The Ego hates Jesus because he taught what The Ego hates most REPENTANCE!

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Now explain how my position is advocating "salvation for unrepentant sinners".

I already mentioned your signature. You are advocating your Tough-Guy Sinner cult which derisively calls "religion", the attempt by believers to live a godly life.
Your cult advocates that the 'believer' rest assured that their mere intellectual assent to the idea that Jesus died for your sins (or whatever) absolves you of any guilt, now, and forever, in perpetuity.
The rationale being, "Well, when Jesus died, how many sins had you committed already? None, of course, so when Jesus died, he died for all your sins, every one that you would ever commit, so how could anything possibly go wrong based on sins you haven't even committed yet?"

All that other stuff in your post is so much philosophy that is meaningless and serves only as window dressing to make your salvation theory not seem so glaringly in error of normal Christian belief.
Tradition Christian belief holds the believer to a higher ethical standard and that being a Christian, to the individual, involves a striving towards that perfect ideal. This is exactly what you cult has put into its crosshairs for attack, as if by trying to be a "Christian" makes you "religious" as if you are now all of a sudden no better than a Pharisee praying that they thank God they are better than the 'sinners'.
Then your cult turns its gaze upon its own members, and raises themselves up to praise, that they are like the publican to admits that he is a sinner. Going to the point of holding your sinnership as a commendable state.
Anyway, that is how it looks to me, and if you want my opinion to change, you should change your signature to reflect a normal Christian outlook that see repentance as the major step of conversion, and one that happens in this lifetime, and not in some future hypothetical world beyond the blue.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I haven't made any arguments about the video in my signature, that has nothing to do with what I said. That's a non sequitur. Secondly the video isn't about repentance but a condemnation of religious externalism. But that's for another debate, it's not this present topic.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I haven't made any arguments about the video in my signature, that has nothing to do with what I said.

I'm having a problem because so far you haven't said anything that makes sense to me.
You must be parroting the latest pronouncement from your cult leader, that you haven't quite figured out yourself yet.
So I'm using some of your stuff that I do understand, to try to get at the meaning, if there is any, to what you are making vague references to.

If sin means "missing the mark", does this not imply that repentance is all about not missing the mark? Missing the mark is based in the ego-principle of assuming one is separate from God - i.e., not communing with the Divine.

Repentance is about realizing the error in assuming one is separate from God, and not animating that separation or ego-principle/sin - but instead choosing the life of communion with God, i.e., choosing the life of not missing the mark.

It is only on the basis of this repentance of non-separation or missing the mark that one can live a life of communion with God and the commandments of love that Jesus taught.

reply to post by bb23108

It is only on the basis of this repentance of non-separation or missing the mark that one can live a life of communion with God and the commandments of love that Jesus taught.

You aren't using Pauline terminology.
I have to imagine that the goal of repentance is coming into alignment with the principles of life that God approves of, or, justification, being 'straightened out', to be in conformity with the community of God, or rather, those who truly follow God.
And in the language of the New Testament, that would be belonging to the Christ community.
How this comes about is through the medium of the spirit, that is of God, given to us through Christ..

Originally posted by jmdewey60
How this comes about is through the medium of the spirit, that is of God, given to us through Christ..

Yes, through communion with God (and for Christians, through Christ), one truly repents of one's missing the mark or sinning.

True repentance is giving up one's missing of communing with God - not being forever sorry about having sinned, all the while still not communing with God.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I haven't made any arguments about the video in my signature, that has nothing to do with what I said.

I'm having a problem because so far you haven't said anything that makes sense to me.
You must be parroting the latest pronouncement from your cult leader, that you haven't quite figured out yourself yet.
So I'm using some of your stuff that I do understand, to try to get at the meaning, if there is any, to what you are making vague references to.

Well that isn't my problem. All I can do on this end is explain things to you, I have no capacity to understand things for you.

reply to post by bb23108

True repentance is giving up one's missing of communing with God - not being forever sorry about having sinned, all the while still not communing with God.

I'm not really sure if I am understanding you right.
I'm going by Paul, so that is the perspective that I am examining.
Now, if I decide to take what you said in a way that fits that, then yes, it is as if, according to Paul, people sin on purpose to demonstrate their rebellion against God, that they do whatever needs to be done to create a total break from God, and when they do, they just become enslaved to something worse.
God had to move in such a way that people saw Him as someone they wanted to get close to.
The "move" was Jesus appearing on the scene, to show that he could get down in the dirty and take whatever the worse we would have to take ourselves.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . I have no capacity to understand things for you.

I guess when you are in your cult meetings, and you are surrounded by all these people all excited and chanting, and the infallible leader gets up and spouts all this stuff out, the spirit takes hold and a flash of light gets in your head and it all of a sudden makes sense because the spirit moved you to believe it.
While in the dreary ordinary world, those words seem pathetic and meaningless.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bb23108

 

True repentance is giving up one's missing of communing with God - not being forever sorry about having sinned, all the while still not communing with God.

I'm not really sure if I am understanding you right.
I'm going by Paul, so that is the perspective that I am examining.
Now, if I decide to take what you said in a way that fits that, then yes, it is as if, according to Paul, people sin on purpose to demonstrate their rebellion against God, that they do whatever needs to be done to create a total break from God, and when they do, they just become enslaved to something worse.

Perhaps you do not remember, but several of us had a very long conversation about Paul, and I brought up that Paul represented more the OT assumption that people are inherently separate from God, while Jesus clearly did not assume that everyone is INHERENTLY separate from God, nor inherently separate from one another. Jesus' commandments of love bear this out as do many quotes from the Bible associated with him.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
God had to move in such a way that people saw Him as someone they wanted to get close to.
The "move" was Jesus appearing on the scene, to show that he could get down in the dirty and take whatever the worse we would have to take ourselves.

Yes, Jesus' company clearly allowed people to directly choose being free of the assumption that they are separate from God, i.e., inherently missing the mark (original sin). Again, Jesus did not assume people were inherently separate from him, God, even one's neighbors. He simply called his followers to love God with their whole body-mind - heart, soul, mind, and strength - and neighbor as oneself. To do this, one has to repent from continuously missing the mark - i.e., missing his message to love God fully, to commune with God, not to feel separate from God.

reply to post by bb23108

. . . Paul represented more the OT assumption that people are inherently separate from God, while Jesus clearly did not assume that everyone is INHERENTLY separate from God . . .

I would not have agreed to that.
Paul does see that there is a difference between what God is, and what we are. We are "natural", meaning naturally sinning and equally naturally dying, while God is naturally good and naturally eternal.

Jesus sees the similarity between himself and God, and the similarity between himself and his "friends" but not to people in general.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Jesus sees the similarity between himself and God, and the similarity between himself and his "friends" but not to people in general.

Jesus gave his commandment to love one's neighbor as oneself - that implies no separation is to be assumed. Jesus confessed his love for all - not just for his followers, though only those who repent of sin (or separation from God) are able to actually live those commandments at all, and in the case of Christians, assume a relationship with him.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

. . . I have no capacity to understand things for you.

I guess when you are in your cult meetings, and you are surrounded by all these people all excited and chanting, and the infallible leader gets up and spouts all this stuff out, the spirit takes hold and a flash of light gets in your head and it all of a sudden makes sense because the spirit moved you to believe it.
While in the dreary ordinary world, those words seem pathetic and meaningless.

Whatever you say Dewey..

more meaningless ad hom tripe.

Originally posted by Manunnaki
reply to post by arpgme

 

When you watch a movie,show,anime. You will notice there is a monk/teacher who is indifferent in his actions but takes under his wing and under study. The under study usually becomes the hero!

Why doesn't the teacher save the world? Because he is egoless. He basically sees things that happen as the will of the universe. If it happens it's meant to happen the universe will balance itself.

It does balance itself through the monk with an ego who has not lost his ego.

The ego is the hero! Why? Because it takes action.

The ego says I've got to do something about it. And believes in black,grey,white.

The egoless sits in grey whenever too much black or white comes in he determines on the ego to balance it back to grey.

I hope this was easy to understand. To me it's pretty clear and simple.

I agree but Paul said we are allowed only one boast. To boast about our work in love. Sounds like a pretty simple request, since anything done apart from love is not really worthy of boasting. So you are correct we must put down the ego of self and pick up the ego of Christ. The ego of Christ is to love.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

. . . I have no capacity to understand things for you.

I guess when you are in your cult meetings, and you are surrounded by all these people all excited and chanting, and the infallible leader gets up and spouts all this stuff out, the spirit takes hold and a flash of light gets in your head and it all of a sudden makes sense because the spirit moved you to believe it.
While in the dreary ordinary world, those words seem pathetic and meaningless.

Whatever you say Dewey..

more meaningless ad hom tripe.

Why can’t either of you see that you are both right. Every gift from God is given freely to all. Not your typical is right. And in order to defeat sin you must both repent and understand why your action requires repentance. You need to understand why what you did is against love. Once you understand what you did and how it is against love it becomes easier to choose love the next time.

This is why we need all the gifts to be free, because we can be worthy of none of them. Christians don’t own the love of God, they protect a message that very few understand.

Dewey you are also right, men are and will be judged by what they do. But judgment although may come at the end of life it also comes every day. If you choose to do anything apart from love you won’t find love. But if you choose love you will find love. Always choose love, the fundamental message behind Christ.

If you pursue love you will find love. Only those who pursue love will find Christ and be known by him.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bb23108

 

. . . Paul represented more the OT assumption that people are inherently separate from God, while Jesus clearly did not assume that everyone is INHERENTLY separate from God . . .

I would not have agreed to that.
Paul does see that there is a difference between what God is, and what we are. We are "natural", meaning naturally sinning and equally naturally dying, while God is naturally good and naturally eternal.

Jesus sees the similarity between himself and God, and the similarity between himself and his "friends" but not to people in general.

You are speaking of devine Volition, that which introduces impediment. The result of The Law Inviolate is imperfection, the wrong as positive pain and as an organic creature you experience. For inorganic life, (not physical is impossible angelic realms). Pain cannot be experienced by the higher dimensions but/for/through the lower organic. The pain of the primitive life on earth is the solely based ONLY definition of the Bliss of/for ultimate life in Heaven.

reply to post by sacgamer25

Once you understand what you did and how it is against love it becomes easier to choose love the next time.

NOTurTypical has a history on this board of separating salvation from a person's behavior, and I see his latest instalment as more of the same.
Sounds like secular, self-help, psychobabble to me.
It is just the latest angle from the Free Grace cult to instill in people the Laissez-faire approach to Christian conduct. Get lots of tattoos, act all tough and mean for Jesus, show those sissy religious people how 'saved people' act when they know that nothing could possibly jeopardize their salvation when they are "washed in the blood".

reply to post by vethumanbeing

You are speaking of divine Volition . . .

Doing a Google search on that, I got a video by Chuck Missler, who would be one of these people I identify as a cult leader, along with the other guy I was talking about, Mark Driscoll, Pastor of the Mars Hill Church, that I call the Tough-Guy Sinner cult.
Chuck is a CIA disinformation agent who is a fraud and plagiarist who pushes Dispensationalist inspired apocalyptic porn, along with weird numerology and other occult arts, such as Kabbalah.

Another thing that comes up in Google is Luisa and the Book of Heaven, more occult connected stuff. I realize Catholics into Mary worship are into it.

"The Law Inviolate", comes up with D & D spells, on Google.

Seems divine Volition is a Medieval term to understand why God does things, when you can't find a "natural" reason why He would do something, where God does not have to do something out of necessity but does just because He wants to.
That was not what I meant when I said "natural". I just meant what I said, that Paul is being very pragmatic, that left to their own devices, people die, that's natural in this "natural" universe. What would be 'supernatural' would be divine intervention, and that is what is manifested in the Christ event, a way to get out of the natural, life/death cycle.
How Paul proposes that it happens is through some 'unnatural' spirit that replaces our 'natural' spirit that is prone to death. The unnatural or supernatural spirit that comes from God is not prone to death, so the idea being, if we were to die a natural death, we don't stay that way because of that spirit in us, and are subsequently resurrected.
For this scheme to make sense, you have to have a difference between ordinary people and God.
Things start that way, but if that spirit from God is in you, it will be working in you to make you more like God, and one of those things is not sinning. If you are sinning, and don't seem to be any different than you were to start with, then there was no conversion, with 'conversion' being the replacement of that natural man, with the godly man, or at least the beginning of it with that life-giving essence in you that you will be expecting to raise you from the dead, when that point eventually comes about.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

Once you understand what you did and how it is against love it becomes easier to choose love the next time.

NOTurTypical has a history on this board of separating salvation from a person's behavior, and I see his latest instalment as more of the same.
Sounds like secular, self-help, psychobabble to me.
It is just the latest angle from the Free Grace cult to instill in people the Laissez-faire approach to Christian conduct. Get lots of tattoos, act all tough and mean for Jesus, show those sissy religious people how 'saved people' act when they know that nothing could possibly jeopardize their salvation when they are "washed in the blood".

edit on 18-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I've never said any of that nonsense.


Why do you purposely lie? How is that Christian behavior? James was pretty clear that a person who claimed to have faith but no works or fruit to go along with it has a "dead faith".

Why don't you just quit lying?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I have tried to explain to Dewey how you are not against him in the following post. It was too long and not related to repentance , so I decided a new thread was more appropriate than derailing this one any further. This is the best I can come up with based on how I understand Christ.
'
Please feel free to let me know what you think.
www.abovetopsecret.com...