1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Difference Between Acceptance and Surrender

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Unveiled Artist, Oct 27, 2020.

  1. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    9,693
    Ratings:
    +8,645
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Yes, I had relied on a couple of magazines but you are right, I should have had a book as backup. Anyway, one of the joys of retirement is no more damned plane travel. Maybe it is experiences like that which make me savour so much the night ferry crossing from Portsmouth to St Malo every summer.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  2. KenS

    KenS Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    12,092
    Ratings:
    +3,695
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    Acceptance: - that which I cannot change although it still may be temporal and it still may be a salmon fight up the stream.

    So, as in the video, He may accept the doctoral statement of "You have cancer" - but that doesn't mean surrender to it. It may mean, "I know what the doctor said, but i am going to fight and beat this monster" and be the salmon that breads life on the other end of the journey.

    Surrender: More like "Not my will, but your will be done". (there is still an acceptance aspect in it) So, when I surrendered my life to Jesus Christ it was basically, "I will to do things your way and not my way. I surrender to your guidance". Although I am accepting the reality that He knows more than I do.

    I'm sure there is a plethora of in between situations that contain the mixture of the two.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  3. KenS

    KenS Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    12,092
    Ratings:
    +3,695
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    It was a friendly jab. (Is friendly and jab a contradiction? :) )

    That ferry crossing sounds so relaxing and enjoyable... with no book! :)
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  4. Nakosis

    Nakosis crystal soldier
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    16,619
    Ratings:
    +7,254
    Religion:
    Atheist Libertarian
    I see it as more important to clean up myself.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    9,693
    Ratings:
    +8,645
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Oh sure with plenty of books for the daytime return, but on the outbound journey you have only time for dinner on board and then it's into the cabin to sleep, waking for breakfast an hour out from St Malo.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,372
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I think every sailor wished a fierce storm to be a wind.
    Not the sailor's dream.

    I think you mean the path that is right for you. Am I correct?

    Ah yes. I was right.
    The time for true submission is here, but it's not surrendering to what one finds easy.
    What do you account for evil in this world... God?
    If it is not God, then what?
     
  7. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Windmills of your mind

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    29,464
    Ratings:
    +9,722
    Religion:
    Process of Spiritual Healing
    I don't know. I never thought the world was "evil." If the world is evil, so am I. Anything I project outside myself only makes me "special." I'm not that special, so I don't see evil in myself and hopefully others who do bad things have self transformations however they view it surrender, freedom, so have you.

    If I believed in god, I wouldn't say god. Id just say "we" choose intentionally or unintentionally to do bad things. When we get to know ourselves more (or god?) then those things would be less important and spiritual relationships would take precedent.
     
  8. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,372
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    If you believed in god, do you see us creatures developing an evil like what we see?
    What about the thought of a mother having natural love for the fruit of her womb? She'd have to be quite evil to butcher her child.
    That evil came from us, you think?
    Would that not mean it is from our father (god)... if there is no other source?
     
  9. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Windmills of your mind

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    29,464
    Ratings:
    +9,722
    Religion:
    Process of Spiritual Healing
    No. When I think of that, it sounds like you're asking of creatures are inherently evil. I see their behavior is misguided, but evil?

    Her behavior is evil. I wouldn't say she is, though. She can always change despite her horrific offense. Saying she is evil really puts a bad taste in people's mouths that even if she were to change, many people wouldn't believe it. Child molesters get a huge prejudice after taste even if their crime was 60 years ago. I think our judgements should be on one's behavior not the person.

    No. We are influenced by our childhood experiences-both good and bad. However, our choices don't need to be a product of our past. I think spiritual maturity come with facing one's past and making decisions best for themselves and others despite the past they decide to challenge or accept and put aside.
     
  10. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,372
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    You seem to be an optimistic and positive person. I think that is good in one way. :)
    So you don't think those who commit crimes should be called criminals, or someone who is in the habit of thieving should be called a thief, etc.

    I think I understand things from your point of view.
    I am sorry you went through that. I feel your pain.
    I had a somewhat difficult childhood too, and it shaped my view too of people.
    It allows me to deal with people in a more understanding way.
    However, I also believe in their being a balance.
    I think it is fine to say positive things which help build the spirit, but I also think there are times we should accept what is, and while doing so, look for the potential.

    I am actually concerned about people who may be at heart well intentioned, but a bit naive.
    I met a girl some years ago, who was like that. She had such a kind heart. [​IMG]

    I totally agree with you though, that humans are misguided, hence they carry out evil acts.
    Interestingly, the Bible agrees with that too.
    (2 Corinthians 11:3 ; Revelation 12:9 ; Ephesians 2:2 ; 1 John 5:19)

    I understand you don't accept these thing, but don't you find it interesting that the Bible identifies the time when man was misled in his thinking, and whom he was misled by?
    That's worthy of consideration, don't you think?
    Whom would you say man is misled by... What's the source?
     
  11. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Windmills of your mind

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    29,464
    Ratings:
    +9,722
    Religion:
    Process of Spiritual Healing
    Language wise, I don't see a problem with it. Someone's internal nature, no I wouldn't say he or she is inherently a thief or inherently a criminal. It's based on behavior and "hopefully" not the person herself.

    Thankfully no, I haven't gone through child abuse. I was just using that as an example. I was young when I saw my father beating my mother but only remember a glimpse of it. We moved because of a lot of issues but that was when I was younger than 10 years old.

    Yeah. I guess some people would consider me like that too. I'm trying to accept things I can change, things I need to adapt, and others I need to accept that's the cards I've been played in life. Then I think naïve compared to who? My friend says not everyone is at their "age level." Sometimes I don't know how to take that.

    Oh my gosh the bible does have a lot of examples. I wouldn't believe the inherited sin part, though.

    I don't single the bible out in regards to that. Other books too spiritual and not have talked about the human condition and behavior. I find it interesting and philosophical ponder over it but not in a religious way.

    I don't believe there is a source. Maybe childhood influences contributed. I do believe that people who made bad choices for the most part don't always need a source for their actions. Maybe it is actually their choice to commit such an act of sound mind and rational thought and they suffer the consequence of "their" actions.

    I know some actions do have sources of influence but I don't believe it's inherent in us to abuse, murder, etc and no source that externally "makes us" do these things. It sounds like an excuse to justify and make sense of people's intentional actions. Which is a catch-22 because if there is an external source making people abuse, then why not punish the source and not the victim? (Adam, eve, and the snake comes to mind)
     
  12. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,372
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Do you mind if I shake you for a second or two? :)
    No one is saying the actions or behavior is inherent.
    A painter did not inherit his skill, nor a baker, nor doctor.
    However, we do acquire a name, based on what we are known for. You draw and paint pictures. You are known as an artist. You steal people's money and goods. You are known as a thief.
    True, one doesn't sound very good, but if you (not you) don't like it, then practice something else.
    It's hard to stop, but people can help... if you want it.
    Or actions do play a part in how we are treated. We earn it, rather than expect or demand it.

    Not child abuse. I didn't have that in mind.
    We don't have to be abused to have negative feelings.
    I saw my parents fight, but there are other things we go through, which affect us emotionally also.
    The younger we are, the greater the effects it would appear.

    Growth takes time, and we don't all grow at the same rate.

    Other books after the Bible... Of course they would say some of the same things... with a twist and a turn.

    Childhood influence from what? An adult... who was influenced by what? Childhood influence? From what?
    That's circular, isn't it?
    So you seem not to want to accept what is an obvious cause.
    Can I ask what you meant when you said humans are misled? Did you mean someone or something "makes them do things", or did you mean they are influenced?

    The thing about the Bible, is that what it says was not written by us, and neither can we change what is written. So no one can make an excuse to justify what is written.
    What is written is written. It either true, or false. We can either accept it, or reject it.
    I have to yet see someone present a valid reason for rejecting it. I've seen none.
     
  13. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Windmills of your mind

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    29,464
    Ratings:
    +9,722
    Religion:
    Process of Spiritual Healing
    Not too much, I just ate.

    We grow popular because of the names we take up (artist, murder, etc) based on our actions but just because people see us as these things, unless self-confessed that we identify as an artist or murderer et cetera, it doesn't mean we inherently are an artist or murderer or so have you. People's opinions shouldn't have a say in "who" people are. Even those we care about tend to try and define who we are but we get to a certain age, at least in this culture, when identification starts to become individualized. I know not other cultures do that (community identity vs individual identity), and of course we judge people off their actions, but inherently, I don't believe that's who people are despite what they do as a painter or murderer.

    The difference, though, if someone is a murderer regardless if he identifies one or not, I'd be on my guard. With the painter, regardless the same, we'd still have a good time chatting. I just think identification is personal. A lot of criminals most likely after a good while accept their actions and consequences and try to better their lives to move on.

    Does being a criminal mean they can't change their behavior unlike an artist who can find another trade and no one bats an eye?

    True. I was talking to my therapist about it two days ago, actually, about some of the things that happened to me as a child and emotional abuse et cetera that I didn't know I had until I started racking up how I see things today and why I do what I do. I've seen her for awhile but I think this is finally the start of a good therapy session.

    True. True.

    Before and after. Biblical authors transferred things orally just as pagans (people were not abrahamic) beforehand who orally passed on their traditions. I'm not sure age is a signification of truth though especially not accurate truth given the further the time period, the less accurate things tend to be. It would be ignorant for us to think everything is exactly as it was back when. However, since people have religious attachments to the bible, it's hard for them to see that unless they say "it's the translation." If that be so, why trust the translation as the word of god rather than the Word of god with one's relationship with christ.

    Maybe children commit crimes as an adult because they were influenced by things like abuse or parents taking illegal drugs or so have you. I haven't looked into stats or anything but our childhood does influence our behaviors as adults. Hopefully towards good behaviors rather than bad ones.

    I was re-reading my quote and mentioned I don't feel there is a source and needs to be (we are influenced by our childhood but our childhood experiences are not always a direct cause for our actions as adults. Influence rather than source).

    I can't find where I said they were misled. The acceptance and circulator, can you explain that?

    Valid reason according to who, though?

    People reject the bible for many valid and justifiable "and positive" reasons. Can we accept that the bible is not for every person and that other person does not need to reject or even be mad at it to not think of it having any importance in their lives?

    It's playing the victim to justify to oneself why they didn't pick the same jewels they did. What's "wrong" with them. Then use excuse to make themselves feel better about other people's "bad" choices.
     
    #33 Unveiled Artist, Oct 30, 2020
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2020
  14. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,372
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    [​IMG]

    Since I can't shake you... too much, I give up on that.

    Trying to understand... Why would you think people would have to be ignorant to think that God can preserve his word, so that it retains the original message?

    You said, "I see their behavior is misguided". What did you mean?

    Good question.
    Yes. People can make the choice to live without the Bible, faith, God...
     
  15. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Windmills of your mind

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    29,464
    Ratings:
    +9,722
    Religion:
    Process of Spiritual Healing
    It's ignorant for anyone to believe that what we read in the bible today has the same implications, facts (interpreted by the people in that time period), and even history is 100% accurate. I don't even think historians could make that claim none less anyone else.

    As for god preserving his word, in idea, yes. It's not ignorant. But this is a religious point of view. Historians and so forth uphold many different religious beliefs if they have belief in gods at all. Their views (and archeologist, etc) aren't ideally bias as religious people's views are. So, you're right in a religious context but "god's preserving his word" doesn't have place when deciding accuracy in written scripture and history.

    In other words, religious views about god preserving his word is different than saying scripture is inaccurate based on time differences. One is based on belief (or faith?) and the other fact.

    Yes. A lot of people are indifferent to it. I know it has a strong connection with believers, but why do believers feel people who are indifferent of the bible need to have some sort of feeling against it or even so a rejective attitude?

    To me, that sounds like religious are trying to understand why someone wouldn't want to believe in god. Instead of taking things as is: indifference. They just can't comprehend that insofar they may entitle reasons that don't exist or overexaggerated. Why?
     
  16. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,372
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Well, what you consider ignorance is your subjective opinion isn't it?
    One can describe you as ignorant to that fact, and you could well be.
    Do you agree?

    So you are saying that religious people are biased, and non-religious archaeologists are unbiased.
    So religious archaeologists are biased, so long as the have a different view to what you accept?
    There seems to be a whole lot of bias, on your part... I think.

    What do you mean by time difference?
    Also please don't conflate Biblical or religious faith with the skeptic's view of faith. They are not the same.
    Biblical faith is not just belief i.e. believing blindly without evidence based on fact.

    For my part, I go by what appears evident.
    Demonstrating why something is not of value, or why an action is reasonable, is what I give consideration to.

    ...but...but... the reason is given. They are not trying to understand that. They know... but you are the one having a difficult time accepting the reason.
     
  17. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Windmills of your mind

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    29,464
    Ratings:
    +9,722
    Religion:
    Process of Spiritual Healing
    Yes. (Opps. RF rules "I think..." ;))

    Yes, I can be ignorant to many facts (biblical history, etc) but that doesn't change that we loose accurate information the further back in time a historical (let's say) event took place. This could be tested by the gossip game.

    If you mean god's preserve, I wouldn't say I'm ignorant to god and what "he" does (if one needs to justify my indifference with ignorance), but I am ignorant to some of facts, stories, et cetera of scripture and what's written "about" him.

    Actually, yes. A christian who sees a miracle will attribute it to the christian god. The same christian who reads scripture about the miracle will assume the nature of the miracle is defined by what he interprets in scripture.

    An archeologist and historian who reads the same miracle won't consider it for it as a supernatural fact. Instead, there would be multiple historians and archeologists from various disciplines in addition to other professionals who corroborate what is fact, what is myth, and their place in the human scheme of things. Take Greek philosophy. We take a lot of medicinal knowledge from Plato and his teacher. We may even think about their essays and words of wisdom. They do have their place.

    The only way I can think of historians being bias is if one studies in a christian ministry. His or her views and studies will be shaped by the theology of his or her church. However, those historians who have eclectic backgrounds wouldn't see things in a biased light.

    Time frame for example let's say the gossip game. The further back in time (or the more people in between) an event happen, say the last 3,000 years, the less information and even events we will get 100% accurate. So, the further back the years (rather than time), the more we can mishap information.

    Oh. Religious belief in god that god preserves everything accurately across time is based on faith. The fact that, as in the gossip game, the further back the years, the more mismatched information can be is based on knowledge. They both have their place.

    Why would a religious person think god preserves written scripture throughout all these years especially through all of the editing, compilations, translations, and so forth it's been through, wouldn't the argument be less about scripture accuracy and more about the person with whom scripture speaks of?

    If someone gave a reason why the bible isn't valuable to that person, would you understand his point of view?

    What do you mean?

    Do they comprehend or are they going off what people tell them and taking it as is?

    Giving you the reason why the bible is irrelevant to me is one thing, but understanding why it is (from a less superficial stance) is totally different. Usually, some religious do understand why people don't believe from a sympathy level. But not much on a deeper level.

    I was thinking just now it could be that their spiritual awakening made it to where they "can't go back". So, literally trying to understand and take interest in why people disbelief in god is almost like going back to their old self. It may cause some discomfort to go "back into that hole." Just another of one of my many observations.
     
  18. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,372
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    You haven't broken any rule... I think.
    It is a known fact that men rape and murder women. Therefore, all men rape and murder women. We only have to see the police records to confirm that fact.
    Sounds reasonable?

    Are these people biased? I'll leave you to your opinion on that.
    Dead Sea Scrolls
    Scholarly consensus dates the Qumran Caves Scrolls from the last three centuries BCE and the first century CE.

    Biblical texts older than the Dead Sea Scrolls have been discovered only in two silver scroll-shaped amulets containing portions of the Priestly Blessing from the Book of Numbers, excavated in Jerusalem at Ketef Hinnom and dated c. 600 BCE

    Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew-language manuscripts of the Bible were Masoretic texts dating to the 10th century CE, such as the Aleppo Codex. Today, the oldest known extant manuscripts of the Masoretic Text date from approximately the 9th century. The biblical manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls push that date back a full thousand years, to the 2nd century BCE. This was a significant discovery for Old Testament scholars who anticipated that the Dead Sea Scrolls would either affirm or repudiate the reliability of textual transmission from the original texts to the oldest Masoretic texts at hand. The discovery demonstrated the unusual accuracy of transmission over a thousand-year period, rendering it reasonable to believe that current Old Testament texts are reliable copies of the original works.

    According to The Dead Sea Scrolls by Hebrew scholar Millar Burrows,
    Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only seventeen letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The remaining three letters comprise the word "light," which is added in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly.

    It is important to note that differences were found among fragments of texts. According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:
    While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.
    If correct, we are looking at over 3000 years of accurate preservation.
    It is neither impossible, nor improbable. However, it is possible we can use arguments against it as an excuse.
    You are not doing that, are you?

    Huh?
    A miracle is a miracle Artist?
    What are you trying to say. I'm lost. Sorry.

    So you are biased. Okay.
    I guess we all have a bias, from what you are saying here.
    I'm biased against homosexuality. adultery, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. etc.

    I think the preservation would be added evidence supporting God's "hand" in it, and authorship.
    What do you think it would show?

    I certainly try to understand person's point of view.

    We all make the choice based on our reason, what is, and what isn't.
    You make your choice about what you believe and accept. I do the same.
    I really don't see that as a problem at all. Do you see it as a problem?
     
  19. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Windmills of your mind

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    29,464
    Ratings:
    +9,722
    Religion:
    Process of Spiritual Healing
    I'm not sure how this relates to my comment. I'm ignorant to the facts of the bible that doesn't mean that because of time intervals that the bible is all accurate. If you mean god, I wouldn't say ignorance since god has no play in how I think, why, and when. A lot of history does in one way or another via our culture. So, I develop more bias (because I'm not an expert) around history. I can only give my opinion about the concept of god but not what religious call god himself.

    How does this relate to rape?

    Preservation doesn't mean it's all accurate, though. That's just the nature of preservation especially with religious things. Declaration of Independence most likely is more accurate than scripture (and The Buddha's sutras, and so forth). You actually believe preservation means what's written is accurate?

    "If" correct. Then you understand there are probabilities in accuracy, true?

    I'm confused. Can you rephrase this "It is neither impossible, nor improbable. However, it is possible we can use arguments against it as an excuse. You are not doing that, are you?"

    Even if I were (if I understood it), that wouldn't invalidate my point.

    Christians have confirmation bias. If they see a miracle (for example, a personalized synchronicity), they will confirm the accuracy with scripture. The same person who is not christian who has the same miracle would not verify it's authenticity by scripture. Yet, they both experience the same miracle.

    This means the christian is biased. What he already experiences he believes is from god and when confirmed by scripture, he feels that it is true. However, if it were true, the non-christian would draw the same conclusion as the christian. The interpretation of the experience is different by person but the experience themselves (the miracle itself) should not be.

    I never read in that comment that I was. I said historians and archeologists from different disciplines collaborate authenticity of a given document (it's existence and information on it as written). They don't confirm whether what's written actually took place (walk on water, etc) I also said the only way I can think of that historians are bias is if they were in christian studies and studying it through a christian lens (religious bias).

    It's human nature to have our biases. My bias is against christianity insofar their theology redefines homosexuality and homosexuals. I'm also bias in how you lump all those together-it's a huge insult to many homosexual people-but then I also have biases that are indifferent. So we all have biases. Just in this case ideally historians, archeologists, scientists, etc put aside their religious beliefs (all of them) for the sake of the study and science they are observing and concluding.

    How is that the case?

    Evidence of something existing doesn't signify a supernatural hand was involved. I can write I flew in the stars and thousands and hundreds of people saw me and a thousand years later, the founders would agree "it is written, I flew in the starts. A hundred people saw me." But to validate whether what is written actually took place is impossible. They would have to be there to take what is written that seriously.

    I actually don't know how you draw conclusions between the two-historical preservation accuracy (what's preserved exist and what's written fits align with historical events, let's say) and the supernatural being an author of that accuracy. There are many religious documents (suttas for example) just as accurate but that doesn't mean a supernatural hand took place in them.

    Historical accuracy=supernatural hand involved?

    Not a lot of christians do, unfortunately. A good brief example is homosexuality. If I said same-sex relationships in a given marriage between two men were a blessing, would you be able to see their point of view (from a marriage/spiritual perspective)?

    Sometimes our religious biases withhold deeper understanding.

    Only when it causes people to be harmed verbally and sometimes physically. On a religious forum is fine, but in person. It is a problem. I usually can't be around christianity if I think about it too much. "Love the sinner and hate the sin" -love the christian and hate his actions. I wish the theology was a bit different so people's behaviors would be more loving, but at least more christians are becoming more tolerant than abusive.
     
  20. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,372
    Ratings:
    +2,072
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
Loading...