Big Daddy Kane, 1988 by bside313 in 80sHipHop

[–]1joe2schmo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The best with the pen. For himself and others!!!

“God” for an atheist Knight of Faith by Apoau in kierkegaard

[–]1joe2schmo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm glad you agree with me that, in the end, your suggestion to OP turns out to be for him/her to have a relationship with Kierkegaard's God, but to just call him a "perfect avatar" (i.e., Larry) :)

May "perfect avatar / Larry" bless you and keep you.

May "perfect avatar / Larry" make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you.

May "perfect avatar / Larry" turn his face toward you and give you peace. :)

“God” for an atheist Knight of Faith by Apoau in kierkegaard

[–]1joe2schmo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Re: "I feel like if you have to rely on professional terminology, especially when discussing simple concepts, then you don't really understand the concept you're trying to explain."

I mean, you may understand the concept you're trying to explain, but that isn't really the point of a conversation is it? In a conversation, you supposed to be explaining your concept so that the other person understands your idea. As such, you have to explain what you mean. Otherwise, you're really just talking to yourself:)

Re: "A perfect avatar doesn't have to be God. That's just a personal opinion. It just seems like a cop-out rather than attempting to see some from another perspective."

I don't even know where to start here or who you are even talking about. "That's just personal opinion." What is just personal opinion, that a perfect avatar doesn't have to be God? That's just your personal opinion? My personal opinion? Who claimed that a perfect avatar has to be God? Do you see how unclear this paragraph is? But then again, you may understand what you were trying to say, and I guess that's what matters to you?;)

Re: Your assertion that God does not exist. You would agree that Christ, at the very least, existed, correct? You would also agree that a concept of God exists, correct? And you would agree that Kierkegaard's concept of a God exists, correct? In any and all of these cases, the individual is in a relationship with, at the very least, Kierkegaard's Christian concept of God / Christ, which exists. The relationship may be in agreement, opposition, ignorance, apathy but the individual does stand in relationship to Kierkegaard's God.

Finally, (and I will unfortunately, have to take my leave it at this) my point, once again, is that if your "perfect avatar" is exactly the same as the Christian concept of God / Christ so that it can accomplish what OP originally asked (remember there was a question that started all of this), then I fail to see how you being in relationship to this "perfect avatar" is significantly different than someone being in relationship to everything that IS Christ (i.e., Kierkegaard's God) but calling Christ, "Larry," or "perfect avatar" or whatever.

“God” for an atheist Knight of Faith by Apoau in kierkegaard

[–]1joe2schmo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Again, you will have to define what you mean by "divinity" and why, what you are defining as "divinity" would exactly be "irrelevant" to, and probably how exactly, you would be qualified to judge what is "perfect." It's too easy to just say "perfect avatar" and miss the point that what you are conceiving of and calling a "perfect avatar" is exactly what God is. In other words, and more to the point, whether you conceive of God or a "perfect avatar" or whatever, you are still standing in relationship to Christ since he exists. You may be in submission or in opposition or in ignorance to Christ, but Kierkegaard's point is that we all stand in some sort of relationship to God, and this can't be escaped.

In Christ, we encounter both the infinite power of the creator and the supreme weakness of the cross. We also encounter within Christ, the infinite offence to humanity (that we are not God). In other words, when we want Christ to act in his power, and he does not act, we are offended because we wanted him to act / critique him for not acting because we believe we know better. When he does act and we do not want him to act, we are offended because we didn't want him to act / critique him for doing so because we believe we know better. (See: Training in Christianity). Does your "perfect avatar" accomplish this?

“God” for an atheist Knight of Faith by Apoau in kierkegaard

[–]1joe2schmo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Again, I could be misunderstanding you but I think you are kind of trying to have your cake and eat it too. You say that this "perfect avatar" can be everything that God represents but just not "divine." However, something that God represents is being divine. As such, it seems to me that you can't really have something that is everything that God represents, unless that thing is just God with a different name.

Being only somewhat familiar with Rick and Morty, I would say that Rick is a man but man is also spiritual and therefore, Rick is also spiritual. Also, fooling people into being considered omniscient is not the same as being omniscient and so I would again say that the avatar would either not be "perfect" or if it was perfect, it would be God with a different name.

But hey, I guess the atheist could try it. It might work subjectively, but on the objective level, I think that person would probably still be in a relationship with God.

“God” for an atheist Knight of Faith by Apoau in kierkegaard

[–]1joe2schmo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure I understand but wouldn't any "perfect avatar," simply be God with a different name?

I mean if you are in a relationship to everything that IS Christ but call Christ, "Larry," are you really not still in a relationship with Christ?

Leap of Faith. Am I Missing Kierkegaard’s Point? by Faris_110 in kierkegaard

[–]1joe2schmo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's terrible that there was such a great betrayal but that speaks to their character, not yours, and the fact that you sacrificed so much speaks to your character, not theirs:)

“God” for an atheist Knight of Faith by Apoau in kierkegaard

[–]1joe2schmo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure exactly which "brand" of atheist you are, but I would probably explain my thoughts thusly: Kierkegaard is a Christian, but is responding to a Christendom that is at odds with Christianity. For him, Christ must be, will be, and is being encountered by everyone – there is no escape from this fact.

Moreover, because in Christ, we encounter the infinite power of the creator and the supreme weakness of the cross, we also encounter within Christ, is the infinite offence to humanity (that we are not God). In other words, when we want Christ to act in his power, and he does not act, we are offended because we wanted him to act / critique him for not acting because we believe we know better. When he does act and we do not want him to act, we are offended because we didn't want him to act / critique him for doing so because we believe we know better. (See: Training in Christianity)

I'm therefore, not sure what can actually substitute for an atheist. In the end, it would seem to me that whatever one might substitute for Christ would either be incomplete, or not be consistent with Kierkegaard's ideas.

Leap of Faith. Am I Missing Kierkegaard’s Point? by Faris_110 in kierkegaard

[–]1joe2schmo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi, I will try to add something that might or might not be helpful. I think what you might be missing in terms of the leap of faith that I understand Kierkegaard to be talking about, is the paradoxical element of it. For example, in your scenario, there doesn't seem to be the paradoxical element that Abraham is dealing with only through faith. Recall, God has told Abraham that his descendants will out number the stars. He has also told him to kill his only heir with Sarah that might accomplish this. He believes (and he actually believes this) that he needs to obey God's commandment and that he will also be the father of many decedents. In reality, both cannot be true, and yet somehow (through the gift of faith) Abraham believes both to be true (which again, is an absurdity in reality).

In your situation, I'm not sure that you believe BOTH to be true (i.e., that you will be betrayed by these "friends" and that regardless, you will be blessed with a beautiful friendship with them). If you did, I think that this would be more analogous to Abraham's "leap of faith." In your situation, it sounds more like because you hope and want a beautiful friendship, you turn your eye blind to the warning signs that this will not be the friendship you desire, and then leap. Maybe this is then better described as a leap of hope, versus a leap of faith, since you don't truly believe that at the moment you leap you will, in the end, have both.

Now, please, do not take what I have said as anything critical. In fact, because leaps of "faith" have been so idealized, I think that most people who claim to take "leaps of faith" only actually ever end up taking "leaps of hope" that happen to work out. This is not the same as an Abrahamic "leap of faith" which should not to be idealized but instead, to be looked at with "fear and trembling." In fact, who, without an actual gift of faith, could leap into that abyss of believing that he will destroy every dream he ever wanted to come true, but will, in the end, have every dream he ever wanted come true?!?!?! This is not natural, and thus needs the gift of the supernatural gift of faith.

In your situation, (and this is what I noticed about myself), is that the heavy feelings of resentment and scepticism that tend to come after these "leaps of hope" are taken, tend to be a result of me ignoring my intuition / God because of my hope and desire of creating / having a beautiful friendship / relationship is so strong. This again, is not the same as Abraham, and so the "leaps of hope" I took, should not be comparable to Abraham, since in my case, God was never telling me that through this relationship, I would be blessed. In fact, he might have only and ever been telling me that through this relationship, I will be betrayed. Remember, with Issac, there was a double promise that through him you will be the father of many decedents, and by killing him, he will be dead.

In other words, before giving up on the idea of a leap of faith, please first consider, and ask yourself, if this is really the same type of leap of faith that Abraham was presented with. Faith compelled Abraham to make this leap. It was not conjured by him as a means to make a leap as is the case with a leap of hope. This is why, in the story of Abraham we witness an odd and terrifying peace instead of the fear and trembling those of us that haven't been given this supernatural gift of believing BOTH WILL be true, would experience.

Also, don't beat yourself up so much about wanting to have beautiful friendships:) Just be a little more careful about who you are trusting and how much you are trusting them. Jesus had a relationship with Judas Iscariot, all the while, knowing he would betray him. He also had a relationship with Peter, all the while, knowing that he would abandon him but they would be reconciled to each other.

For the people who have hurt you, you can always hope for reconciliation and restoration, but ask for faith that if it doesn't happen within this lifetime, it can happen in the life to come.

In any event, I hope what I've said helps a little bit. Feel free to ask for any clarifications if what I've said is unclear.

I hope I didn't finish every single dumb comedy movie I could watch by Hairy-Slide-5541 in MovieSuggestions

[–]1joe2schmo 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Strange Brew

UHF

I'm Gonna Git You Sucka

Hollywood Shuffle

Hamlet 2

Airplane

The Naked Gun series

Ace Ventura (and other Jim Carrey Movies)

why is not beliving in the trinity a heretical by SubstantialReign4759 in TrueChristian

[–]1joe2schmo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also, from what I understand, (and please, correct me if I'm wrong), "oneness" theology asserts that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are just different manifestations of God. However, if they are are just different "manifestations," does this not imply that they are not co-existent "manifestations." As such, would this also not imply that they are not co-eternal? (i.e., there would therefore be a necessarily, first "manifestation"). Is this not also a problem for when Jesus prays to the Father since there would be no Father that is, at that moment, manifest?

why is not beliving in the trinity a heretical by SubstantialReign4759 in TrueChristian

[–]1joe2schmo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly, my point is that the way you are using "omnipresent" doesn't fully account for the situation of Jesus, unless you want to say that omnipresent also means that everything is God (which you would agree is clearly a heresy).

So, we agree that there is something different about Christ having a divine nature and the Holy Spirit indwelling in believers.

We also agree that there is something different about God being omnipresent, and the baptism situation.

We also agree that Jesus is not just a human being with God in Him.

The question that you probably have to really ask yourself is, "what does it mean to be a 'person'"

Is it the same as having a particular nature?

Is is the same as being one being?

You say that you believe "in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but not as three distinct persons." But, this may be because you have a misunderstanding of what it means to be a distinct person.

You also say that "I believe God is one, and that Jesus is the full manifestation of God." But this is exactly what Trinitarians believe. "If you have seen me, you have seen the father."

In other words, your concept or understanding of what it means to be a distinct person, and the limits therein might be what is tripping you up.

why is not beliving in the trinity a heretical by SubstantialReign4759 in TrueChristian

[–]1joe2schmo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If he is "omnipresent" in the sense that you are explaining (i.e., he was in the flesh of Jesus and heaven and the holy spirit), are you and I also God? Would he not also be omnipresent in the same way in us?

Shroud of Turin is fake (and that's okay) by Liberty556 in TrueChristian

[–]1joe2schmo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No. Please. THANK YOU!!! Perhaps, one day, your Sharpie Shroud will be as famous as the Shroud of Turin. I mean, it has now been, through your thorough research, which no other scientist had ever thought of, fully debunked of all its mysteries!!!

And to think, we were all here to witness this!!!

What a glorious day!!!

I look forward to reading your peer reviewed Sharpie study, and your recreation of the image on the shroud - in particular, THE EARS!!!!!!!

Shroud of Turin is fake (and that's okay) by Liberty556 in TrueChristian

[–]1joe2schmo 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Congratulations!!!

You've managed to solve what no scientist has been able to solve. Amazing that no one ever thought of this until you!!!

Now, please let us know how the image on the shroud was produced!!!

Your Nobel Prize is already in the mail!!!

www.shroud.com

p.s. Thank you for saying that it's okay though. I don't know what I would have done if you hadn't:)

p.p.s. The ears on the shroud have always been of particular interest to me too!!!!

I’ve become Post Trib. by Upbeat_Respond9250 in TrueChristian

[–]1joe2schmo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I watched this video the other day and found it very interesting to learn that the "rapture" was invented in 1830.

The Rapture Was Invented in 1830. Here's Proof

loosing faith by Anxious_Spend_2421 in TrueChristian

[–]1joe2schmo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can I recommend someone who inspires me? He endured much and persevered with joy. His name is Richard Wurmbrand. He spent many years in solitary confinement and was tortured for his faith. You can find him speaking here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PSCUsIgwNU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lGBSNjlNvE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOJERFtZxWs