This is hard to read as-is. My responses are the () portions. I'll go through and bold them one day.
A "conversation" with One Michael (Soldier for Christ) F.
I dunno if you read my blogs but i started to read yours. comments are
as follows: Why don't you seem to regard people who aren't Christians that exhibit
kindness, charity, patience, and perseverance as significant? It's obvious
> they've found something to make them attain such high quality whether
they choose to claim God as responsible or not yet they still aren't good
enough?
Because there's an overabundance of people who don't realize that their
motivations for having these qualities are selfish rather than God
glorifying. (first off, I know how selfish I can be, and I know the difference of what it feels like to be selfless) The idea of using the metaphor of being a servant for God
carries over to this: A slave doesn't feel like doing whatever they've
been tasked to do because it makes THEM feel good, rather it's what their
master demands of them.(Wait, so these soldiers of the faith that are supposed to be spreading the word and showing the paths are slaves now?) Christians are the same way, we do what we do
because it's all for God, not for ourselves.(Its what people say when they want to justify anything their not comfortable with, ehem the Inquisition)The idea comes from Matthew
7:21-23 which says:
"21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22
On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your
name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your
name?'
23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you
workers of lawlessness.'" (I guess people can't be good people just because it feels good and natural)(Again, perfect example of EVERYTHING being justified as long as you can blame God)
This along with the analogy of using fruit trees to describe faith and
works, and the idea in James 2 that "faith without works is dead" combines
into the concept that people who think they have it right because they're
"good people" are no better than people who are in open rebellion towards
God.(the claim doesn't define the action, and the works can express terrible things about the claim. Can anyone say persecuting homos?" It's almost like they're trying to fool God or work their way into
Heaven, and that's impossible. To use the fruit tree idea, if you have
some kind of regular tree, but glue a bunch of bright red apples all over
it (good works)... doesn't make it an apple tree. Likewise, if you have a
DEAD apple tree (dead faith), it doesn't produce any good works, even if
it's the right kind of tree (faith of SOME kind). Faith without works is a
dead faith. Works, however, do not create faith, but vice versa.(This is so stupid and confusing to me I don't really know what to say about it. God forbid he use real world examples to make sense and not convoluted analogies.)
> You refer to God's standards of designating whether one's a Christian or
not. I don't know how many times i can say it, NO ONE is talking to God.
The bible as his "word" is historically, factually, irrefutibly
incorrect
> in its wording, claims, and stories. And ITS NOT GOD'S FAULT. I really
suggest you read "Misquoting Jesus." and "The gospel of Judas" Man is man,
> man cannot trust man. To think any pastor, priest, layman, etc. is the
perfect guide to your happiness is a self esteem issue, not one of
salvation. To think the words are infallible and perfect is plain
denial.
> Its not an atheist or rebel attitude that says those things its just an
informed one.
I disagree that no one is talking to God.(Schizophrenics) I don't know how to approach
this paragraph since it's entirely structured on that statement(Which its not, that is one opinion, or fact, I offered, he chose to say otherwise and avoid what else was said), other
than the fact that making a statement like that is a core argument that
people have to disprove Christianity.(who's trying to disprove Christianity? I'm well aware its here and people are part of it. The only thing I disprove are people and their convictions, Not their God or their faith) I'm not sure how anybody can solidly
show that could be true, much like I can't solidly show that I'm right in
what I say either.(I can prove most if not all the claims I make, and what I can't I can bring up evidence supporting as "proof." He loves to say bullshit and call me incorrect and never provide why)
As far as the Bible being inaccurate, I'm sorry but so far, in as long as
I've heard that claim made, nobody has actually bitten into it enough to
give Christians reason to think the Bible is false. (The dumbest fucking thing he's said so far) An example would be
where you pointed out the verses before, verses which I'm sure have been
used many times to try and show that God contradicts Himself. (I explained that one already, he brought it up for no reason, even after I told him I was wrong) You've seen
that there's a lot more than what the collection of words says to be taken
into account to read it properly.(the is no "proper" way to read anything. Once it leaves the person it is completely in the hands of the interpreter. There is no such thing as a "perfect interpretation" is a complete fucking oxymoron)
I stay away from books that try and bring extra information to the Bible,
only because if the Bible really is inaccurate, then it can be shown using
only the Bible.(the new dumbest thing he's said so far) I'll give you a logical example: If we have a system of
statements that all together seem to make sense, like a book or
whatever... and then introduce something ELSE from outside that book that
contradicts something in the book, it doesn't mean that the new stuff is
actually part of the original system.(Its not about contradicting some claim, its showing factual evidence about the book itself. Like the dick through the wall example, it can say ANYTHING. Why it says what it says has nothing to do with contradicting what it says.)(This is also under the assumption that everything "makes sense" by whatever definition in the first place) All the time though, people assume
it is, (Maybe some people, but "I'm" the one talking to him" but all that ensues is that anybody who feels like it can make a
claim that something's untrue, and nobody questions it.(it's quite obvious I, as well as countless others, question "it.") This is exactly
what happened with the movie The DaVinci Code. I read the book but never
saw the movie, but all through the book I never took any of the "biblical"
stuff they said as fact. The Gospel of Thomas was written hundreds of
years after Thomas died--he didn't even write it. But people read the book
and saw the movie, and instead of checking the veracity of this rogue
gospel, they assumed that the Church was excerpting books they deemed to
be non-canonical.(I also read where the fiction sign was before I read the book, nor have I ever used it as an arguing point)
Also, I don't know if I gave you this impression, but really, salvation is
a trust issue between you and God. It doesn't come from any priest or
pastor saying you're saved, and there's no way to get in someone else's
head and compare the two. There are certain qualities that Christians
have, that can't be manufactured, that are clear indicators of true faith,
which I'll get to in another part. (Ya and when you fool yourself into anything, you'll subconsciously behave that way, go figure) again Schizophrenics)
> When I read about that woman who figured out she wasn't "saved" all i
could think was, great another person guilt tripped into following the
rules. If you ever have doubtful thoughts days "lacking of faith"
they're
> not wrong or ungodly, they're simply human. I don't know how, if we're
all
> God's creatures, an extension of Him, of His essence so on so forth, it
became such a terrible thing to simply exist.
>
> I sincerely hope all the metaphors for someone leading and guiding you
are
> just metaphors and not unexplainable movements and compulsions.
> (and unfortunately I don't think their just metaphors to this guy….how creepy could that get)
> The very fact that you asked the pastor if your were a Christian really
troubles me. Someone well aversed in the bible, a pinnacle example maybe
for his church, really had to ask someone else how they felt about
themself.(If there is a more glaring example how much of "yourself" can be lost than in this example I challenge you) If that happens in your own life how can you not see how
dangerous other "leaders" can be when faced with the same or other
difficult questions. Their actions will determine some course of action
for other "new believers."(perhaps, with evidence suggestion, them pushing a certain ideology or cause at any and every cost….in the name of God of course)
Well, I'll tell ya... It was kind of a weird week for me. I don't know
what in the world was going on but sometimes it happens.(NO shit, at least there's some hint your mind knows your human) Also, I tend to
be a little forgetful of what's happened in my life, and that can't be
explained except for the fact that God really was working in my life.(He can't define it so it just must be God, duh. What doesn't make sense about that?…..dumbass) It's
like having early alz heimer's or something.
But the reason I asked, is because of the saying "no man is an island". If
we separate ourselves from other believers, it's easy to spin off into
some wonky new ideology.(Creepy music and chanting of cult cult cult insues) So there are a few people that are very close,
people that I've shared things with that I trust and are very dear to me,
and the pastor is one of them--not because he's the leader of the church
but because he's really gone the extra mile on some things, for no reason
other than to make sure I'm feeling solid on stuff. I'm sure you're
familiar with the idea of "divide and conquer" as a good military
strategy--it's easier to destroy a group of people individually then take
them on all at once. The best way to avoid this is to surround yourself
with people who genuinely concerned about your spiritual welfare so that
everybody can protect each other.(thank you for the military lesson and the reason you can believe so well, everyone else is doing it and encouraging it, of course you feel comfortable and "right.")
And I do see how dangerous some leaders can be--there's also no shortage
of people out there who can effectively lead others astray because of
greed, or pride, or whatever. But I think the jump you're making here is:
If there are so many people that can steer others away from truth, how can
you be sure it's not happening now?(I fucking know its happening now, its called religion. He fucking assumed some random thing and asked a question that was at the basis of what I originally asked in the first place.) The answer is, that I'm sure because I
check what people say against the Bible, which is the truth against which
all Christians should check whatever people say.(of course, the "infallible." And I bet if I interpreted something to mean something different than he believed, and used it in an argument, guess who's interpretation would be "wrong.") At least in his mind…..
> Not to sound self righteous or indulgent but when you quoted the Galatians
passage its strikingly familiar to my ideal view of what love is and
compels you to do. Now this important fact aside, I didn't find anything
close to that by reading the bible and going to church, nor through
prayer. I don't think, to some degree at least, that essentially these are
> bad methods for finding yourself or getting good at the above traits,
but
> firsthand know they aren't always necessary or the best for job.
>
> There is a God within. You can fake anything that isn't actually you.
That's what the world is, reflecting fakers. Its the very denial of the
God within that compels one to act as such in the first place.
>
> (Him)"If you love the Lord, there's no way it's fake because we cannot love
Him
> through our own emotions--it comes as a direct result of Him first
loving
> us. So right there, if you do love Him, it's a pretty big evidence
toward
> you being a Christian."
>
> I don't understand what this means AT ALL. To me, its like you said, "We
can't fake love something because we don't have love in the first place
that isn't from something that we love....?" I guess I just really want to
> know what your personal definition of love is. Because i can't make hide
nor tails of if the "love" your referring to has any evidence it exists
for any reason other than you simply saying it does.
To answer that, I need to explain the difference between natural man and
someone who's genuinely been converted.
People, by their very nature, don't like being accountable to anyone, nor
do they like having someone in a higher position than they are.(Tell that to any Masochist)(and this claim is made after experiencing what its like to be everyone and after reading all the books he so deliberately shies away from) It can be
in varying degrees from a minor dislike to full-on rebellion. Take a look
anywhere in history, choose any government structure you like, and you'll
see this is the case. Any place there is a king or queen who is installed
for life, attempts on their life are made. Anyplace that has a president
that operates for a set amount of time, information warfare and smear
tactics are used to try and remove them. Anywhere a militaristic
dictatorship is in place, peasants rise up and try and overthrow them.(So because some people rebel the ONLY reason is because the power was there in the first place? NO. I BET THOSE POWERS HAD A CHARACTER FLAW OR TWO THAT CAUSED THE REBELLION……DUMBASS)
Anarchy doesn't even work, because eventually the strongest, richest or
smartest person gets to the top of the ladder, and is sniped off by
somebody else. Everyone, everywhere, prefers to be their own authority,
not having to answer to anyone, creating their own law and their own
truth. (He even ADMITS my main argument about the human condition right here)(this also doesn't mean that people don't agree with or empathize with any authority)But that also carries over into religion... because then the
question comes up, whose truth is truer? Whose is better? (NO ONES!!!!!!!!)
So let's take it a step further:(because the last paragraph was so in depth already) How do you feel about the most ultimate
authority, God, who has made rules and will actually punish those who
choose to disobey? (You can't answer such a question until you define what God means to you) Every argument has been made: (Completely blanket and plain ignorant statement, he's more than likely only fought with idiots and groups me into such. Also, I've never said ANY of these things to this guy---) There is no God, there
are many ways to God, there's no such thing as heaven or hell, God was
made by people who wanted to keep the "hoi polloi" in line, etc.
The natural man hates having authority over him... so where does the idea
of loving the most high authority even come from? (my guess, it came from someone who couldn't find love with something they viewed as "lesser.")( (why do you only love a "higher" authority, what the fuck is wrong with "just love.") The only way this is
possible is if that man has been changed somehow on a really basic
level--something about his nature is totally different. So, it goes back
to the simpler statement, if you truly love God, then you're a true
Christian. If you want to look at it with logical rules, consider it a
conditional statement: (you find the logic, I again, have no idea how to address this)
~C -> ~L If you're not a Christian, then you don't love God (All of this is only assumed and only by the assuming "Christian") (This guy does not see me as a Christian with the simple statement "I love God" if he did he wouldn't have to argue)(and some examples of what people call "Christian" are NOTHING of what I want to associate with if I "must be a Christian by loving God")
L But if you do love God
C Then you must be a Christian
or to say that being a Christian has the effect of having love for God.
That way, if you love God, it's because you're a Christian.
My definition of love is this: You commit yourself to serve and cherish
whatever you love, at any cost.(I almost agree with him here except for "at any cost" I want to believe it, and at first compulsion would, but there's so much danger in claiming that about anything under the vague cloud of what "love" means)
> I'm also intrigued on this concept of God working within the constraints
of time. He's outside of our realm no? He simply is, a sheer expression of
> will and perfection. What needs to be "finished"(In humans) in a sense that isn't
already there and simply yet to be realized?
We are constrained by time though, which is why I worded that the way I
did. Sorry for any confusion ;) It's strange, trying to conceptualize the
difference between a being that spans across ALL time, and us, who are
basically a blip and can only experience what we perceive to be the
present.(To me, there's infinite time and opportunity in the present moment. By perceiving and acknowledging what's going on "now" I acknowledge and express/love "God") To say that something needs to be finished, is just a human way
of expressing what's going on, that will be finished to us, in a span of
time that we experience.
> I guess i get a little disjointed too when i respond back to you within
the hour of reading something you send me and sitting back for weeks
essentially losing the memory of a point i was trying to make waiting.
Everyday hoping to find any actual responce to the myriad of questions i
ask about your specific views and life. Instead i tend to get basic
overviews of an idealogy that has to personal feeling behind it. Maybe i
was a bit unclear when i first started talking to you. I'm infinitely
more interested on what Michael Fritzius has to say about my questions and
> claims than Michael Fritzius's faith has to say. Otherwise i might as
well
> talk to any "Christian" that may think them self informed and helpful.
The
> insignificant "self" is only referred to as such when someone decided
their interpretation of something "divine" called it as such. I refuse to
> believe you can go your entire life as a "Christian" (at least his definition and perception) unless you start to
deny that your even alive. Go figure......
Again, I'm really sorry about that because today I was thinking, "Man, I
really need to respond to Nick before he thinks he's nailed me on
something." (I've nailed his ass more times than they have Jesus)Seeing this last email here got me started. Honestly, it's a
ton of stuff to respond to, but I find that when I just start typing,
things start coming out, and I get into a groove.(A lost and pointless argument making groove) Again, I've really
squandered my time lately and I'm truly sorry that I haven't gotten back
as quickly as I'd like.
But, as to my way of approaching your questions, I delibrately try to stay
away from talking about my personal take on things, simply because I've
been burned too many times by people saying "well that's your opinion" and
totally writing off what I just said.(Blanket assumption about what I would do with the information, maybe evidence he has a dumbass opinion) I'm really more interested in
showing you why I believe the way I do(Which I don't give a shit, I can't know why he does until I know where he's coming from, not the bible, I'm well aware already what that makes people do and think), not because I'm trying to be
general, but because I want to show you that this really is the
overarching truth about everything. My opinion is either going to make you
say the same thing about "well to each his own", unless I point to the
Bible to explain why I believe what I do. (Not true AT ALL the blue and red pen argument comes to mind. "my own" isn't my own, its what I've learned and relate to. NOTHING aside from ME is ME. If my opinion is retarded, the fact I have one doesn't make the opinion any less retarded)
> I don't want to denounce nice people in nice congregations who preach
nice
> ideas. I want to make people face themselves. I want people to use their
God given right to run the full coarse of their brains. I want heads to be
> talked in circles because you finally realize its not just that simple.
That's good, and I agree.(Lie, see previous bullshit) Churches in America are way too complacent
lately and full of people who think it's all about attendance(Didn't say a fucking thing about church attendance, nor do I care). And I hope
you don't think what I have is a blind belief(belief has to be fact based, faith is the only blindness), because it's crucial for
Christians to keep challenging theirselves. It's way too easy to take tiny
steps a little ways off from the original course and end up miles away
from the truth in a short amount of time.(Like the tiny steps that asshole took when he started treating someone so lovely like shit?) So yeah, use the brain, I agree.(I said, use the brain to its full coarse, not just enough to make yourself feel comfortable)
I
> think you owe it to yourself as a human being. You can't, and i believe
this sooo intently its insane, think that experience, trial and error,
and growth aren't worthy or significant if they aren't done with a
Christian
> badge on.
I do, if what I believe about why we're here is true.(And the only reason "you" believe it is because the bible says so….dumbass) If the whole reason
we're here is solely to glorify God(and that's a big if), and we fail at that, then it doesn't
matter what actions we've done. I'm trying to say, the focus isn't us, not
humans or existence or thought.(Don't focus on or with the brain God gave you, just awesome advice)
> No one is really a Christian (completely, or by his definition), not because it has bad rules, not because
it
> has bad ideas, not because its stories aren't witty or compelling. Its
simply because you can't outright deny that you matter right here and
right now. No one will fully embrace ANY ideology or path or set of
beliefs. People join Christianity for the same reasons they join
anything.
> Friends, family, fear, "love", happiness, admonishment of
responsibility.
> I mean all it takes is basic knowledge of the human condition to call
yourself a hypocrite in just about every situation you think you have an
opinion. Basically the reason i was sounding a little nihilistic in my
last correspondence...worked that out though ;).
What if there was a way that a person COULD deny that their lives here
don't have much meaning, that there's a more eternal goal in mind?(you could make them believe ANYTHING!!!!!!!) The
thing is, from your point of view there's no way this is possible, but
from mine, there is (O! you THINK people can make themselves not matter, but that thought doesn't matter? This is soooo fucking stupid) Unfortunately, I can't just pull it out of my pocket
and show you what I'm talking about, but it's also unwise to assume that
because you don't see anything, it's not there. (random idea, maybe bad stab at an argument? nothing to do with what I said)
>
> To me Jesus worked so well with what he taught because he did it as
himself. Whether he was empowered by God will never be confirmed, but on
the ground level he was just Jesus. He wasn't Paul's Jesus or Mark's Jesus
> or w/e else until they decided to interpret him. At that moment the very
essence and purity of whatever he tried to teach was irrevocably scarred
and changed. They weren't trying to be malicious or deceptive(maybe), but
> its just what happens when you attempt to understand anything that's not
You.
The reason you can see how Jesus lived His life is because of the gospels
written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John...(Wrong, all I can see is how they think he lived his life and what they chose to write as "true". I have their reactions and interpretations. I wasn't there to see his life and I can't make any claims about it" so if writing about it was how
you learned about Jesus but you don't trust that they wrote down
everything correctly then how can both of these be true? (Under the assumption that I learned anything from Jesus. I never said I learned anything I said he worked with what he had…….Dumbass) If what you're
saying is true, then the concept of Jesus could be way off compared to how
He actually was, right? (NO SHIT!)
There's another big point I wanted to hit in the previous email, about
saying that now more than ever the chances are great that they'll dig up
Jesus' body. But I'm gonna save that for the other email. For now I gotta
take off and go work but I'll definitely try and address the last email.(definitely made a HUGE metaphor, admitted metaphor, for the amount of information people have today to draw their opinions and nothing more) (he tries to blow it up later into something so stupid it has no merit by repeating here)
Take care,
