Christianity without Christ: Is it Doable, Self-deception, or "Fool-ology"*?
In the CD forums, posts come from all angles and expressions: from the sublimed to the ridiculous. One is Christianity. You ask, how could this be? Several posters, namely @BroRando, @Bill_Coley, JWs Organization, and recently departed Wolfgang, to name a few, claims to accept the "inspiration" of the Bible, Jesus as Lord, Messiah, pray to Him and look to Him for salvation.
Yet, at the same time, they deny Jesus' Divinity. Claimed Jesus was born (just a man) or, at best, an angel who receives worship but shouldn't. Believe this, Jesus was has returned, and there is no resurrection. They questioned his birth, his name, self-identification, His oneness: Co-equal, co-eternal, with the Father and the Holy Spirit (God). They seem to exalt human reason above faith and revelation. Above all, this Jesus, they claimed to love, call on, pray to and teach others, is "a god" according to John 1:1 (NWT), and a few obscured Bible Translations (done by individuals, lacked reliable gk/Heb texts, or had access to the latest biblical finds).
CD Posters, can they love Christ, accept him, and deny him simultaneously? I am asking the remaining Anti-Trinitarian Trio ( @BroRando, @Bill_Coley, and @theMadJW ) in a simple straight forward way to reconcile this apparent contradiction. I prefer each one to respond individually, but I will accept a joint response.
Until then, I would like to name above: Are you a practitioner of self-deception and knowingly peddling Fool-ology? Correct me if I am wrong if I misrepresented your position. By all means, state your position clearly and concisely. It looks like this remaining anti-Trinitarian Trio is trying to have its religious cake and eat it too. CM
*Fool-ology -- I define this as the study of foolishness. CM
A source to consider :
- Bentivegna, J. “A Christianity without Christ by Theophilus of Antioch.” Studia Patristica 13 (1975): 107-130.
Comments
-
@C Mc posted:
CD Posters, can they love Christ, accept him, and deny him simultaneously? I am asking the remaining Anti-Trinitarian Trio ( @BroRando, @Bill_Coley, and @theMadJW ) in a simple straight forward way to reconcile this apparent contradiction. I prefer each one to respond individually, but I will accept a joint response.
Until then, I would like to name above: Are you a practitioner of self-deception and knowingly peddling Fool-ology? Correct me if I am wrong if I misrepresented your position. By all means, state your position clearly and concisely. It looks like this remaining anti-Trinitarian Trio is trying to have its religious cake and eat it too.
And YET AGAIN you launch a thread whose OP names and criticizes CD posters who disagree with you on the matter of the divinity of Jesus. These forums teem with threads in which the posters you name in this new OP have stated their respective positions "clearly and concisely" (well, that "concisely" thing might not apply, given the quantity and magnitude of many of those threads). I have created scores, perhaps hundreds, of posts on the subject, several in direct response to your comments, questions, etc. In my view, I have made my views about the divinity of Jesus clear. I accept that you disagree with my views! But I have made those views clear.
Given what comes off to me as your undisciplined use of the pronoun "they," I'm not certain as to which among the menagerie of characterizations included in your OP, if any, you intended to reflect my views. Of the 16 characterizations that I count in your post, nine accurately reflect my views, six are not accurate, and the meaning of the other one is not clear enough for me to offer an assessment. I will detail which are which among those characterizations if you agree to answer directly and without evasion, distraction, or dismissal (or in your words, "without smoke, sidestepping, distracting, or detouring") any and all Christology-focused questions I pose to you along with those details.
What more is there to say? We disagree, CM. We simply disagree. I don't disparage your faith. I don't disrespect your views. I don't consider you to be a "practitioner of self-deception," or one who "knowingly peddl(es) Foo-ology." I consider you to be a follower of Jesus, a fellow member of the Body of Christ. I celebrate your passion for Christ and your commitment to these forums. But I disagree with your Christology (as you disagree with mine).
-
Goodness! What a reactive ad hominem. Sounds like someone is feeling about done here.
My position on the OP is:
No, one can’t accept Christ and deny Him at the same time.
Post edited by Truth on -
I acknowledged your post and response. Thank you. Sometimes, one concise position gets lost with all the literary noise, e-ink flying, and distraction of repetitive content. This is why I ask what I did.
@Bill_Coley, I further acknowledged:
- You "don't disparage" my "faith."
- You don't "disrespect" my "views."
- You "don't consider" me "to be a "practitioner of self-deception." Thanks, @Bill_Coley, for your discernment.
The OP is addressed, though it mentioned the anti-trinitarian Trio, to the larger audience (other posters and silent readers). You are privileged to respond without any conditions or make demands on others as ransom to respond to you. I don't need to remind you that one responds as one chooses and when.
PS. I can't entirely agree with your opening statement to your last post:
"And YET AGAIN you launch a thread whose OP names and criticizes CD posters who disagree with you on the divinity of Jesus."
- Are you serious about me criticizing CD posters?
- In what way do I criticize CD posters?
- Have you changed your mind on Christ?
- Are you ashamed of your positions?
- Are not your position in the open forums alone with the others in the Trio?
Thinking out loud. CM
-
@C Mc posted:
The OP is addressed, though it mentioned the anti-trinitarian Trio, to the larger audience (other posters and silent readers).
In your previous post, I read the words, "I am asking the remaining Anti-Trinitarian Trio ( @BroRando, @Bill_Coley, and @theMadJW ) in a simple straight forward way to reconcile this apparent contradiction. I prefer each one to respond individually, but I will accept a joint response," to be directed specifically to "the anti-Trinitarian Trio," not to "the larger audience (other posters and silent readers)." Are you saying that when you asked "the Anti-Trinitarian Trio" to "respond individually" to your post, you actually were asking "other posters and silent readers" to respond individually (though you would "accept a joint response")?
Similarly, I read the words, "Are you a practitioner of self-deception and knowingly peddling Fool-ology? Correct me if I am wrong if I misrepresented your position. By all means, state your position clearly and concisely," to be addressed to "the anti-Trinitarian Trio." Are you saying that when you asked whether the reader of your previous post was a "practitioner of self-deception and knowingly peddling Fool-ology," you actually were asking "other posters and silent readers" whether they were such practitioners and peddlers?
Are you serious about me criticizing CD posters?
Yes.
In what way do I criticize CD posters?
Consider your previous post. Examine its sentences. Look specifically for the subject of its claims, which I've highlighted below:
- "Several posters, namely @BroRando, @Bill_Coley, JWs Organization, and recently departed Wolfgang, to name a few, claims to accept the "inspiration" of the Bible, Jesus as Lord, Messiah, pray to Him and look to Him for salvation.
- "Yet, at the same time, they deny Jesus' Divinity. Claimed Jesus was born (just a man) or, at best, an angel who receives worship but shouldn't. Believe this, Jesus was has returned, and there is no resurrection. They questioned his birth, his name, self-identification, His oneness: Co-equal, co-eternal, with the Father and the Holy Spirit (God). They seem to exalt human reason above faith and revelation. Above all, this Jesus, they claimed to love, call on, pray to and teach others, is "a god" according to John 1:1 (NWT), and a few obscured Bible Translations (done by individuals, lacked reliable gk/Heb texts, or had access to the latest biblical finds).
- "CD Posters, can they love Christ, accept him, and deny him simultaneously? I am asking the remaining Anti-Trinitarian Trio ( @BroRando, @Bill_Coley, and @theMadJW ) in a simple straight forward way to reconcile this apparent contradiction. I prefer each one to respond individually, but I will accept a joint response.
- "Until then, I would like to name above: Are you a practitioner of self-deception and knowingly peddling Fool-ology? Correct me if I am wrong if I misrepresented your position. By all means, state your position clearly and concisely. It looks like this remaining anti-Trinitarian Trio is trying to have its religious cake and eat it too."
Other posters - in this case, the ones you call "the Anti-Trinitarian Trio" (nothing dismissive about that name!) - are the subjects of those criticisms. It's not our views that are "trying to have (our) religious cake and eat it too."
If you disagree with my views, GREAT! Say so. Quote my views and then explain why you disagree with them. It looks like this: "Bill, in THIS POST, you wrote, 'XYZ.' I disagree with 'XYZ' because..." and then tell why you disagree with "XYZ." You don't have to mention me at all, except to remind me that "XYZ" is what I wrote, and is apparently my view. You certainly don't have to comment on my "religious cake" eating.
When you create such an issue-based post, I will respond in kind, quoting your post, writing to you, "CM, in your post you wrote, 'ABC.' I disagree with 'ABC' because...." I won't have to mention you except to remind you that "ABC" is what you wrote and is apparently your view.
The subjects of sentences that criticize views are the views, NOT the holders of those views.
Have you changed your mind on Christ?
No. Please quote from one or more of posts to help me understand the basis of this question.
Are you ashamed of your positions?
No. Please quote from one or more of posts to help me understand the basis of this question.
Are not your position in the open forums alone with the others in the Trio?
If you're asking whether there are CD posters other than Wolfgang, @BroRando, and me who dispute Trinitarian theology, the answer is I don't know for sure; I have no way of knowing about the Christology of CD's "silent readers." Among the handful of active CD posters, certainly we are the only ones who appear to dispute trinitarian theology. Because we're a VERY small group of active posters in these threads, those who embrace Trinitarian theology can't outnumber those who don't by much!
Within the Body of Christ writ large, I readily acknowledge, Trinitarian theology is embraced by the majority - probably the very large majority - of people. FWIW, I respect their views, praise God for their faith, and consider them fellow followers of Jesus; the same reaction as I have to you and your Christological views.
Post edited by Bill_Coley on -
Can a post or an OP do two things at once? I named a specific group, yet I intended to speak to a larger audience. So, let's not get overly steamed up. The questions in the OP are for all, including me. It's written, but it's designed to stimulate thought. That's all! Let's remain at peace. Truth can be uncomfortable sometimes.
So be it if you want to blame me for being a poor writer. Did you overlook this sentence in my original post: "Correct me if I am wrong if I misrepresented your position." The questions in my PS were just what I said they were, "thinking out loud." No answers are required.
Let's give it a rest. Allow others to respond to the OP at the time and pace of their choosing. Thanks again for your post. I need to take a break myself. CM
PS. @Bill_Coley, I noticed lately, anytime it comes for @BroRando to respond to a question or a situation, you seem to become very energized before his responding, if at all. Thinking out aloud. I won't ask why. CM
Post edited by C Mc on -
@C Mc posted:
Can a post or an OP do two things at once? I named a specific group, yet I intended to speak to a larger audience. So, let's not get overly steamed up. The questions in the OP are for all, including me. It's written, but it's designed to stimulate thought. That's all! Let's remain at peace. Truth can be uncomfortable sometimes.
Part of your post WAS directed at a larger audience, I agree; but not its questions. In this instance, the "uncomfortable" truth is that a question that began, "I am asking the remaining Anti-Trinitarian Trio" was not directed to every forum reader; it was directed to two (or three) very specific forum readers.
So be it if you want to blame me for being a poor writer. Did you overlook this sentence in my original post: "Correct me if I am wrong if I misrepresented your position." The questions in my PS were just what I said they were, "thinking out loud." No answers are required.
I hold you accountable for what you write, just as I hold myself accountable for what I write. I don't think we CD posters get to pick and choose the parts of our posts for which we'll take responsibility. My goodness, CM, you called us "the Anti-Trinitarian Trio"! Sounds like the name of a protest folk group from the mid 60's. And in your post, as if ignoring the fact that at least two of the "Trio" were probably going to read it, you offered quasi-gossipy accusations about us:
- "THEY question his birth."
- "THEY seem to exalt human reason over faith and revelation!"
- "THEY both accept and deny Christ!"
I was standing right there when you said that stuff about me/us! You thought perhaps I wouldn't hear you?
All writers - good, bad, and in-between - can and should be careful writers.
@Bill_Coley, I noticed lately, anytime it comes for @BroRando to respond to a question or a situation, you seem to become very energized before his responding, if at all. Thinking out aloud. I won't ask why. CM
I have no connection or allegiance to, and profound theological disagreements with @BroRando. I respect his views, but that's my default response to people.
As for my "energized" responses, note that of late you and a couple of other CD posters have occupied a good deal of posting territory with your rather strident critiques of him, his beliefs, and suggestions that he might be some form of AI computer bot. There hasn't been a lot else to comment on. That said, I assure you that I respond for myself on the issues that prompt me to respond, and do so with whatever energy fuels each post. @BroRando has no role in and provides no inspiration for either my decisions to post or the content of the posts I create. That is, I take full responsibility for every word I post.
-
When Jan said we should call out bad behavior publicly, and that some might be embarrassed by that (or something like that) I foresaw this coming. Certain people (far be it from me to name anyone—but wear the shoe if it fits) would need to “mama” the whole group. Jan said he didn’t trust anyone present to moderate this group and I bet we all agree.
We can see what happens: Free lunch! “Lord of the flies.”
@C Mc Can you see CM (calling you both a name and by name), that an entity (heaven forbid we should imply who by name—they might tell on us) is smoking you out with attenuated ad hominem for distraction from the topic?
Surely, any honest, good-willed, capable, debate teacher would drill this poli-science skill into their high school students.
Post edited by Truth on -
I missed you message completely. May be you can use a PM to avoid stepping on any toes. CM
-
Sorry. I did not mean to be inflammatory. Rather I meant to de-inflame. I may not be good at that! I am happy to let it go. If it means anything helpful to anyone, take it to heart. If not, then skip along.
