Can you define more specifically what you mean by “personal saviour and lord”?
I, too, was tempted to say something provocant, but decided against it.
To what degree are you having trouble understanding?
Seems to me you either “love Jesus Christ as [your] personal saviour and lord” or you don’t… where’s the grey area?
Defining words properly is a necessary prerequisite for philosophical discourse. What exactly that is meant by “lord” seems crucial to flesh out, imagine if a country appointed a leader without also specifying what powers the position would wield.
Nobody mentioned philosophical discourse… this is a thread for finding like minded people. He asked if there were people who loved Jesus Christ as their personal saviour and lord, not for a discussion about specifically what that means.
Well, maybe I do, and such a discussion is required to determine if that is the case.
Look mate, if you think, the concept of ‘sin’ as a state of being removed from a creator deity makes sense to you, and the person Jesus of Nazareth somehow brought you out of this state and reconcealed you with the god, you probably are christian. To me, this concept makes little sense, so I leave it be.
I think it’s cut and dry what this user is calling for. If you’ve got nothing nice to post, don’t post anything at all.
The phrase and concept of “Jesus is Lord” is very widely known in societies where Christianity is prevalent. There has been an enormous amount of philosophical and theological discussion about what it means.
So, if you really want to understand what people mean by it, check out these links:
However, your questions here seem quite disingenuous, since it appears more like a general challenge put on other’s Christian faith, rather than a sincere question that could have been addressed with a quick Google search.
The hostility with which humanity defensively reacts to questions of fundamental importance is truly saddening. A google search couldn’t reveal what the OP means since there are a plethora of interpretations, what is the gnostic view on lordship and who even decides that?
You’re moving the discussion away from your first question. That one, namely the definition of ‘lord’ has not been answered here, but you have been shown sufficient ressources where to find out. If you want to know abou gnosticism, I can teach you some Coptic and let you find the answer yourself. If you want to perform a Socratic dialogue here, I think it’s not the best audience to do so; those you want to lead into aporeia are just walking away and not listening and I, who quite enjoy a debate, am probably already on your site. So please relax and stop being a smartass before you get ostracized or made to drink hemlock.
Please refrain from insults.
Simply citing existing resources does not yield the beneficial results of developing concepts with ones own mind. What is the authority of Jesus as compared to an archangel? Is Jesus lord of all angels or are a sufficient amount of angels able to give better advise than Christ? Is Christ somehow composed of angels?
If you rapid-fire questions, you’re less likely to get answers.
For question #1, since the poster didn’t define the phrase, I would interpret it in its ordinary and popular sense. If it has a spectrum of meaning, then so be it. To move the discussion beyond that, you need to contribute something.
The mere act of formulating or reading a question stimulates the brain to ponder answers and often this process may be more valuable than an answer by itself
What do you ultimately hope to achieve with your questions?
I called your questions disingenuous above since I don’t think your aim is to change your own understanding and beliefs, but rather to influence those of others.
I hope you are not under the illusion that, by probing with these questions, you’ll shake the beliefs of any Christians out there. As a staunch atheist and humanist, it makes me cringe whenever I see someone try to take this approach.
You’re not going to reason someone out of their faith, nor would that necessarily be a good thing. For a lot of people, the whole point of faith is for it to lie beyond reason. In some religious viewpoints, the lack of evidence and the possibility of doubt is what makes faith so powerful.
I think you are incorrect in characterizing humanity’s response to question of the meaning of “Jesus is Lord” as hostile or defensive. As can be seen from the links that I shared earlier, this is a question that many, many religious scholars and philosophers have engaged with throughout history. In fact, I think this concept is so centrally important, influential, and widely known that it has shaped the very course of civilization.
I believe the negative response that you are getting here on these forums is a rejection of a plainly transparent attempt to open a religious debate that almost no one here wants to engage in.
“What do you ultimately hope to achieve with your questions?”
Multiple things. Often people use concepts without defining what they really mean, and this can lead to all kinds of problems. Religious wars could mostly be avoided if people would simply rationally evaluate what it really is they are saying, so ending religious violence probably tops my list of goals.
“I hope you are not under the illusion that, by probing with these questions, you’ll shake the beliefs of any Christians out there. As a staunch atheist and humanist, it makes me cringe whenever I see someone try to take this approach.”
These sorts of presumptions are very detrimental, you shouldn’t assume that people you know nothing about have bad intent.
“You’re not going to reason someone out of their faith, nor would that necessarily be a good thing. For a lot of people, the whole point of faith is for it to lie beyond reason. In some religious viewpoints, the lack of evidence and the possibility of doubt is what makes faith so powerful.”
First of all it is very strange of you to think that is my aim. Secondly, religion without science is blind. Being able to reason about religious concepts is pretty much a necessity to avoid getting trapped by power structures designed to garner blind obedience. Of course the transcendence of reality renders certain qualities noncomputable, Penrose presents an interesting related proof in his books on consciousness, so reasoning about religious concepts does not imply religion can be factually explained by logic.
“I think you are incorrect in characterizing humanity’s response to question of the meaning of “Jesus is Lord” as hostile or defensive.”
Seems you misunderstood me, my claim that humanity has a prevalence for hostility towards norm breaking questioning can hardly be refuted.
“I believe the negative response that you are getting here on these forums is a rejection of a plainly transparent attempt to open a religious debate that almost no one here wants to engage in.”
The prevalent obnoxious negativity towards a religious discussion started in a thread about religion seems to me essentially harmful, akin to the killing of Socrates as was suggested earlier.
The thread was not “about” religion until you made it one, against everybody’s intention. It was about a person seeking contact so others with the same interests. That these happen to be linked to a certain religion is a coincidence. You wouldn’t start a discussion about why the Universal Postal Union, for example, is an evil organisation in a thread of one philatelist reaching out to others, would you? You are asking important questions, no doubt about that, but in the wrong place at the wrong time. You’re helping nobody. As I said, those you want to reach aren’t listening; those who are, are just as humanist as you are. Please take it easy, play some Go.
And I queried about the specifics of those interests. If someone is looking for friends to discuss model trains with it seems highly relevant to ask if they prefer modern or old trains
Yeah, but then you go: “Do you prefer modern or old trains?” - “modern trains” - “alright, gotcha.” Not: “what do you mean, when you say ‘trains’…?” - “yeah, I like the trains in these catalogues here, have a look…” - “No, wHaT dO you mEaN wiTh ‘trains’?” Than only gets you slaps in the face, as you have seen now.
The correct method here is to look at the catalogue, see that they’re actually talking about lego trains, and then to show them your catalogue of the trains you think are superior, to see if you can spark their interest in that. Philosophy takes patience.
I’m gonna go offline soon, but we can discuss some Epicure later, if you like.
So you’re claiming no one reading a thread about Christianity is interested in the nature of Jesus?