Random Religious Thoughts

[QuickTwist]

In my daily Bible reading, I came across this verse and it virtually came off the page and smacked me in the face...

1 John 3:18 CSB17
"Little children, let us not love in word or speech, but in action and in truth."

Why was this so significant for me?

Well, first of all, because this verse teaches that we ought to love people with our behaviors in contrast to our words. Obviously, I don't think John is saying to be a jerk with your words. But I do feel like if you look at any prophet or Apostle who was doing good in the Bible, they just were not that concerned with offending other people with their words. None of the great men of faith were respectors of persons, meaning, they just didn't care what people thought of them, whether they were rejected or not. this is not a problem I have. I don't care what people think of me much. The converse side of this, is being gentle with my words because I can be so passionate that I don't give people an inch when debating things. So, I have to temper my speech, not because I care what people think of me, but because I don't want to be overbearing or abusive or anything. Still, I think I do a reasonable job with loving people with my behaviors and I feel bad, legitimately, when I am not loving people with my actions. Of course, I am not perfect with this... After all, Christ gave the whole world EVERYTHING He had to give. He died for the whole human race. What more could have he have possibly given us? And yet we read,
Matthew 22:16 CSB17
"So they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are truthful and teach truthfully the way of God. You don’t care what anyone thinks nor do you show partiality."

 

[QuickTwist]

What makes sin so... easy to do?

There's not switch you are flipping. There's no inner change. It's not a catalyst to make you fundamentally different. It just feels so normal and so easy.

That is why Paul described it as a war: No immediate consequences.

 

[ErikAlberto]

1. “We need a new Christiandom!”

if you encountered the phrase in isolation, a plain-English translation might be: “We need to rebuild a society in which Christianity once again plays a central role.

At the very least, I say . Probably I’d go farther to say —

2. “Deus Vult!”

Deus vult (often misspelled deus vault) is a Latin phrase that translates to "God wills it." Historically, it was the famous battle cry and rallying motto chanted by Catholic Crusaders during the First Crusade in 1096

3. and 4. ????!!!!! Of course not.

@QuickTwist, I can see that you might subscribe to 1. Do you?
Certainly that’s as far as you go, yes? 2, 3, 4–in my view—are just ridiculous.

 

[QuickTwist]

@QuickTwist, I can see that you might subscribe to 1. Do you?

No, I disagree with 1. We don't need a "new" Christendom. We need the same Christendom we have had for 2,000 years to spread in a grass roots movement, not by enforcing laws, but by changing hearts, one at a time.

I believe God can send real Revival to any nation, but especially nations which have historically had a Christian influence.

 

[ErikAlberto]

No, I disagree with 1. We don't need a "new" Christendom. We need the same Christendom we have had for 2,000 years to spread in a grass roots movement, not by enforcing laws, but by changing hearts, one at a time.

I believe God can send real Revival to any nation, but especially nations which have historically had a Christian influence.

Right on. I haven’t watched the video yet, but your statement taken at face value – I have no problem with anyone devout having such a mindset. I admire passion and commitment to one’s beliefs, so long as it’s moral and non-harming. I think.

 

[QuickTwist]

This story is so horrible that it has completely bypassed my emotional system...

https://twitter.com/x/status/2060318485037941060

 

[QuickTwist]

People believe lots of things for lots of different reasons. Do not assume that people believe things simply because they desire to know the truth. For many who profess to have changed positions have done so as an act of rebellion rather than an earnest pursuit of Truth.

 

[QuickTwist]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2061088680660394065

 

[QuickTwist]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2061701263125819723

What radicalized me, you ask?

 

[QuickTwist]

For most people, it is 90% presupposition and 10% evidence.

 

[ErikAlberto]

For most people, it is 90% presupposition and 10% evidence.

I get what you’re saying here, and I agree that, for most people, it is premature or faulty deductions based on essentially nothing. That’s sloppy and would benefit from some awareness.

Facts, evidence, logic, and cognitive clarity all matter. But what place do you make for intuition in drawing conclusions?

Jungians would mostly concur that correct deductions and conclusions can also be arrived at through intuition, which is essentially a judgment made unconsciously. Sure, facts and evidence play into whatever intuition arrives at, but intuition can permeate all of that, arriving at a truth that cannot be reached otherwise.

That being said, I admit that your statement stands strong and true given the appropriate context.

 

[QuickTwist]

I get what you’re saying here, and I agree that, for most people, it is premature or faulty deductions based on essentially nothing. That’s sloppy and would benefit from some awareness.

Facts, evidence, logic, and cognitive clarity all matter. But what place do you make for intuition in drawing conclusions?

Jungians would mostly concur that correct deductions and conclusions can also be arrived at through intuition, which is essentially a judgment made unconsciously. Sure, facts and evidence play into whatever intuition arrives at, but intuition can permeate all of that, arriving at a truth that cannot be reached otherwise.

That being said, I admit that your statement stands strong and true given the appropriate context.

I think intuition can be right or wrong. I also think it is not a 1:1 correlation between intuition and facts. You can intuit the facts correctly, but in my experience, more often than not, intuition does not arrive at the same kind of information as what the facts say. In other words, facts are very difficult to intuit correctly with the same precision as scholarship. So, intuition kinda functions based on intangibles, rather than facts. A kind of soft knowledge.

 

[ErikAlberto]

I think intuition can be right or wrong. I also think it is not a 1:1 correlation between intuition and facts. You can intuit the facts correctly, but in my experience, more often than not, intuition does not arrive at the same kind of information as what the facts say. In other words, facts are very difficult to intuit correctly with the same precision as scholarship. So, intuition kinda functions based on intangibles, rather than facts. A kind of soft knowledge.

Thank you for engaging my question seriously rather than defensively.

Cheers @QuickTwist.

 

[QuickTwist]

Thank you for engaging my question seriously rather than defensively.

Cheers @QuickTwist.

Thank you. You may not know the significance of what you have just said. I used to be defensive about everything. As my brother says it, I can "Argue about anything," and come up with reasons for my arguments seemingly out of nowhere, yet he had also said I would argue and debate about lots of pointless stuff. So, needless to say, I have come a long way in terms of being defensive, which is something I continue to work on.

 

[QuickTwist]

Jesus Christ, Yeshua Ha'Mashiach, was killed because he continually claimed to be God.

He could have done miracles, and the religious leaders would not have cared.

He could have claimed to be the Messiah, and they would not have cared.

But He claimed to be God. And they took that personally.

 

[QuickTwist]

I find that many Christians, especially online, have a very low personal standard of holiness. I've talked about how I have such horrible self-discipline. This is surely not a problem for the prophets and apostles. But at the same time, I find so many Christians today, even pastors and such, simply are morally ambiguous about many things. Christians here in the US, again, what I see online, have mostly been a religion of what you are ALLOWED to do rather than what you SHOULD do. I try to treat people really well. I try my best to be vulnerable about my own weaknesses. But so many Christians today are given into the "soft sins." The sins that they excuse away as being "not that bad." They are incredibly self-indulgent. They try to work the algorithm to get more views and likes. They are inherently selfish. They get tattoos, watch porn, wear yoga pants, and all sorts of different things they think the Bible doesn't address. They are not focused on piety, but on themselves.

 

[Fruiteloop]

Being other focused is not always positive because it can lead to vanity and gossip.

Being self focused is not always negative because it can be about self esteem and healing.

People are unique and usually we find that anything different about them must be bad which it is not always, just different.

There really is not just one right mode of being but it is about how you look at things that determines good or bad mostly because of one's attitude positive or negative.

Not that sin is not bad, it is just that being who you are is not always bad just because of differences in thought, personality or individuality.

 

[QuickTwist]

Being other focused is not always positive because it can lead to vanity and gossip.

Being self focused is not always negative because it can be about self esteem and healing.

People are unique and usually we find that anything different about them must be bad which it is not always, just different.

There really is not just one right mode of being but it is about how you look at things that determines good or bad mostly because of one's attitude positive or negative.

Not that sin is not bad, it is just that being who you are is not always bad just because of differences in thought, personality or individuality.

I find that many Christians, especially online, have a very low personal standard of holiness.

 

[Fruiteloop]

Being oneself does not need to strictly be against holiness.

Having a positive attitude or a negative attitude is not necessarily bad.

It just makes things harder to agree upone.

 

[Fruiteloop]

If everyone could be themselves more often.

Then less negativity would result.

But them people would need to be more accepting.

Because people have differences and those are not always accepted.

Differences can be good.