woke

[Harbal]

you can trust me,

You over estimate me, IC.

[Immanuel Can]

Does 'he' mean Jesus? He says 'I'. So, I assume himself. But let me know. I did hop into a discussion, perhaps blindly.

Just check the verse. He says "I" have brought the "sword," and "a person's" enemies...etc. So that must not be Him. It must be some other "persons." And who would they be?

Just tell me how you interpret it, please. The sword is the fact that they will be believers and that has consequnces. Not that they will weild a sword.

We agree. The "sword" speaks only of division, not of violence. There are literal "swords" mentioned in the Bible, in the history passages, for example, but this is clearly not that. Jesus is speaking metaphorically.

"The sword" is a very common Biblical metaphor for "the Word of God," (see, for example, Ephesians 6:17, or Hebrews 4:12, or Revelation 1:16...) which inevitably separates people into different sides...one can never sit on the fence, when the Word of God is spoken...not to listen and act is to make a choice, and that choice is to reject the Word. To listen and act is to put oneself on the opposite side from that.

The fact that everybody reading this, right now, is hearing about the words of Jesus puts the reader on the edge of that "sword." They will go to one side or the other, because there's no middle. The passage is telling us, you will either say, "This is something I need to take seriously," or "What rot...I can disregard the whole thing." But you will not be in neutral ground, no matter what you choose; for neutrality is the same as indifference, and indifference is contempt, and contempt is rejection. Those who reject the challenge of the word tend to become visceral "enemies" of those who heed it, with an antipathy that transcends even the normal bounds of filial loyalty. Thus, they declare their position.

That's what the "sword" is about.

[Immanuel Can]

you can trust me,

You over estimate me, IC.

Perhaps not.

You're a bit of a wag, it's true...but definitely no fool.

And I think you can at least discover an elephant in an alleyway.

[Dontaskme]

That's what the "sword" is about.

How very poetic IC what a lovely story.




"She was a shelter in the dark"
"My accomplice in truth and lies"
"Vespertine flower, where are you?"
"I miss you Lionheart"

"She was the light that fed the dusk"
"Stronger than steel"
"Her love surrounds the sky"
"Blond curly hair, white butterfly"
"Sheer beauty was her Lionheart"

[Gary Childress]

Just check the verse. He says "I" have brought the "sword," and "a person's" enemies...etc. So that must not be Him. It must be some other "persons." And who would they be?

Just tell me how you interpret it, please. The sword is the fact that they will be believers and that has consequnces. Not that they will weild a sword.

We agree. The "sword" speaks only of division, not of violence. There are literal "swords" mentioned in the Bible, in the history passages, for example, but this is clearly not that. Jesus is speaking metaphorically.

"The sword" is a very common Biblical metaphor for "the Word of God," (see, for example, Ephesians 6:17, or Hebrews 4:12, or Revelation 1:16...) which inevitably separates people into different sides...one can never sit on the fence, when the Word of God is spoken...not to listen and act is to make a choice, and that choice is to reject the Word. To listen and act is to put oneself on the opposite side from that.

The fact that everybody reading this, right now, is hearing about the words of Jesus puts the reader on the edge of that "sword." They will go to one side or the other, because there's no middle. The passage is telling us, you will either say, "This is something I need to take seriously," or "What rot...I can disregard the whole thing." But you will not be in neutral ground, no matter what you choose; for neutrality is the same as indifference, and indifference is contempt, and contempt is rejection. Those who reject the challenge of the word tend to become visceral "enemies" of those who heed it, with an antipathy that transcends even the normal bounds of filial loyalty. Thus, they declare their position.

That's what the "sword" is about.

Fuck swords. They're only useful for death and violence. If separating people into sides is Yaweh's intent, then seek a better god. Abraham should have had better scruples than to submit to the possibility of killing his son. You along with Muslims can spend the rest of the day condemning me if you want. I'm done with tribal gods.

[Gary Childress]

I went to a church group a couple of weeks ago. Spent about 10 minutes listening to one of the attendees explain how Hindus invite demons into them and fall short of the "one true God". Insert vomit emoji.

[Immanuel Can]

If separating people into sides is Yaweh's intent...

The truth is, Gary, people are ALREADY alienated from one another. Look at the discourse on this site, if you doubt it.

There's no harmony of any human making. There are only factions. And historically, the way that one faction has obtained control so as to advance its "unity" agenda is purely by conquest, oppression and tyranny...by the literal "sword," not by any merely metaphorical one. That's why our history is a history of empires, of winners and losers, of rebellion and suppression. So it's not as if mankind has ever been floating along in sweet unity until Jesus Christ came in to bring division. Rather, divisions have been the order of things, for the entirety of history...and very much for today, as well.

The only unity actually possible to humankind is the unity of relationship to God. That, alone, can relativize the differences between people and bring ultimate peace...with both God and with other men and women.

Look at your own words, Gary: do they smack of "unity" to you? Was your thought to bring harmony between us, or between yourself and God, or was it to foment conflict?

The defense rests.

[Alexis Jacobi]

"The sword" is a very common Biblical metaphor for "the Word of God," (see, for example, Ephesians 6:17, or Hebrews 4:12, or Revelation 1:16...) which inevitably separates people into different sides...one can never sit on the fence, when the Word of God is spoken...not to listen and act is to make a choice, and that choice is to reject the Word. To listen and act is to put oneself on the opposite side from that.

The fact that everybody reading this, right now, is hearing about the words of Jesus puts the reader on the edge of that "sword." They will go to one side or the other, because there's no middle. The passage is telling us, you will either say, "This is something I need to take seriously," or "What rot...I can disregard the whole thing." But you will not be in neutral ground, no matter what you choose; for neutrality is the same as indifference, and indifference is contempt, and contempt is rejection. Those who reject the challenge of the word tend to become visceral "enemies" of those who heed it, with an antipathy that transcends even the normal bounds of filial loyalty. Thus, they declare their position.

That's what the "sword" is about.

What you do here, inadvertently but honestly, is to clearly point out how sick this recommended attitude is. And you state that this is Jesus talking and is thus the son of the father of all creation. And look at what he comes to create: the worst divisions and conflicts.

So, now that I understand how a ‘true Christian fanatic’ takes these statements, I am forced through reasoning, and through my sense of ethics, to reject this ‘speaker’.

I again turn back to the Hebrew origin of this mad philosophy and outlook. To sow division, discord, social conflict; to put forward a philosophical and metaphysical teaching that values strife and the sundering of unity — this is bad practice.

But note that you stand 100% behind this. And your chief apologetic tool is psychological manipulation and spiritual terrorism. But when I give you this label you tell me it is ad hominem! Amazing.

You are wrong Immanuel. You have attached yourself to a fundamentally sick teaching and it is my ethical responsibility to tell you this at every possible juncture. However, you wish to represent yourself as god’s spokesman here. God’s righteous child. The true Christian.

But what I see is a man stuck in a sick existential philosophy.

God’s Word then — you make it clear — is not ‘God’s Word’ but the words of men with twisted spirits who will always create the evil they pretend to want to suppress.

However, this does not mean that reasonable and sound ethical principles are invalid. But these are defined philosophically snd through reasoned argument.

The endeavor is to separate these out from the absurd context of the entire Hebrew-Christian plexus. The first order of business is developing the internal, ethical strength, to turn against the god-concept you are manipulated by and through which you attempt to manipulate others.

The degree to which one is susceptible to you is the degree to which one is in a state of internal thrall.

Trippy, eh?

[Harbal]

The only unity actually possible to humankind is the unity of relationship to God. That, alone, can relativize the differences between people and bring ultimate peace...with both God and with other men and women.

There's not much unity between the Islamic world and the Christian one, who both worship the same God. There isn't even unity between you and some others who call themselves Christian, but you view as fake Christian. Just saying.

[Iwannaplato]

We agree. The "sword" speaks only of division, not of violence. There are literal "swords" mentioned in the Bible, in the history passages, for example, but this is clearly not that. Jesus is speaking metaphorically.

"The sword" is a very common Biblical metaphor for "the Word of God," (see, for example, Ephesians 6:17, or Hebrews 4:12, or Revelation 1:16...) which inevitably separates people into different sides...one can never sit on the fence, when the Word of God is spoken...not to listen and act is to make a choice, and that choice is to reject the Word. To listen and act is to put oneself on the opposite side from that.

The fact that everybody reading this, right now, is hearing about the words of Jesus puts the reader on the edge of that "sword." They will go to one side or the other, because there's no middle. The passage is telling us, you will either say, "This is something I need to take seriously," or "What rot...I can disregard the whole thing." But you will not be in neutral ground, no matter what you choose; for neutrality is the same as indifference, and indifference is contempt, and contempt is rejection. Those who reject the challenge of the word tend to become visceral "enemies" of those who heed it, with an antipathy that transcends even the normal bounds of filial loyalty. Thus, they declare their position.

That's what the "sword" is about.

Great. That's not exactly how I would interpret it, but it's close enough.

He said...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 2:24 pm
Note that you do an excellent job of driving people away from even considering Christian philosophy as worthy and emulatable. If you are such a Christian -- God help us all!

And then followed it up by talking about how you relate to someone who does not believe as you do. He criticizes what he sees as unfair assessments of the other person - I think it was Iambiguous. I think Jacobi could have been clearer but what he quotes from you seem pretty indifferent to what happens to someone who does not heed the word of God/Jesus.

and you responded...

So much for the idea that being a Christian is some kind of "public relations" exercise, and that if people don't like what you say, then you're not doing your job.

I think it would be fairer to say that if it comes across as smug or indifferent, then it's not really following other things that Jesus says. And what you quoted, doesn't defend any of that. Sure, you get to explain Christianity as best you interpret it, but how you that passage about the sword is not justifying relaying it in ways that are cold, indifferent or superior.

In fact it's more like, if you follow my tenets then there will be splits with others. That's nothing about excusing how things are communicated or what ones attitudes are. His other statements would hold on that.

Now you may disagree. You may think the way you relate to those who don't agree or don't believe do in fact fit with what Jesus expects of his followers. But I think the passage doesn't support what you are after.

Now, in your defense, he does complain about absolutism. That portion can be indirectly defended by the Jesus speech. IOW you believe what you believe and even if Jesus doesn't talk about how one should talk about what one believe or even if one should to those who don't, there is a kind of implicit sense that division will result and this might be caused by standing one's ground on one's beliefs.

But given the ground that Jacobi covers it seems to me he is talking about a pattern of related, not some compromising or hiding what you believe. He ends specifically criticizing your focus on hell. IOW there are plenty of things to focus on, but he thinks you focus too much on that. Rather than love or righteousness or whatever other facets.

Perhaps he is wrong about what you do. I haven't read enough of the way you deal with unbelievers. But your response is not to the criticism. One could even imagine his criticisms coming from one Christian to another. Being correct in what one says does not mean one was Christian or good or appropriate in what one said. Because Jesus says there will be divisions, does not mean that whatever approach you take is ok as long as you say true things (as you see them).

[Gary Childress]

If separating people into sides is Yaweh's intent...

The truth is, Gary, people are ALREADY alienated from one another. Look at the discourse on this site, if you doubt it.

There's no harmony of any human making. There are only factions. And historically, the way that one faction has obtained control so as to advance its "unity" agenda is purely by conquest, oppression and tyranny...by the literal "sword," not by any merely metaphorical one. That's why our history is a history of empires, of winners and losers, of rebellion and suppression. So it's not as if mankind has ever been floating along in sweet unity until Jesus Christ came in to bring division. Rather, divisions have been the order of things, for the entirety of history...and very much for today, as well.

The only unity actually possible to humankind is the unity of relationship to God. That, alone, can relativize the differences between people and bring ultimate peace...with both God and with other men and women.

Look at your own words, Gary: do they smack of "unity" to you? Was your thought to bring harmony between us, or between yourself and God, or was it to foment conflict?

The defense rests.

Apparently, your god fostered division to thwart the construction of the tower of babel. Look no further than your own sacred text to explain division. Personally, I think agnosticism is a more honest approach to spirituality. Just say no to tribal gods.

[Immanuel Can]

...look at what he comes to create: the worst divisions and conflicts.

Heh. No, He didn't disrupt the sweet unity that the human race had been enjoying. Conflicts did not begin with Him. You need some history.

You look at the human race, and see unity? There's been no unity in human history. There has been some "forced uniformity," whenever some tyrant or despot could seize control, but no unity. And certainly no peace.

The only unity there ever will be is the unity people can have in Christ. And yet, you resent that. And you gin up your nastiest kind of rhetoric against it?

You've proved the case.

[Immanuel Can]

The only unity actually possible to humankind is the unity of relationship to God. That, alone, can relativize the differences between people and bring ultimate peace...with both God and with other men and women.

There's not much unity between the Islamic world and the Christian one...

That should tell you all you need to know, given what Christ said.

But you won't find unity anywhere, on this planet. You will find some forced uniformity, in places like North Korea or Chinese prison camps, or gulags in Siberia. You'll also find Leftists who aim at unity by shaming, silencing and killing off all opposition. But you won't find unity. It's not a thing humans can produce.

[Immanuel Can]

Apparently, your god fostered division to thwart the construction of the tower of babel.

You should look up what they were doing at that ziggurat.

You might change your view of whether or not it ought to have been allowed to continue.

[Harbal]

That should tell you all you need to know, given what Christ said.

But you won't find unity anywhere, on this planet. You will find some forced uniformity, in places like North Korea or Chinese prison camps, or gulags in Siberia. You'll also find Leftists who aim at unity by shaming, silencing and killing off all opposition. But you won't find unity. It's not a thing humans can produce.

I agree. There was no unity before Christ, and there hasn't been any since. It makes one wonder why he bothered.