Are you religious ?

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Seekers

...and the Bible itself gives no definite clue about it.

The Bible is not a sacred book. Neither the Gospels are.

Originally Posted by Seekers

It's not an easy question.

Hum... It depends if you have the Faith or not. Let me put it this way. If you actually believe in God, the omniscient and omnipotent One that has created the universe, well, that makes all of us His sons. But that is rather tautologic. If God is omnipotent, nothing can have stopped Him to incarnate Himself in our world some two thousands years ago.

[3rdEye]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

If you actually believe in God, the omniscient and omnipotent that has created the universe, well, that makes all of us his sons. But that is rather tautologic.

Yes, and that's not very likely what he meant, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

If God is omnipotent, nothing can have stopped Him to incarnate Himself in our world some two thousands years ago.

Or at any other time for that matter.

[3rdEye]

Originally Posted by Engelbrecht

That must have been some so called theologians connected to the Swedish Church. No other church would ever come up with an idea that questions the very foundation of their own belief. I guess you refer to K G Hammar K. G. Hammar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

No, those are not the ones I meant. Rudolf Bultmann is perhaps the most famous theologian who interpreted "Son of man" in a way that is different to how tradition usually interpreted it.

[Engelbrecht]

Originally Posted by Seekers

That's a debated question even among theologians in the academic science of interpreting the Bible. More specifically, the question revolves around whether Jesus did in fact think of himself as God in the exact same way that tradition has taken him to have ment it.

I think John 10:36 is quite clear on this issue.

Originally Posted by Seekers

Another obstacle arises from Jesus calling his disciples Gods or sons of God. It's not an easy question.

The explanation comes in John 10:35. And by all means in the entire chapter 10.

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Engelbrecht

I think John 10:36 is quite clear on this issue.



The explanation comes in John 10:35. And by all means in the entire chapter 10.

Wow! I think I'll have to take some classes before competing with you two guys!

[3rdEye]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

Wow! I think I'll have to take some classes before competing with you two guys!

Point taken. I readily recognize that spirituality is not a farisean matter. But I see nothing wrong in talking about spiritual matters, in fact it saddens me that most people are either for or against Christianity, since that's not even a question I find to be particularly interesting. I'm rather tired of hearing the same simplistic explanations over and over again, and it's not what I consider a good conversation. Just because I happen to have a different faith than the most commonplace representation of Christian faith, it is not implied that I'm lacking a faith.

[Lagun]

Originally Posted by Plethon

It is a matter for serious discussion and not for commenting on a trivial poll. The answer to your first two questions: yes. The last one should be discussed at length.

So either you have taboos or you feel insecure. I prefer SEEKERS aproach to the matter.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Lagun

So either you have taboos or you feel insecure. I prefer SEEKERS aproach to the matter.

Neither.

I just said it requires more thinking. Read what I said.

Mine and Seekers' approach are quite similar, for your information, "wiseman"...

[Engelbrecht]

Originally Posted by Lagun

So either you have taboos or you feel insecure. I prefer SEEKERS aproach to the matter.

The reason, I think, that he answered this way is that to explain the essance of Christ´s teachings requires more than a oneliner.

But if you require a oneliner, I will try.

The essance of Christ´s teachings are the salvation of man.

[Susi]

I said I was religious... it just depends on definition, doesn't it? As to what we feel on the matter...

[Engelbrecht]

Originally Posted by Susi

I said I was religious... it just depends on definition, doesn't it? As to what we feel on the matter...

So, is this an open question to the poll maker? Sifjar, how do you define religious?

[Lagun]

Originally Posted by Plethon

Neither.

I just said it requires more thinking. Read what I said.

Mine and Seekers' approach are quite similar, for your information, "wiseman"...

So you get defensive... So it was insecuriness.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Lagun

So you get defensive... So it was insecuriness.

*yawn*

There is no point in arguing with those who are unable to read posts and understand their meaning...troll on...

[Lagun]

Originally Posted by Plethon

There is no point in arguing with those who are unable to read posts and understand their meaning...troll on...

Dear Plenthon,
I have not any interest in questioning the importance of Religion. I believe that those people who have faith, are really blessed.
But It has always been very hard for me to unserstand, that some people are capable, and this is very usual in Spain, to debate about almost any subject and be cathegorical on them, and then, when it comes to religion, they always come to the same "simple minded" answer of: "it´s to important, or to difficult to understand..."
I believe this sort of actitudes are based in insecureness.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Lagun

Dear Plenthon,
I have not any interest in questioning the importance of Religion. I believe that those people who have faith, are really blessed.
But It has always been very hard for me to unserstand, that some people are capable, and this is very usual in Spain, to debate about almost any subject and be cathegorical on them, and then, when it comes to religion, they always come to the same "simple minded" answer of: "it´s to important, or to difficult to understand..."
I believe this sort of actitudes are based in insecureness.

Dear amigo (lagun),

can you read English? I did not say it is "so extremely difficult to understand", I didn't say that it is "impossible to discuss", I just said it takes some time to think it over and to write something coherent. Let's say someone asks some scientist or philospoher or whoever else to write an essay on something. It may take some time to think it over and to write something clever and coherent. Or you think that all people should be geniuses who can spit out extremely sophisticated texts on anything in a second? Can you?

And what is this "insecureness thing"? Who is "secure"? Someone who says just anything about any theme, utters in a second, even if it is a gross stupidity? I prefer not to partake in a "secureness" of this sort. It is a "secureness" of fools.