyway. I don't expect that to make sense to you.

Basically, I think people are better off to not read the Bible if they are already set on doing good and it's only being used to confuse them via fear and control. But if it can be looked at and discerned for good, by compassionate actions, then it's okay.
 
Because I don't empirically 'know' and I don't expect to. Edit: scratch that. I have a strong intuition from experience, not absolute categorical proof. I am starting to be able to discern some of the complexity and it leads me right back to the path I was on which was that we just have to live our lives with compassion for others. And yet, I really do believe the Bible and Jesus reflects that. So what my Christian journey is doing is opening me up to that view, not the dogmatic view, of the Bible.
 
Last edited:
chansen said:
*raises eyebrows*

That's a new one.
Click to expand...

"Agnostic believer" makes perfect sense for some definitions of agnostic. One version of agnosticism is the view that religious matters like God and the afterlife are matters of faith and not empirically provable. We can say that we believe in them but not that we know them. That does not stop one claiming to be agnostic from holding religious beliefs, only that they must acknowledge that those beliefs are just that, beliefs, and that others can legitimately hold other beliefs.

There is also the sense of agnostic as neither believing in nor denying these matters and it would be much harder to be an "agnostic believer" in this sense.
 
Mendalla said:
"Agnostic believer" makes perfect sense for some definitions of agnostic. One version of agnosticism is the view that religious matters like God and the afterlife are matters of faith and not empirically provable. We can say that we believe in them but not that we know them. That does not stop one claiming to be agnostic from holding religious beliefs, only that they must acknowledge that those beliefs are just that, beliefs, and that others can legitimately hold other beliefs.

There is also the sense of agnostic as neither believing in nor denying these matters and it would be much harder to be an "agnostic believer" in this sense.
Click to expand...

Your first paragraph.
 
I've not run across the definition that agnostic that says God is not provable. Here's the ones I've seen and go by:

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic

1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature ofthings are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms:disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel,pagan.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3.
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on thesubject of immortality.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

So to me, "agnostic believer" means believing in something you don't know or think is unknowable. That's a rather peculiar, but okay.
 
It's unknowable by scientific standards - it's 'intuitable' - if that's even a word. Just like loving somebody. Sometimes you don't know why and you can't make anyone see or feel the same thing you see or feel for the same reasons, if you even know the reasons - that can't be proven - it just is.
 
chansen said:
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature ofthings are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Click to expand...
I don't see any contradiction between this definition and being a believer unless one holds that belief = knowledge which is a subject of debate. One could be a believer and still hold to this definition as I suggested in my post. You can BELIEVE something to be true without KNOWING for a fact that it is true. As the article below suggests, agnosticism as a philosophy (vs. just a way of saying "I'm not sure") is not really about whether or not God exists, but whether we can know in a scientific or philosophical sense that God exists. It does not say anything about belief. For a further perspective on what Kimmio is talking about, read this Wiki article and quote from the first reference in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

chansen said:
Synonyms:disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel,pagan.
Click to expand...

Those synonyms (several of them anyhow) are wrong and don't even fit that definition they are listed with. Most are epithets tossed at agnostics by religious types and in no way reflect what agnosticism actually means philosophically.
 
Kimmio said:
It's unknowable by scientific standards - it's 'intuitable' - if that's even a word. Just like loving somebody. Sometimes you don't know why and you can't make anyone see or feel the same thing you see or feel for the same reasons, if you even know the reasons - that can't be proven - it just is.
Click to expand...

Hi Kimmio:

"intuitible," I like this word: something that cannot be proven by the scientific method, but can be felt, experienced, or intuited. Subjective or experiential knowledge is another word for it, another is "Gnosis." From the "Gnostic Gospels" it appears that Jesus may have been a Gnostic. His "kingdom within" could be Gnosis.

If there really is an omniscient God, capable of communicating with us, it would make more sense that he make Itself know to us via a profound experience. The experience of cosmic unity and unitive love--which we experience when we immerse ourselves in the pure experience of reality--could well be God "speaking" to us. Such experiential communication is more powerful than mere words, and more effective than commandments.

Speaking of the Gnostic Gospels, today is the feast day of Mary Magdalene.
 
Hi Kimmio--The last time our Lord Jesus walked the earth He was Playing a part , it was the lamb. Is a lamb a fighter? Dose a lamb attack? Even so He warned others like Pilate when He said.My kinship is not of this world;if it my kingship were of this world my servants would fight,
John18:16---You need to read rev to find the real Christ.
 
airclean33 said:
Hi Kimmio--The last time our Lord Jesus walked the earth He was Playing a part , it was the lamb. Is a lamb a fighter? Dose a lamb attack? Even so He warned others like Pilate when He said.My kinship is not of this world;if it my kingship were of this world my servants would fight,
John18:16---You need to read rev to find the real Christ.
Click to expand...

So...he was just acting? You mean. Like a wolf in sheep's clothing?

No, airclean. A lamb does not attack. And a lion roars. Jesus when he walked the earth did a bit of roaring - because he was frustrated and disappointed - but he yielded to his calling. He said his kingdom was not of this world - because in this world people wage war. In the ideal world he envisions, people do not wage war. Swords become plowshares. We have to make that decision now, to bring that kingdom into being - it does not come as some magical leap. We cannot wage war and expect to bring peace. That's what he was saying. We have to put down our swords and believe in peace. The peacemakers will be called the children of God. Not because they want a special title or favour...because we simply need to live in peace.
 
Last edited:
Didn't Jesus say somewhere in the Gospels that he brought the sword?

The martial traditions of both Christianity and Islam, and of other world religions as well, assert that God generally favours peace, but when there is trouble in the world, and miltancy is called for, then he favours miltancy to re-establish peace. The various warrior-monk traditions embrace this principle, but a spiritual warrior defeats his ego before he goes to battle, so that he battles not for ego- ethno- or antropocentric reasons, but for the benefit of all of creation and the greater glory of the creator.

The motto of the most famous Christian military order, the Knights Templar, was the opening statement of Psalm 115: Non nobis, Domine. Non nobis, sed Nomine Tuo da gloriam! (Not us, Lord. Not us, but thy name be glory!) They greeted each other with the full statement, in Latin, and replied and confirmed with Non nobis, Domine! I have written and published a novel on the Knights Templar entitled Non nobis, Domine! Details on my Profile.
 
Hermann said:
Didn't Jesus say somewhere in the Gospels that he brought the sword?

The martial traditions of both Christianity and Islam, and of other world religions as well, assert that God generally favours peace, but when there is trouble in the world, and miltancy is called for, then he favours miltancy to re-establish peace. The various warrior-monk traditions embrace this principle, but a spiritual warrior defeats his ego before he goes to battle, so that he battles not for ego- ethno- or antropocentric reasons, but for the benefit of all of creation and the greater glory of the creator.

The motto of the most famous Christian military order, the Knights Templar, was the opening statement of Psalm 115: Non nobis, Domine. Non nobis, sed Nomine Tuo da gloriam! (Not us, Lord. Not us, but thy name be glory!) They greeted each other with the full statement, in Latin, and replied and confirmed with Non nobis, Domine! I have written and published a novel on the Knights Templar entitled Non nobis, Domine! Details on my Profile.
Click to expand...
I believe the reference to the sword was not regarding physical fighting, for all who take up the sword will die by the sword, but rather was in reference to the fact that a sword had two edges. The reappearance of Christ will present us with a choice, we will find ourselves either with Him or against Him. There'll be no sitting on the fence here.
 
If you believe Neo, then what that passage is saying is, "I have not come to bring peace, but a dilemma."
 
chansen said:
If you believe Neo, then what that passage is saying is, "I have not come to bring peace, but a dilemma."
Click to expand...
The dilemma, however, is between peace and the end of the world, which shouldn't be a hard decision . Somehow, I believe, it will soon become very obvious that we either "give a little bit" when it comes to our brethren nations, or we die fighting it.

Isolationism and separatism will have no place in the future, we need to live as one people, one planet. Respect for people and our planet is our only path to a bright future. The alternative is unthinkable.

Maitreya says:"Without sharing there can be no justice; without justice there can be no peace; without peace, there can be no future."
 
airclean33 said:
Mat 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Click to expand...
The secret to this passage is that the future of the world lies in our hands. There will be no Jesus coming from the sky to solve all our problems for us. The choice and the rebuilding of this world is in our hands. The problems of the world are man-made and the solution is within our means. What the Christ will do, however, is to awaken us somehow so that this choice becomes obvious. He will show us that love and compassion for "all" is the only path we can travel.
 
Neo said:
The secret to this passage is that the future of the world lies in our hands. There will be no Jesus coming from the sky to solve all our problems for us. The choice and the rebuilding of this world is in our hands. The problems of the world are man-made and the solution is within our means. What the Christ will do, however, is to awaken us somehow so that this choice becomes obvious. He will show us that love and compassion for "all" is the only path we can travel.
Click to expand...
Hi Neo--You are one of the persons I read here . Who posts the Word of our Lord. Then will try and explain the meaning to be something other than what it means.What you posted sounded very nice. Do you serve ice cream with that strawberry short cake?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neo
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top