The Way

Wallpaper Other

Source (link to git-repo or to original if based on someone elses unmodified work): Add the source-code for this project on opencode.net

0
5 .0
Description:

Like the others, presented here for those who love Christ and His Word.

GPL, done in the Gimp.
Last changelog:

17 years ago

Nice day out! Added photographic version.

karlandtanya

17 years ago

Uhm... Yup. That's what I said.

Think, for a moment, aboout the contex in which this statement was allegedly made. The passage you're quoting was directed at a large group of people, who already *did* believe in a heavenly father.

The impact of the statement is: "If you want access to this god you've been praying to for the past 3,600 or so years, you're gonna have to start going through me."

For obvious reasons, this pissed off a lot of people at the time.

Don Corleone would have been proud.

Report

C

timbrown527

17 years ago

Thanks for your clarification. Trying to get the proper sense of what someone has typed can sometimes be difficult because you don't hear inflection, etc., that you do with spoken words.

Yes, Jesus did say that. However, the Jews did not understand their need for a new birth (John 3). They thought that God was indeed their "heavenly father". In the created sense, yes. In the spiritual sense, no. In John 8, the Lord told the pharisees (who were very legalistic and conciencious of keeping lists of do's and don'ts) that they were of their father, "the devil".

The Jews would think of God as their father because of the promise of God to Abraham. THey thought being a Jew made them "special". Christ's words were a resounding "WRONG".

No one has direct access to God the Father except through Christ, His Son. That's because our sin (the wrong things we do) are an offense to God. THe reason why Christ had to die was to pay for our sin...he literally took yours and mine on Himself! Kind of like having a billion dollars worth of parking tickets and the judge comes down from the bench, and pays them, goes back up to the bench and says "paid in full". Only we (just as the Jews of CHrist's time) must turn from our sin and trust the finished work of CHrist on our behalf. Kind of like if you're drowning and you must reach up to hold the hand of the person rescuing you.

Yes, it ticked them off. It tore them to shreads because he cut through every facade they were holding onto.

The tragedy is that they didn't listen!

SOrry I didn't get to this sooner. I just found your note!

TIm

Report

renci

17 years ago

WTF is this trash ? The is blasphemy of the highest order. All "believers in Christ" are doomed to perish in the shit encrusted annals of their own ill concieved pomp.
Now look at this again with gaping jaws and white faces and rethink your faith. It doesnt matter about faith you people. Its about love and there is no love in faith. Faith is hiding and hoping because faith is an incomplete thing hence its very dictionary presence. Always question authority and always keep your mind open. The search for truth is never looking to what is said and done. It is here and now. Jesus said "when the above becomes the below and the below the above, and the male the female and the female the male, so then will you enter the kingdom of heaven" There is somthing huge right there that invalidates many American contemporary notions about the character of Jesus. There is just so many things you Christians, you goupies, dont want to look to and the sad thing it is always staring you right in the face. You are all like stones. We are all stones!

Report

uninet

17 years ago

You have several problems with your argument. First, faith is not the reverse of love, in fact Christian faith is rather hollow without love. In fact, I'd argue it is all about love: the ultimate love of Jesus giving his life for the world. The Apostle Paul recognized this, saying that without love he was nothing but a "noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."

Also about your "quote" of Jesus. I couldn't find it on the web, but it somewhat resembles the viewpoint of the "Gospel of Thomas"... I suspect its Gnostic in origin. Without getting into a theological debate, I'd note that even analytical (read: secular viewpoint) scholars would note that such "quotes" are a lot less likely to be from Jesus than those in the New Testament. So from a historical viewpoint the said quote doesn't really hold water.

Report

C

timbrown527

17 years ago

--faith is not the reverse of love

Dead on. Indifference is the opposite of love, which is why "tolerance" as it is being redefined is incompatible with Christianity.

Also, Revelation 3, the church of Laodicea. It was lukewarmness (indifference to their condition and to the Lord) that led to Christ stating "...I will spew you out of my mouth."

Neither hot, nor cold. Indifferent.

Love=humble self sacrifice for another with a view to immproving their condition, even if it means stepping on toes. Tolerance can't coexist with this.

Tim

Report

kuba

17 years ago

And why not? I'd really like to know what makes you think that.

I'm not religious, but I'm really interested in why people are religious, no matter if they're Christians, Jews, Muslims, Budhists or whatever, what makes them believe in religions, and why can't different religions coexist, if you've ever read the Koran (like the Bible, but for Muslims), you'll realise that the story is nearly the same, only that god is called Allah. And if you read the Tora (Like the Bible, but for Jews) again you'll realise that the story is similar.

So I believe that Jesus, as you should know he invented Christianity, just took the story out of the Tora, changed it round a bit and called it the Bible. Then the Mohamed, or what his name was took the Bible or the Tora and did the same in Arabic. Maybe not, but thats how it seems to me.

There might be something like a god up there or somewhere else, but how should I know? I don't believe in it, becouse I didn't grow up with it, but what does that mean. And I think it's allright that people that can't stand life otherwise have got something to believe in, but no one should be killed becouse of religion.

Report

uninet

17 years ago

I'm not religious, but I'm really interested in why people are religious, no matter if they're Christians, Jews, Muslims, Budhists or whatever, what makes them believe in religions, and why can't different religions coexist, if you've ever read the

Sure, they can coexist, but that's different than agreeing that they are all correct. The problem is they can't be all true.

Take Theravada Buddhism and Christianity. A Buddhist of that school of thought (probably closest to Buddha's teachings) believes in no God or gods, but only the Void (which is itself not God but a simply ultimate reality). Buddhists are trying, though the ways that Buddha prescribed, to -- in essence -- cease to exist (at least in the traditional sense).

On the other hand, Christians believe there is a God. We believe that this God is a personal (that is, not just a impersonal force) being and loves us. Our goal is not to cease to exist but to eventually end up with God.

Now, I won't use this space to debate the two views, but simply to note these two views are basically irreconcilable. If anyone is truly sincere in belief to either one of these, they cannot say "yeah, but the other one is true too."

Koran (like the Bible, but for Muslims), you'll realise that the story is nearly the same, only that god is called Allah. And if

It isn't that simple. Muslim belief is that you must do certain things and good works and you are never sure of your salvation. Christian belief is that Jesus died for you, you can be sure of salvation and that no amount of good works can save you (afterall, our very best is but filthy rags to the perfection of God).

you read the Tora (Like the Bible, but for Jews) again you'll realise that the story is similar.

Sure, because the Bible contains the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Scripture in the Old Testament (this is what Jesus often refers to as the "Law and the Prophets"). Christianity is, at least from a Christian viewpoint, the fulfillment of prophecy from the Jewish prophets and the new covenant with God (replacing the covenant of Moses).

There's a big difference: Judaism and Christianity have many similarities, but also many differences. Christianity is again different in its insistence of salvation purely by faith.

So I believe that Jesus, as you should know he invented Christianity, just took the story out of the Tora, changed it round a bit and called it the Bible. Then the

Yes and no. Jesus actually didn't change the Torah. I have the Jewish Publishing Society's English Torah translation. There are very few differences with the Christian Pentateuch, because they are both the same -- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.


Mohamed, or what his name was took the Bible or the Tora and did the same in Arabic. Maybe not, but thats how it seems to me.

Mohammad claimed that the Qu'ran was the non-corrupted scripture. He claimed that the Old and New Testaments were corrupted scripture (i.e. they had truth but they had major problems, whereas the Qu'ran did not). The Qu'ran contains many of those people that appear in the Old and New Testament because of this (including Jesus!). However, the Qu'ran's view of Jesus is very different than the New Testament's.

It's sort of like if I say the sky is blue and you say the sky is green. We may both be talking about the sky, but that doesn't mean were talking about the same thing. You seem to be talking about the sky right before a tornado hits. ;-)

-Tim

Report

kuba

17 years ago

Ahh right I know what you mean, someone who believes in a religion can't say that they're all true, well thats all right (you can't believe that Bush won the election, and that Al Gore won the election at the same time), but an atheist, like me doesn't believe in any religion at all so an atheist can say they're all true to the same amount, or they're all rubbish!

However this may be, it's all no reason to kill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Amen.

Report

C

timbrown527

17 years ago

Kuba:

Excuse me for dumping even more on you, but I want to say something as an example before I forget it -- being 49 :)...

Kleric has posted a "paper" regarding "Is that the system". He has a quote on that paper that sounds good...but it's not accurate. The person who said that doesn't understand how the Gospel works but rather set up a "straw man" argument (intentionally or unintentionally). It feeds the misunderstanding of true conversion, and leads to further confusion.

It contains a number of fallacies which I won't get into unless you ask...mainly because my coffee hasn't kicked in yet...and that's when I get off track, etc.

You know, I want you to understand how much I appreciate your questions. At least you're willing to discuss things and try to understand things than just get into ad hominem attacks. I applaud that!

Thanks,

Tim

Report

C

timbrown527

17 years ago

Kuba:

I would agree that alot of horrible stuff has gone on in the name of religion...and some of it even in the name of Christianity. But please don't lump it all together...

No doubt you know from the news that a guy was put to death that killed an abortionist. And the name of Christ took a big blow from that. Plus too, other, larger issues from the past in the name of "Christianity".

If you will bear with me, let me make a simple point...and that is to define what a real Christian is.

A real believer in Jesus Christ is someone who has turned from sin and embraced Christ as savior and LORD. I have turned over control of my life to Christ. That means I obey His Word. In addition, Jesus Christ Himeself said that if someone really is his follower, they will obey what He says. That is the test.

In Matthew 7, Jesus says that (on the day of judgement) "...many will say to Me "Lord Lord, did we not..." do this or that. But He will reject them because they were not true converts. And there have been alot of false professions of faith made by lots of people. It confuses the issue.

Jesus said "By this people will know you, if you have love one for another." To care about the needs of others. If they don't show that, eventually you deduce that they are talking the talk and not really a believer. Sure, we mess up. But if someone is a non-repentant murderer as that guy was, I have to label his claim to Christ as false. If the Spirit of God lives in that person, his life will show it -- you can't repress it.

Let me tell you something. I have no doubt in my heart that if anyone of the people here who have spoken poorly of us, etc., were to show up at my house, I would have no problem showing them very open hospitality. Why? Because the Spirit of God enables me. Uninet, or any of the others would no doubt be the same way.

I can call myself a feminist and do lots of harm to the feminist image and not really be a feminist. You can tell a true feminist by the lifestyle.

I hope this helps...

Tim

Report

C

timbrown527

17 years ago

I certainly appreciate the open tone of your message. Maybe I can clarify a bit.

Just so we know what we're discussing, bear with me a second...

The "old" tolerance (now referred to as "Negative tolerance") is defined as "I may not agree with you but you have the right to be / or believe as you choose."

The new definition of tolerance ("Positive Tolerance") teaches that I must agree with you that what you practice or believe is equally valid as what I practice or believe.

This is based on "pluralism" which teaches that there is no "metanarrative" or overriding value or norm. Thus, there is no Objective Moral Truth.

Since there is no absolute truth, which is applicable to everyone universally all the time (such as a law from God), you find the truth in yourself, invent it, whatever. You must make your own meaning and truth and you have no right to say that anything anyone says or does is "wrong".

In other words (just for analogy), the National Institute of Standards has nothing on file for what we measure as a "foot". So, it's whatever you want it to be.

Of course, this ASSUMES no metanarrative. Christians teach that there IS one, and while you cannot scientifically "prove" it, there is sufficient evidence. Not everything can be proven scientifically. Try to prove that Caesar lived thru science. Yet we know he did because of historical/legal evidence.

Anyway, "Tolerance" teaches no absolutes, no absolute truth. Biblical Christianity teaches that there is.

Believers in Christ are told to share the faith, to call those who don't know Christ to a saving relationship with Him. There isn't one person on this planet that wasn't made for a personal relationship with God thru Christ. Blaise Pascal said it well when he said (paraphrased) "Inside every person is a God-shaped hole that only God, as revealed through Jesus Christ, can fill.) This is part of the real metanarrative.

Furthermore, if you consider the definition of love by Christ ("No greater love has any man than this, that he should lay his life down for his friends") as an act of self-sacrifice for the welfare of another, maybe you can see where the collision is.

The world is seeking fulfillment in 'self'. When they see us saying 'no, it's elsewhere', that is a cardinal sin in the view of the 'tolerant'.

I hope this helps.

Tim

Report

kuba

17 years ago

Tim, in your "Re: Re: Re: WHY NOT?" you wrote: "Kleric has posted a "paper" regarding "Is that the system". He has a quote on that paper that sounds good...but it's not accurate. The person who said that doesn't understand how the Gospel works but rather set up a "straw man" argument (intentionally or unintentionally). It feeds the misunderstanding of true conversion, and leads to further confusion.

It contains a number of fallacies which I won't get into unless you ask...mainly because my coffee hasn't kicked in yet...and that's when I get off track, etc."

and as there's no "reply to this"-button behind that message I post my answer here:

yes please tell me about the fallacies in "Is that the system", I do understand how much you apreciate my questions!

glad your so open to answer my questions, thanks!

Report

C

timbrown527

17 years ago

Thanks for the response...and it is no problem at all. The Christian faith is open to investigation. Contrary to the believe of many, the basis of the Christian faith is not some sort of mental “Gomez Addams train wreck” where “truth” is found in mystical contradictions. To the contrary, so much of the faith is historically, archaeologically and scientifically verifiable, which reminds me of another Heinlein quote that I'll address later...

There are at least two layers to the deception in what Heinlein argues on that paper...

1).I can do anything I want and then simply decide I want God and that gets me to heaven. False. This is a utilitarian view of God and His grace (this is the second layer of deception...that you can approach God like a vending machine). There are a number of people who portray this by claiming to be Christians simply because they have “prayed a prayer.” God honors a contrite heart, according to Proverbs, and gives grace those who humble themselves before Him.

2).I can do good works all my life then commit a sin, die, then go to hell. False. No one gets God's grace (unmerited favor) by works...”by works of the flesh shall no man be saved.” God loves me just as much today as he will when I mess up. God won't love me more if I don't mess up. It's not about “what I do to appease God” it's about what God has done for me.

Here's a good analogy of why Christ had to die...Let's say you're on trial. You have been found guilty and the judge has declared that your punishment is some huge fine that you could NEVER pay. You know it, he knows it. Yet, you owe this fine! Well, then imagine that suddenly the judge gets up from his bench, removes his robe, comes around the front of the bench and pays the fine for you. He then returns, puts on his robe and sits back down and declares your fine paid in full.

That's what Christ has done. God sent his One and Only Son to pay the death penalty for our sin...in this case, the penalty being eternal punishment apart from God. But we must appropriate it by faith to make it effective. God's righteous judgement was being applied to Christ on our behalf.

God's mercy keeps us from being instantly blown away and put in hell, his grace gives us a way out of the penalty.

So, if you are a father, maybe you can see why the utilitarian view of Heinlein will not be honored by God...It cheapens what you did and what your son did by dying for those who approach the sacrifice flippantly.

Another straw man from Heinlein:
“History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis...” He then goes off with an ad hominem attack.

With regard to the Christian faith, he is WRONG. There are more manuscripts available for the bible than for any other book which claims to be from God. Multiple thousands of manuscripts....much more even than Homer's Illyad, which has only may 600, I believe...yet no one questions that work because of the manuscripts. As to historical evidence, even secular historians of the day (such as Tertullian and Josephus) testify to many things in the new testament. When the Bible speaks of science, it is correct...such as the earth as a sphere (Isaiah 40), and in Job where Job states that the Lord “Hung the earth on nothing.” Now, how did Job know that? How did Isaiah know that? The bible also alludes to the hydrological cycle and geological isostacy (earth balanced like a tire). These are things that those guys couldn't have known in and of themselves.

Oh. In the old testament, God commanded that the Hebrews circumcise their children at 8 days of age. Just recently, we have discovered that the immune system is at it's height at 8 days! Everything is made of atoms, which should be flying apart. No one (secular view) knows WHY they don't fly apart. This applies for everything throughout the universe. Yet, the New Testament says that God “holds all things together by the word of His power....while the apostle Peter says that one day creation will be destroyed (then recreated)...and the description is a picture of what would happen if God merely stops holding everything together...fission....”the elements will melt with fervent heat.” I know, these phrases aren't constructed as typical scientific statements, but they again, they don't claim the earth rides on the back of a turtle either! Maybe that will stimulate some analytical thought...:)

Anyway, thanks for the dialog. I'll bet Uninet can cover this more thoroughly than I can, but it is a privilege to share this with you. I hope it makes some sense to you.

Tim

Report

kuba

17 years ago

I don't agree! tolerance doesn't mean you agree, it only means (in this context) you think it's alright if people believe in something else, but you can still think that your religion or belief is truer than theirs. I think real tolerance lies somewhere in between "Negative tolerance" and "Positive tolerance". But I tolerate your definition of tolerance.

Report

C

timbrown527

17 years ago

Hi Kuba!

All I can tell you is that the "New" tolerance is defined as embracing the (conflicting) values of others as equally valid as your own. You don't have the right to say someone is "wrong" to do something...that sets up a hierarchy of values with is anathema to postmodernism.I"m not sure precisely what you mean by "tolerance" but it sounds closer to the "old" definition, which I agree with...and makes logical sense.

If you ask someone who really believes in the new definition of tolerance if the holocaust againt the Jews was wrong, they will say something like "Well, I can't say it's wrong..." and might say they aren't comfortable with it or something like that. Statements like that are already on record from college students, etc. who are getting pumped this stuff.

See, if evolution is true, then all that matters is the here and now. If all that matters is the here and now, and there is no God, then 1) there can be no right and wrong (at all, ultimately)..and 2) grab everything while you're alive. Hence the cardinal sin of postmodernism is daring to stand up and say "Hey, that's not right".

Again, the old "Webster's dictionary" def of tolerance sounds like what you are describing...maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks, Kuba. I'm glad I could get on here...my dialup really is bad tonight!

Tim

Report

kuba

17 years ago

Thanks for your answer, I got to think about it , then I'll answer.

Report

C

timbrown527

17 years ago

Whoa! You were fast on the response!

I was going to add a bit about the differences in eastern/western approches to ascertaining truth and how that applies to the issue of "Tolerance"...but I'll hold off.

Thanks for being upfront. I appreciate it deeply!

Tim

Report

Brandybuck

17 years ago

Far be in from me to make this a theological debate, but the phrase in the wallpaper are the [translated] words of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament, while your quote is not (it's very reminiscent of hermetic mysticism though). Alhough one may dispute the validity of the New Testament, it is still a historical document, and the closest thing we have to the actual words of Jesus Christ.

Report

maitre

17 years ago

Quod erat demonstradum my son... dam jews.
-maitre

Report

kuba

17 years ago

what against Jews? What have they got to do with someone writting something not quite right?

Report

newLux

17 years ago

You just contradicted yourself by using
something that was written down, something
that was said and done. If you are going to
attempt to argue, at least reread your reply
and make sure you know what you are saying.
I do however agree that everything is about
love. "Love the Lord your God with all your
heart, mind and soul." "Love thy neighbour as
thyself." Love is everywhere throughout the
Bible, and it is the only thing that we need,
because if we love, everything else will be
right.

Report

17 years ago

Nice day out! Added photographic version.

12345678910
Be the first to comment
File (click to download) Version Description Downloads Date Filesize DL OCS-Install MD5SUM
*Needs pling-store or ocs-url to install things
Pling
0 Affiliates
Details
license
version
updated Sep 22 2003
added Sep 16 2003
downloads 24h
0
mediaviews 24h 0
pageviews 24h 0