your friend.. God

[Harkoliar]

heya LK.. its been a while . no worries since you werent reading the last page right away [img]smile.gif[/img] .

[LordKathen]

How you doin Hark? Ya, been real busy with work and family. I am going to try and post more, seens how you all miss me so much... [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] . Ok, its me who misses you guys! Anyhow, I am off to bed. Goodnight guys. [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]

[Harkoliar]

gudnyt LK! [img]smile.gif[/img] at least its nice to drop by.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Your the one sowing confusion here Yorick, with your belittlement, guilt trips, insuations and accusations. Do you really know what Christ means when I use the word? What it feels on the inside of ME to have a relationship with Christ? Do you know what it means to know and nuture your own Christ-consciousness? Because thats what I am all about when I talk about inner-christ. I speak of a personal spiritual transformation. Do you mean to belittle my beliefs I have shared! Well fine, feel real good about yourself okay, enjoy yourself. I challenged your use of a limited definition of a concept, of a word and in return you have personally attacked my spiritual beliefs, opinions and ideas because they do not do not fit your own, and I wont take it. To think how hurt you acted because someone made a half-true generalization and then to turn around and belittle my personally knowledge and understanding of Christ. That's TRULY ridiculous and quite revealing. Are you so closed minded you cannot believe that Karma has more than one defintion? Are you so hell-bent to demonize every religion but your own you won't open your eyes to ideas that may not have cross your path before? I did not pull this concept and defintion of Karma out of my ass, it is as old as hermetic philosophy and thats pretty damn ancient. You know what, it is irrelevant. I have declared my beleifs and refuted your narrowing of the concept of Karma and how it fits with Christianity. What ever you say from this point on is irrelevant because it will obviously come from your desire to push your beliefs and belittle those that are different. Somebody stick a fork in this thread, its done!

????????

1. I never belittled your beliefs. I challenged your understanding of the English language. Big difference.

2. "Karma" was and is a Hindu worldview. Buddhism adopted it because it is a reaction against Hindu values, but is still within the Hindu worldview of cyclic rebirth and pantheism. As such it does not fit within Christianity at all because of it's specific reincarnational effects, however, a "softer" definition - which I actually allowed for in my original use of the word - limits it to a universal "cause and effect" barometer. (Please note this Kathen)

3. You have not offered an alternate definition of the word "Karma" merely challenged my ability to use it in a sentence along with Law, in terms of ascribing guilt. Whether the soft definition or the accurate definition is used, the fact remains, if something keeps a record of right and wrong actions, it ascribes guilt. This is not something you've addressed.

4.In keeping with my challenging your use of ENGLISH, not your beliefs, I brought up your use of the word "Christ". Again, you speak of "Annointed One consciousness". I am not sure if you intend to mean what you say when you use the word. If I am not mistaked you mean "Divine" do you not? One's inner divinity? One's divine consciouness? What's wrong with using a correct word? Why use "annointed one" instead of "divine"?

If this is not what you mean, then feel free to elaborate. I am all about clarity and understanding. It simply frustrates me when people apply their own definition to a word instead of taking the time to understand what the word means. (As I said Christ and Messiah mean exactly the same thing. Messiah is Hebrew, Christ is Greek. "Jesus" is an anglocisation of his Greek name Iesus, hence the Greek honorific. Y'shua Messiah, would be the Hebrew.)

In any case I INTRODUCED THE TERM INTO THIS DISCUSSION. You are the one that semanticly challenged my use of the word. I stand by what I said.

[ 10-16-2003, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by LordKathen: While you are correct about words having specific meanings, most of our language comes from interpretations from other languages. I have debated with you before, and had become quite distracted from your symantics. We live in a time where words are constantly slanged, changed, misinterpreted,and admitingly screwed up. Not everyone here is as "symanticly articulate" as you. Maybe you could try not to read everything so concretely, and try to remember that alot of people speak generaly. Like "Karma". There is a definate root definition to the word, but after so long it has kinda come to maybe mean slightly diferent things to some people. I personaly think of it as "what comes around goes around". You could expound on that to meet your own thoughts just a little, ya know, generally speaking. Please dont take offence to what I am saying Yorick, It was just a thought I had, reading your response to others (and me) in the past, and in this thread. Besides all that, I hav'nt been around IW works in a while. Hope everything is going well with your music and your life.

Good to see you again Kathen, and I hope you're well yourself. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'll simply reiterate, that it was I who was taken to task for using a correct definition of a word. I'm simply defending my right to use it in a sentence. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Melusine: But Hugh, sorry mate but why be so fierce? Why not discuss what Chewbacca said with just a smidge more respect?

I thought I was simply being matter of fact. Thanks for pointing this out, and I'll look more carefully at what I write. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Melusine: [QB] Christ may mean anointed one, but it has also come to be used as a name. The Pope isn't a name, it means father, yet it *is* used as a name and a form of address and reference. You can use adjectives like papal without people ridiculing you and asking if you mean "of or pertaining to or belonging to a father". I thought it was kind of sad you felt you had to ridicule Chewbacca for saying "inner Christ". That usage is just as wrong or right as saying "Christ-like qualities". Of course you don't mean "anointed one qualities", you mean qualities resembling those of Jesus Christ.

Actually you are incorrect. [img]tongue.gif[/img] A good number of Christians know exactly what "Christ" means. The word "Christ-ian" comes from "Little annointed one." In pentecostal circles especially, the term "the annointing" (of God) is used quite regularly. Depending on the context a person could mean either.

If Chewbacca meant, for instance, that everyone should try and find an 'inner voice' that aspires to resemble Jesus in terms of all his good qualities, then I don't see how that is wrong, or how it is fair to ridicule his use of the term for that. No one OWNS the right to a religion. Christians all over the world disagree on smaller matters. That's why Chewbacca was right too, that you don't speak for all Christians, not even all Protestants, as I know you know too.

No, but I am familiar with their professed beliefs if they are members of a particular church. [img]smile.gif[/img] Every major christian denomination has articles of faith publicly stated. Of course individual members are going to deviate from those articles, but it is a good foundation for discussion.

Additionally, peoples beliefs change over time. New Christians can have all sorts of beliefs which change as they progresss in life. People who have been Bible reading christians for longer tend to have beliefs that co-align more than newer christians, so the articles of faith of the churches end up becoming a result.

For example, I spoke about the freedom from guilt knowing Jesus grace gives you. A new christian may have a surface level understanding of that, but not feel it. They may in fact be walking around with a heap of guilt. Especially if they have a Catholic background they've rejected in their past.

However, the longer they spend in the realisation that Jesus has forgiven them, the more that guilt gets stripped away. It's a process. Christians are works in progress, not completed individuals. We are at varying levels of understanding, relationship, healing and closeness with God. But we are all equally saved.

We also have a solid point of reference - the Bible. You can measure a persons beliefs against that immovable constant. My words about Jesus grace are all through the New Testament. It is not simply a matter of opinion about peoples beliefs, but knowing that Jesus forgave the murderer alongside him on the cross for example.

Bear in mind, we teach each other. Christians have teachers, pastors, preachers and counsellors. Christians generally WANT to grow in belief and faith, and move towards truth. Understanding what words actually mean is a part of that. Yeshua literally means "Yahweh saves" for example. It gives us material to ponder over. How Jesus was perceived in his time for example. People called him "The Christ" to his face. No biblical scholar uses this as proof people saw Jesus as God, because the word doesn't mean that. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Like Pope or King or Czar or Doctor or Professor it is an honorific. A Title if you will. Christ Jesus. Jesus Christ. Jesus the Christ.

As for Karma, just a single line from a dictionary isn't going to help you much. You know I defended you and your arguments about definitions of words before. But you should realise that while we need workable definitions of words, and not arbitrarily decide for ourselves that for instance 'sect' means 'all religions' , there is absolutely nothing wrong with suggesting that Karma is not exclusive to Hindu and Buddhist beliefs, or explaining what it means to you personally.

All well and good, except that I was taken to task for MY use of the word. I clarified with a dictionary definition, and then an educative post and link to another website, and then defined it in my own words.

Chewbacca, though disagreeing, did not offer an alternate definition.

No religion has used the word in a huge deviation from it's "cause and effect" definition I mentioned as a "softer" definition. What I initially said still stands. Jesus grace removes a person from the guilt ascribed by a measurer of wrongs, such as Karma or Law.

BTW - if I get a reaction similar to the ones I've seen lately, I don't think I'll respond. I'm sorry, but I wouldn't like to jeopardise our very much valued friendship and I feel you sometimes do get what you yourself once called 'arrogant' in debates, not wanting to take words as they were intended but as whatever you make them to mean... Sorry mate. I hope you'll take that from a friend, in the spirit in which it was intended.

Of course. [img]smile.gif[/img] You rock Sah! I loves ya!

[ 10-16-2003, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Melusine]

Originally posted by Yorick: Actually you are incorrect. A good number of Christians know exactly what "Christ" means. The word "Christ-ian" comes from "Little annointed one." In pentecostal circles especially, the term "the annointing" (of God) is used quite regularly. Depending on the context a person could mean either.

No, I *am* correct since I never said Christians don't know what Christ means or anything like that (I used a generic you, not a Hugh-you [img]smile.gif[/img] ). So all I said was that the words "Christ-like qualities" are usually meant to mean "qualities like those of Christ", not "qualities of an anointed one". I never denied that Christ means anointed one, just that when people say Christ they usually mean to refer to the person called Jesus Christ. And that therefore Chewbacca's use of the word didn't need to be completely ridiculed and dismissed. [img]smile.gif[/img]

As for the rest of the debate, I think you were both going a little too far since Harkoliar has stated he didn't like the derailment of his thread, and preferred for it to stay clean of controversial discussions. So let's take this elsewhere, if we're taking it anywhere at all.

Of course. You rock Sah! I loves ya!

Thanks mate [img]smile.gif[/img] Hope you're doing well *hugs*
How's Miss er... South Carolina?


Oh and Hi Lord Kathen, long time no see! [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

O.k. point taken Sarah. So let's explore that a little more.

Someone could ascribe to King-like qualities. Someone could ascribe to Pope-like qualities, and someone could ascribe to Christ-like qualities. Similarly someone can ascribe to Melusine-like qualities, Memnoch-like qualities or Jesus-like qualities.

The line between name and honorific is blurred only because a christian doesn't call anyone else "Christ". Jews only believed in one "Christ". It doesn't in any way make "Christ" Yeshua's name though.

When I read Chewbacca using the word "one's inner Christ" I am honestly confused. In the context it seems like "One's inner divinity". How could it be read any other way? If he's replacing "Divine" with "Christ" it's quite incorrect as a quick glance through the new testament will tell you. People called him "the Christ." This in no way meant they were calling him God or divine, and any reading of it as such is incorrect. Citing the New Testeament as being irrelevent is no defense either. We call Jesus "the Christ" in the first place, precisely because of what's written in the new testament.

As I said, Christ and Messiah mean the same thing. One Greek the other Hebrew. I repeat, would Chewbacca refer to his "inner Messiah"? You could have Messiah-like qualities. You could have a "Messiah complex" Do you have an inner messiah? What is the inner messiah annointed to do?

Sarah, why should we perpetuate an incorrect usage of a word if we come across it? If I started bandying about a Dutch word incorrectly or in vague or confusing contexts, wouldn't you seek to correct me? Must we be so politically correct that we just accept any word used in whatever context?

In any case, I used it as a second example of an existing word, used by millions, being the subject of an attempted redefinition. Vagueness is the enemy of communication. Clarity and specificness are in my mind, things to be encouraged if understanding is to be reached. [img]smile.gif[/img]

As to your inquirey de femme.... we'll find out tonight.

[Melusine]

It has nothing to do with political correctness or wrong usage. I know what wrong usage is, I study English. This is controversial usage, dubious usage. I think I got the gist of what Chewbacca intended by the term, you didn't, or at least you assert that what he is trying to say isn't conveyed accurately by the words he uses. But it's not as black and white as you want it to be, nor, as I said, does being creative with word definitions mean you're trying to be politically correct (puhlease). Yes, I absolutely agree we need workable definitions of words to communicate, no, I don't think it's wrong to personalise definitions or explain what a certain word means to you personally, or to refine, adapt, elaborate upon and nuance definitions. There's a big difference between the definition of say happiness, or solitude, as found in a dictionary and the answer you will get when you ask 10 different people "what does happiness (or solitude) mean to you?"

Say HI to Anne, BTW And good luck, have fun [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 10-16-2003, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Melusine ]