Protestantism
The Self
- Migisi
- pink101
- Migisi
- pink101
- pink101
- Migisi
- pink101
- Migisi
- pink101
- Migisi
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
» Migisi - The spirit of both
In response to The spirit of both posted by pink101:
.
Opinion?
.
Yep, merely my opinion.
.
So, could it be said, "In the name of the Parent, the Child, and the Spirit"?
.
Sure. But we could reduce it down to one - the ONE - the 'Creator'. Why pledge, swear by, or invoke the name in prayer of a 'created' being at all?
.
In the biblical account, Jesus went to the cross to pay for a crime he didn't commit. To say that you are born into sin is to accuse you of guilt for that which you did not commit. So, how does that relate to your sinful nature?
.
Well, Pink, I don't buy into any part of 'inherited' sin, the idea of 'sinful nature', and a need for vicarious redemption through a human sacrifice.
.
And, correct! The spirit is the result of the relationship of the two--the parent and the child. The relationship you share with each of your children has its own special spirit. The spirit of both.
.
All share spiritual DNA with the ONE - because all were created by and from the ONE.
.
Just my thinking, of course. 
.
-- posted by Migisi
» pink101 - Nor Do I.
In response to The spirit of both posted by Migisi:.
I don't buy into any part of 'inherited' sin, the idea of 'sinful nature', and a need for vicarious redemption through a human sacrifice.
.
Nor do I.
.
I don't believe the biblical account means to teache us that Jesus died for any "inherited" sin--only for the accusation that we are sinners. The priesthood is made up of our accusers.
.
That's my opinion.
.
I respect your opinion. I wasn't questioning fit--I only meant to say, "Opinion?, O.K., here's mine."
.
The spirit of any relationship is the force that makes all the members to it into one. Two people can be one--so can many.
.
That, specifically, is what the word, atonement, is all about--the AT-ONE-MENT.
.
When Jesus said that he and his father were one, that is what he meant in my opinion. Therefor, as you and I can be one, so can we be one with God. And, who is it to say that we cannot?
.
Not any one.
.
Anyway, that's my opinion on the subject.
.
Jesus brought and taught the good news that individual people can be at one with God and that is why the priesthood wanted him dead and out of their way; because they had a rigamarole going that gave them great power.
.
Today, they still teach that you are deserving to be swept into hell. And, they still hold on to their power and they use the name of Jesus while they claim they speak on behalf of God as they do it. They scare people into submission to their teaching. I call that blasphemy.
.
That is why I am against organized religion.
.
They don't like what I have to say about Jesus. I'm sure you've noticed that.
.
-- posted by pink101
» Migisi - Nor Do I.
In response to Nor Do I. posted by pink101:.
I don't believe the biblical account means to teache us that Jesus died for any "inherited" sin--only for the accusation that we are sinners. The priesthood is made up of our accusers.
.
We are sinners, according to whom, which god, and what criteria? I'm familiar with most of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tenets regarding what constitutes 'sin'. But ideas differ even among those. And among the Christian denominations. As an example: one denomination contends that gaming, dancing, and movie-going are grievous sins. Another denomination doesn't consider these sinful at all. They ~all~ claim to know what displeases God - as if they alone know God's mind. It's laughable.
.
When Jesus said that he and his father were one, that is what he meant in my opinion. Therefor, as you and I can be one, so can we be one with God. And, who is it to say that we cannot?
.
I think Jesus meant 'one in spirit and communion' too. If somebody says I can't - according to some rule or notion in ~his~ religion - I pay him no mind.
.
And, they still hold on to their power and they use the name of Jesus while they claim they speak on behalf of God as they do it.
.
Well, they can use whatever name of a 'created' being - Jesus, Tom, Dick, Harry. They can use the name of their cat to curse or bless me. It means nothing to me. They can speak for ~their~ god all day long, while I speak TO mine.
.
They scare people into submission to their teaching.
.
I gave up my fear of God, death, and eternal punishment when I gave up my belief in the Christian religion. I've never felt freer in my life.
-- posted by Migisi
» pink101 - You and I
In response to Nor Do I. posted by Migisi:.
You and I have no fear of any god, I'm sure of that.
.
But, there are many who have been led down the path to self destruction believing they must fit some pattern their church or other spiritual leader lays out for them. In fact, they do it to themselves once they get the drum beat down pat.
.
.
-- posted by pink101
» Migisi - You and I
In response to You and I posted by pink101:.
You and I have no fear of any god, I'm sure of that.
.
I am ~convinced~ that when one does not fear the ONE, he is able to love himself, his neighbor, and the ONE with all his heart - just as Jesus did. Was Jesus ~afraid~ of his Father? I never got that impression.
.
I'm not a fan of Paul's, but he did make some important observations: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." (1 Cor 13:11) Imagine a little toddler. How ~huge~ adults are to him. Adults, even the ones he loves, represent a threat (imaginary or real). They tower over him, and easily sweep him up against his will. They are very powerful, and can force their will and inflict their wrath upon him if he does not do what they want. Very intimidating, indeed! He learns from his huge and powerful grown ups that God is SO much bigger in stature and power than they are, and even the biggest, most powerful grown up is afraid of God! And this fear is ingrained into them. But you and I are old now. We are not frightened children anymore. And so we put our childish fears behind us. (Just my thought for today.
).
But, there are many who have been led down the path to self destruction believing they must fit some pattern their church or other spiritual leader lays out for them. In fact, they do it to themselves once they get the drum beat down pat.
.
And there are many who've found the 'yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees' distasteful, nauseating, and have vomitted it out. Mat 16:8-12, Luke 12:1-3
.
-- posted by Migisi
» pink101 - My Opinion, Of Course
In response to You and I posted by Migisi:.
My thoughts almost exactly.
.
Millions of people go through their life chained in bondage to their childhood thoughts. We see it here in these discussions.
.
Think of the apostle Paul's admonition in chapter 5 of Galations:
.
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again in the chains of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love."
.
The way the Religionist discounts this text is interesting as they attempt to limit it to the act of being physically circumcised. It's just one more point of religious law--a rule. So, every place circumcision is used, you can substitute any doctrine. Religionists like to ridicule this understanding.
Circumcision, itself, it a metaphor for baring one's heart to God. It relates in reverse to having a heart of stone--no feeling--numb.
.
Religionists like to get physical and literal.
.
Wrong!!
.
Just more of my opinion, of course.
.
-- posted by pink101
» Migisi - My Opinion, Of Course
In response to My Opinion, Of Course posted by pink101:.
And yet, Paul insisted that Timothy be circumcized. Ah, but we've already discussed Paul's contradictions in the Acts thread long ago.
.
But I do get your point.
.
Real life beckons, Pink. I'll be back later. Have a great day!
-- posted by Migisi
» pink101 - Burned Alive At The Stake
In response to My Opinion, Of Course posted by Migisi:.
Well, my deeper point is that Christianity is a highly personal belief system.
.
What you see going on here in these threads is indicative of Christianity as an organized Religionist ideology. Since you bring up the apostle Paul, he is the one who warns us about these Religionists--he calls them Judaizers. They claim you must adhere to some special teachings of one brand or another or else you will spend eternity excommunicated from God--a denial of your inalienable rights..
.
They demand an adherence to a specific set of docringes be it Roman Catholic or some other brand. If you don't believe a certain way, then you obviously are not a true believer. So, you, Migisi, are cast out of their inner circles and must declare yourself to be an unbeliever. You cannot depend on the basic Gospel as it was given by Jesus that he--HIS WAY--is the ONLY way. So, what was HIS WAY if it isn't a personal relationship with God outside the rules and rig-a-ma-role of any other teaching? And, I am declared to be--at worst--an agent of the Devil for expressing such a belief and--at best--a poor misguided soul. Several hundred years ago, I would have been burned alive at the stake in the village square.
.
Jesus taught that your relationship with God is between you and God--no one else. He said, "I--MY WAY--am/is the way--no one can have a relationship with God unless they do it the way I do it."
.
The idea of Inalienable Rights as they are posed in the Declaration of Independence supports the teachings of Jesus. The right to a personal relationship with God cannot be taken away from us by anyone--not even by our own efforts.
.
Period.
.
-- posted by pink101
» Migisi - Burned Alive At The Stake
In response to Burned Alive At The Stake posted by pink101:.
Since you bring up the apostle Paul, he is the one who warns us about these Religionists--he calls them Judaizers. They claim you must adhere to some special teachings of one brand or another or else you will spend eternity excommunicated from God-...
.
Yet, Paul himself, was a religious zealot (religionist), who claimed people must adhere to ~his~ special teachings - ~his~ gospel (Rom 2:16, 2 Tim 2:8).
.
You might be interested in reading this when you have some time - from the Jewish POV:
"Saul of Tarsus"
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.j...
.
I'll be back. Lunch with my sister. Later...
-- posted by Migisi
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.