Quote
Josh

Quote

Quote

Quote
Josh
How can Jesus Christ not be a Christian? That makes me really curious about how you define Christianity.

Quote
apostate
Jesus was a Jew.

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.

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.

You seem to operating from a premise that this God then required a human sacrifice in order to make an [i:fe68b899b1]"atonement for the sins of all humanity"[/i:fe68b899b1], and couldn't just forgive humanity without one.

Quote

Quote
apostate
There is a quote which says: "How can we be loving on earth if we follow a tyrant in heaven"

That's what I'm curious about, how do you define tyrant? Is it anyone who has ultimate authority over you. I definitly belive God has that authority over all of us and it is right that he does have it. Though you've chosen not to answer if you think God does have the right to be soveriegn, I'm guessing that you don't?

A Tyrant is one who exercises power cruelly and unjustly. You say [i:fe68b899b1]"God has that authority over us, and it is right that he does have it"
[/i:fe68b899b1]. Again, which God? The JC God that can justify whipping people for sins committed and ask his followers to do that whipping? The JC God which permits his followers to lie to welfare systems under an "honest to whom" ideology? You really have to qualify this definition you have presented of "God" before I can answer the question.

What you have presented so far is that: only Christians are God's son's... and I will add daughters to be fair to the other half of our species :-), God is of the male gender. Gotta go that way to keep paternalism alive I guess. Is this what the JC's mean by "narrow path"?

Quote

Quote
apostate

Quote
Josh
How about you? Do you think that God has the right to, and do you think he ever would set up one person in authority over another. (I'm not talking about Dave McKay here, I'm speaking hypothetically)

Lets stick to the simple example in front of us with the whipping of the African volunteer for some sin committed. Why get into hypotheticals when we have an actual event to discuss. Do you think God set that scenario up by putting an "authority", who happened to be a JC, over that person? Do you think the person using the whip on that African's back was welding the whip FOR God? It's a simple question.

I got into hypotheticals because I came here to try and understand why some had bad times in the Jesus Christians and some have a good time in the Jesus Christians, not to judge their actions. (Not saying that that's a bad thing to do, just saying that's not my goal here) I asked a hypothetical question I thought would help me understand where you were coming from, but if you want to talk about this first then fine we can do that. But I would like to understand your thought process about Gods sovereinty anyway so maybe we could talk about that next?

The problem with how you have approached this discussion Josh, is that it paves the way for any who view things differently to be discounted and thereby rejected. This is the way the JC's operate and is why I ended up having a bad time in the JC's. For example, practically everything you have said to this point has a baseline assumption to it by which you will judge others to be in the club or not.

Here are your base assumptions:
1. Only Christians are the children of God
2. This God is a male
3. This God alone is sovereign.

I have to go now, but I will be back later to respond to the rest of the questions if it does not digress into a religious debate, which I do not think is permissable on this forum. But it is a good discussion in showing how exclusive cults can form, and then from their forming become places where all sorts of cruel actions can then be justified.

Quote

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

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.

Quote
apostate
Here are your base assumptions:
1. Only Christians are the children of God

Quote
apostate
2. This God is a male

Quote
apostate
3. This God alone is sovereign.

Quote
Josh

Quote

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.

Quote
rrmoderator
apostate:

Josh is an "Internet troll" and not here with any other meaningful purpose.

He is attempting to start arguments in an effort to subvert this thread.

Look back on his posts.

He reapeatedly attempts to shift the focus away from the topic.