Quote
JoshQuote
Quote
Josh
You can be a Jew (by religion, I'm not talking about race) and believe Jesus was Gods son, sent by God from his pre-existence in the Glory of the presence of God the Father to sacrafice himself to make atonement for the sins of all of humanity? I'd guess most Jews would disagree with you, but to each their own.
Quote
apostate
You seem to operating from a premise that to be "God's son" one must be a Christian. I view things more inclusively than that.
Quote
How do you get that from what I wrote? I said Jesus believed that he was Gods son, how does that translate into saying "I believe only Christians are Gods children"? It seems to me like you're trying to pick a fight with me and I don't want a fight because 1. I didn't come here to fight with anyone and 2. Internet fights are about the most pointless thing I can think of to spend my time on.
It was from your comments that Jesus must be a Christian because his second name was "Christ", and because of this comment: [i:f620c181ed]"You can be a Jew and believe Jesus was Gods son".[/i:f620c181ed] I did not see where you said Jesus believed that of himself. I apologise if I have misrepresented you.
I am not trying to pick a fight with you as I agree there are better things to do with our time.
Quote
Here's the history of this question so far.
Quote
Malcom: If the JCs would stop recruiting or stop calling themselves Christians I probably wouldn't bother with them.
Me: Really you don't think the JCs are Christians? how do you define Christianity?
apostate: Jesus was NOT a christian.
Me: If Jesus wasn't a christian how do you define christianity?
apostate: Jesus was a Jew.
Me: Really, Jesus said X, Y and Z about himself I think most Jews would say that makes him the first Christian and not a Jew, but whatever.
apostate: You think you're a child of God and non-Christians aren't.
I have to say that the way you have summarised things Josh makes my comments about Jesus not being a Christian to be a real clanger. You have taken away the context of my response. A practice David McKay frequently engages in.
You had asked me if I was a Christian, to which I asked what is in a name tag. You then asked me to define Christianity, to which I said Jesus was not a Christian. You then asked me how a group would qualify as being Christian, to which I responded that it did not matter to me as I was more concerned with whether the group was doing right by others.
Quote
Do you see how I could get the idea you're not really interested in my question about how you define Christianity?
I said as much by saying that I was more concerned with how a group treats others than whether or not they were Christian or not.
Quote
If you're not interested in the question I asked then just don't answer it (especially since it was a follow up to something Malcom wrote). You not answering a question I ask will not make me assume the worst of you. I will assume you didn't feel like answering me. But please don't try and put things on me that I am clearly not saying.
I actually prefer to steer away from religious type questions, so I will take your advice. I have spoken about the difference between a top down and bottom up approach to life. You did not respond to that. That response was in the context of defining Christianity.
Quote
For the record...
Quote
apostate
Here are your base assumptions:
1. Only Christians are the children of God
No, I think every human is equally a child of God. I believe Jesus is also the "only Son of God" and is the child of God in a different sense than everybody else.
Thank you for reiterating your belief that Jesus is the ONLY son of God. I do not think Hercules, Nimrod, or Karna would agree with you however.
Quote
Quote
apostate
2. This God is a male
I believe God is a spirit, because the bible tells me so. Though I admit I have a fuzzy understanding of exactly what that means. I do refer to God as male because Jesus and the prophets refered to him as male.
I understand that. I happen to think of that as reinforcing patriarchy, but that is my take on things.
Quote
Quote
apostate
3. This God alone is sovereign.
I believe God alone is [b:f620c181ed]ultimately[/b:f620c181ed] sovereign. I believe God has alowed us some sovereignty in our own lives and over this earth, but we are responsible to him alone in how we've used that limited sovereignty and he is ultimately in control.
Again, which male God are you saying is alone ultimately sovereign?
Quote
The assumptions 2 and 3 you assigned to me I think are pretty common assumptions. Do you really have that big of a problem with them? I would think that'd make it a problem talking about religion with anyone.
As I mentioned earlier when you said you were curious about my perspective regarding God/Christianity, etc, I see referring to God as a male as negating the experience of women, and I see referring to Jesus as God's ONLY begotten son as negating the religious beliefs of other people we share this planet with and as such is a cause of discord.
Yes, it can be a problem discussing religion with people if they are promoting a tribal god to the exclusion of all others.
Quote
Anyway back to the subject of this thread....
Let me see if I can sum up why you don't like the Jesus Christians. Let me know if I'm misrepresenting you.
1. You think Dave McKay is very bossy and controlling.
2. You do not share the religious beliefs of the group.
Reguardless of number 1 (The opinion I think you share with most ex-members on this board and what current members say is not true.) I can see why you'd leave a group simply because of number 2. I'm not saying anything about the accuracy of your religious beliefs or the JCs religious beliefs, I can just see how working with a group that is very dedicated to a theology you don't believe in could be hard to deal with. I know if I was working with a group that was very dedicated to spreading Hinduism I'd have a hard time spreading Hinduism reguardless of how nice or how big of a jerk the leader was.
I did not leave the group over number 2, as you have rightly pointed out about me. I accepted all that the group taught, lock, stock and barrel, so it was not a matter of me having some hidden disagreement belief wise. I was kicked out of the group because I refused to be party to Dave's need to control others, or to tell lies to justify actions I considered immoral.
You are also correct about number 1. I consider Dave very bossy and controlling.
As to why ex members feel that way and members don't, as that was the purpose of this discussion originally I thought. Let me cut and paste what I said previously, as my position has not changed.
I think the different perspectives result from a definite power imbalance between the one claiming "divine authority" along with those that accept such a claim, and those who do not. If one accepts that exercising power from a "top down" position is the best way to go then that belief will naturally generate a different perspective to those who favour a "bottom up" position and way of operating. Those coming from a "top down" position will deem their actions benevolent and for the "good" of those beneath, while those beneath will view such actions as paternalistic and disconnected from reality. Those coming from a "bottom up" position may see their actions as being based upon concepts of equality, while the one in a position of power deem such actions as being the work of "rebels". It is a common political pattern which repeats itself endlessly. For myself I operate froma "bottom up" frame of reference and am prepared to be branded rebel as a result.
As mentioned earlier Josh, I think it comes down to what a person is prepared to accept in this life. If a person has lower standards of equality and sees that it is justifiable to use "top down" "end justifies the means" approaches towards others then such people will see it as working well for them. Those who do not will not.