Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

Yes, I respect your right to your convictions and would never try to force my views on you. However, if you were to post and ask for opinions on a course of action you were about to take, then I would give my opinion and not expect to be labelled as rude or unkind simply because I gave my opinion as requested. Is that reasonable?

---

Quite! I would go further in saying there has been more than one occasion where I think you and I have pretty good rapport even. I can't even recall a time when I thought you did something rude to me? If you had, I would have said something already about it right then. I believe those who have been rude or disparaging to me know who they are. Well, they will frame it differently of course, LOL but they still know that the dart landed somewhere. Are we like majorly off topic here though, Starman?

To help that out, I will answer to the original OP by saying I think today's religious market might require a shift in how it gains converts to one of attraction rather than promotion. New members are sophisticated, well informed, spiritual seeking beings who don't as easily fall in line over that old fire and brimstone stuff, with all due respect. To coin a phrase from the recovery community, you might be the only living bible someone ever sees so it behooves to be careful with others, I think. Not careful-- paranoid, or careful-- untrue to your faith, but careful, you know--full of care. Christians (or any other religion) who are not caring of others do more to drive others off from Christianity (fill in the matching other religion) than toward God, frankly, like it or not. Your thoughts Starman?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Yes starman the site is telling the truth, which I would assume most people accept as a fact.

As one who has been invovled with those in seroius cults they can be very dangerous.

And the site posted was not asking anyone to read it, and it was very obvious from the web site what it was. In our daily dealings with people of course we do so with love of each person, but the plain truth as to what is right and wrong by our Christian faith is obvious.

And no it is not judging, since the judgement for this is already given to us, it is merley the understanding of the faith.

For a real Christain there is not two ways to salvation, not several truths, not various levels of right and wrong, Right and truth is a absolute.

I would not walk into a WICCA or other witchcraft ( and there are other groups) and proclaim them all doomed to hell, but if asked I can only tell them the truth.

But in reality they are not the ones to really worry about, since for a Chrsitian it is obvious who they are and what they beleive in,

What is the real worry is the weeds that are planted in the good field, those people who pretend to be Christian or call thierself but do nothing but weaken the faith.

It is easy for thost that don't have faith or accept Christianity to call them names, but they have thier faith and it is what it is.

---

I think that the problem partly stems from the stereotypical view of the fanatical corner preacher Bible thumping and screaming biblical verses at the passersby. That has led to the idea that when a Christian gives advice he is actually angered and doing the same via the Internet. So the reaction is sometimes due to that imagined street-corner
Evangelizing judgmental approach.

I agree that the weeds are very dangerous indeed since the camouflage is sometimes very skillfully crafted so that only those with experience might be able to identify it. Those who are inexperiencedare sometimes cunningly drawn in and are harmed spiritually by such weeds.

The most devastating of weeds are those who are in positions of power
Such as deacons, priests, elders, pastors, etcetera in their churches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow

Quite! I would go further in saying there has been more than one occasion where I think you and I have pretty good rapport even. I can't even recall a time when I thought you did something rude to me?? If you had, I would have said something already about it right then. I believe those who have been rude or disparaging to me know who they are. Well, they will frame it differently of course, LOL but they still know that the dart landed somewhere. Are we like majorly off topic here though, Starman?

To help that out, I will answer to the original OP by saying I think today's religious market might require a shift in how it gains converts to one of attraction rather than promotion. New members are sophisticated, well informed, spiritual seeking beings who don't as easily fall in line over that old fire and brimstone stuff, with all due respect. To coin a phrase from the recovery community, you might be the only living bible someone ever sees so it behooves to be careful with others, I think. Not careful-- paranoid, or careful-- untrue to your faith, but careful, you know--full of care. Christians who are not caring of others do more to drive others off from Christianity than toward God, frankly, like it or not. Your thoughts Starman?

---

Absolutely! The Biblical message should be presented as good news of salvation.
It should offer hope for the future based on the fulfillment of God's prophecies in relation to our earth and in that way give us hope in these difficult times. As you said, the way in which our message is delivered is also very important since it can turn someone immediately away.

BTW
Perhaps the way I responded to the opinion request wasn't the best way possible.
I will try to be more careful next time.

I am still learning too Starman. Lots left to learn...

The weeds are neither your worry nor mine. They are God's. We can expect that God will deal with them according to what is important to God. As a Christian, as a Minister I KNOW that God's love for us is overpowering and overwhelming. My only Job is to be a witness to the resurrected Christ. Not a judge of others.

Kiwimac
Aka
Rev. Fr. Ray McIntyre. ACI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

What really is kindness?

---

For as long as space endures,
And for as long as living beings remain,
Until then may I, too, abide
To dispel the misery of the world.

- Chapter 10, Verse 55 of "The Way of the Bodhisattva" by Shantideva
... And the prayer H.H. the Dalai Lama used to end his Nobel Lecture.

Everybody has there own personal right to practise whatever religion suits them. It is our duty to God the creator to love one another. Even love the ones that do not know, or have chosen other ways. Practising rituals that are against the beliefs of Christian ways. We need to lead our lives by example and not direct hate to anybody. Of course, God is the creator and it is only him that will know what is in each of our hearts and where we will go after this life. Like many said there are lots of examples, lots of people writing whatever they feel like and we all have that right to speak. Many examples of the bible it teaches that worship of anything else except for him the creator of all is going off the wrong path. At the same time we are told to love others as God loves us and love the ones that are on the wrong path. For then we will know true love. How easy is it to love somebody you know, but how hard is it to love your enemy. We are to let God handle such decisions he is the one with the final call of what is in each of our hearts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

Jesus spoke quite forcefully at times and in the process offended scribes and Pharisees and others who simply couldn't stomach his message. [....]

---

I do hope you are fully aware that Jesus did not attack the religion of the pharisees et al, but only their non-compliance with it, and their emphases that they had added that made a travesty of the fundamental precepts of their rleigion, and placed unnecessary burdens on Jews.

I also hope that you will know that although Jerusalem was a place at the time of Christ when religions of all kinds were practiced by Romans and others, that jesus never opened his mouth once to denigrate them or to offend them. Where do you find Jesus' denunciation of paganism? Nowhere! How then can you take license from the words of Jesus to apply them to those towards whom he did not direct them?


He reserved his distaste for those of his own religion who perverted the fundamental principles of their own religion by placing hedges around the Law.


Why anyone feels divinely appointed to take down the sacred faith of others whilst neglecting the requirements of their own is beyond reason.



M:)RGANITE

Well, I did get around to checking out that website. It has little to do with Wicca. As well, it displays a great deal of ignorance about both the Buddhist and Hindu faiths, as represented by the descriptions of the listed deities, that Wiccans supposedly or purportedly worship.
And pray tell, if any can explain to me what "Self-Realization" is in a religion that teaches the concept of No Self (their thinly diguised reference to Buddhism near the bottom), I'd love to know! :confused: :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject as usual.

---

NK's comment is germane because the site is held inaccurate by one particular party, why then should it be held to be accurate for others? The originator of this thread considers the site does not accurately reflect their beliefs and experiences. How can we ignore that and insist that it does, but become exercised when it is used to verify the beliefs and experiences of another religion? Why cannot fairness prevail?

It is insufficient to force the opinion that because a site speaks ill of our enemies that it must be true. Our own prejudices are seldom impartial arbiters of truth.

M:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas1970

Well, I did get around to checking out that website. It has little to do with Wicca. As well, it displays a great deal of ignorance about both the Buddhist and Hindu faiths, as represented by the descriptions of the listed deities, that Wiccans supposedly or purportedly worship.

And pray tell, if any can explain to me what "Self-Realization" is in a religion that teaches the concept of No Self (their thinly diguised reference to Buddhism near the bottom), I'd love to know! :confused: :)

---

From Wilkipaedia: "Self realization"

In yoga, self-realization is knowledge of one's true self. This true self is also referred to as the atman to avoid ambiguity. The term "self-realization" is a translation of the Sanskrit expression atman jnana (knowledge of the self or atman). The reason the term "realization" is used instead of "knowledge" is that jnana refers to knowledge based on experience, not mere intellectual knowledge.

As discussed in the article on yoga, while the goal of self-realization is the same in all yoga paths, the means used to achieve that goal differ. For example, in Sahajayoga or hatha yoga, self-realization is said to be achieved when the serpent force or kundalini rises through the shushumna nadi to the sahasrara chakra.

The following terms are related to self-realization or atma jnana:

* moksha (liberation from the cycle of birth and death)
* samadhi (Supreme or Divine Bliss)

Self-realization in Sahaja Yoga

According to Sahaja Yoga, self-realization is a process of kundalini awakening.
Self-realization in Reiki Tummo (Master Yoga)

According to Reiki Tummo, self-realization is a part of the process of kundalini awakening before reaching full enlightenment and Yoga (Union with the Divine).

Self-realization according to Paramhansa Yogananda
“Self-realization is the knowing in all parts of body, mind, and soul that you are now in possession of the kingdom of God; that you do not have to pray that it come to you; that God’s omnipresence is your omnipresence; and that all that you need to do is improve your knowing."

— from The Essence of Self-Realization by Paramhansa Yogananda

Self-realization in Surat Shabd Yoga
Surat Shabd Yoga cosmology depicts the whole of creation (the macrocosm) as being emanated and arranged in a spiritually differentiated hierarchy, often referred to as eggs, regions, or planes. Typically, eight spiritual levels are described above the physical plane, although names and subdivisions within these levels will vary to some extent by movement and Master. In this arrangement, Self-Realization is attainted in the third heaven level, Daswan Dwar, Spirit-Realization is attained in the fourth heaven level, Bhanwar Gupha, and God-Realization is attained in the fifth heaven level, Sach Kand (Sat Lok). (One version of the creation from a Surat Shabda Yoga perspective is depicted at the Sant Ajaib Singh Ji Memorial Site [1]). All planes below the purely spiritual regions are subject to cycles of creation and dissolution (pralya) or grand dissolution (maha pralya).

This cosmology presents the constitution of the initiate (the microcosm) as an exact replica of the macrocosm. Consequently, the microcosm consists of a number of bodies, each one suited to interact with its corresponding plane or region in the macrocosm. These bodies developed over the yugas through involution (emanating from higher planes to lower planes) and evolution (returning from lower planes to higher planes), including by karma and reincarnation in various states of consciousness. The Path of Light and Sound involves the initiate traveling the microcosm dharmicly in consciousness (soul) with the guidance and protection of the Outer Living Master in the physical world and the Inner Shabd Master in the higher worlds, eventually experiencing Self-Realization and continuing to unfold until the regions of pure spirituality are reached and God-Realization is attained.

And there you have it, Ray. Enlightenent is a feature of mnay of the spiritual religions, and is not foreign to Christianity.


M:)RGANITE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

[...] do you have some secret way that I am ignorant of to get past that?

---

I do have a 'secret way' but I am happy to share it with you. If someone says, or I read on a site, that such and such a religion believe thus and thus, my 'secret way' is to enquire of a member of that profession and listen very carefully to what they have to say. If someone tells me that you believe that Jesus was to come in 1914 and that was an error and he was to come later, then I would ask a member of that faith for an explanation of what they really believed in that connection, not take the word of an unconnected site or person who might, for whatever reasons, prove hostile and therfore likely to pass on any old rubbish rather than search for core truths.

Now you have the secret too.

M:)

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

From Wilkipaedia: In yoga, self-realization is knowledge of one's true self. This true self is also referred to as the atman to avoid ambiguity. The term "self-realization" is a translation of the Sanskrit expression atman jnana (knowledge of the self or atman).

---

Hi Morganite,
Thanks. There is some really excellent information here, and much of it is pertinent; though unfortunately, much of it is also tied to or originated from Hindu doctrines, or other Indian teachings. Though Buddhism's roots are also Indian, there are exceptions specific to these teachings.
Atman is often also translated as "soul", a concept largely foreign to Buddhism, and the primary distinction between the Hindu belief of reincarnation, and the Buddhist belief of rebirth.
Buddhists do not believe in a soul per se, as this denotes a fixed and unchanging "identity." All notions of self are believed to be false constructs. Our deepest nature can only be known through direct experience (the purpose of meditation), and not through any form of reasoning or conceptualization.
And while Hindus believe the "soul's" highest longing is to unite with God, Buddhism teaches we were never separate from Empty Luminosity (the ground of being, or God), and any perceived separation was false, and the source of all wordly suffering.
Quite simply, there is no independent self to "be found." One way to put it: Self is in all, and all is in self. Life is totally integrated and interconnected. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

I do have a 'secret way' but I am happy to share it with you. If someone says, or I read on a site, that such and such a religion believe thus and thus, my 'secret way' is to enquire of a member of that profession and listen very carefully to what they have to say. If someone tells me that you believe that Jesus was to come in 1914 and that was an error and he was to come later, then I would ask a member of that faith for an explanation of what they really believed in that connection, not take the word of an unconnected site or person who might, for whatever reasons, prove hostile and therfore likely to pass on any old rubbish rather than search for core truths.

Now you have the secret too.

M:)

.

---

Thanks for the counsel and I agree that your method has merit. However, though I provided it as a source, I do not base my opinion of the Wiccan on any Wikipedia Encyclopedia article. I base my opinion on the practice of white or black magic and the worship of many gods on the Bible and not on some misguided source as you indicate.


If indeed my Bible based opinion is rubbish to others who don't agree with it-then that is their right to consider it rubbish. But their considering my Bible-based opinion rubbish will in no way manner or form convince me that what I believe based on the Bible is rubbish or that if I agree with an article which is in harmony with the Bible it is rubbish though other might view it as such.


If indeed the Wikipedia site which I provided as a source to Wiccan belief speaks rubbish, I failed to detect it though I have compared their article with what Wiccans themselves say about what many of them believe. Perhaps you can point out the rubbish instead of simply hinting at it.

BTW
I know that the Wiccans don't say that they worship the devil.
Neither does the article which was criticized say that they claim to worship the devil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwimac

The weeds are neither your worry nor mine. They are God's. We can expect that God will deal with them according to what is important to God. As a Christian, as a Minister I KNOW that God's love for us is overpowering and overwhelming. My only Job is to be a witness to the resurrected Christ. Not a judge of others.

Kiwimac
Aka
Rev. Fr. Ray McIntyre. ACI

---

You completely misunderstood everything I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

I do hope you are fully aware that Jesus did not attack the religion of the pharisees et al, but only their non-compliance with it, and their emphases that they had added that made a travesty of the fundamental precepts of their rleigion, and placed unnecessary burdens on Jews.

I also hope that you will know that although Jerusalem was a place at the time of Christ when religions of all kinds were practiced by Romans and others, that jesus never opened his mouth once to denigrate them or to offend them. Where do you find Jesus' denunciation of paganism? Nowhere! How then can you take license from the words of Jesus to apply them to those towards whom he did not direct them?

Why anyone feels divinely appointed to take down the sacred faith of others whilst neglecting the requirements of their own is beyond reason.

---

Actually, this is an excellent example of scripture-stacking which I thought you were incapable of until now.

I hope YOU realize that Jesus respected and quoted the OT which does condemn religions that worship other gods. I also hope you realize that Jesus is described in Revelations and other parts of the NT as coming to earth with his heavenly armies to destroy those practicers of false religions who refuse to worship the only true God. The Jesus you describe is NOT the Jesus that the Bible describes. In order to believe in the Jesus you describe requires us to ignore a host of scriptures which tell us that Jesus definitely doesn't tolerate false religions nor those who insist on following them. I'm sure you have read these scriptures. The question is why you are ignoring them.

Quote:

---

Why anyone feels divinely appointed to take down the sacred faith of others whilst neglecting the requirements of their own is beyond reason.

---

You are in no position to be judging me as neglecting my Christian obligations.
Perhaps your "great learning" is giving you a sense of omniscience-which is tantamount to hubris. Also, your constant criticism of my brief simple answer in respect to this person's request for an opinion is a violation of posting rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

NK's comment is germane because the site is held inaccurate by one particular party, why then should it be held to be accurate for others? The originator of this thread considers the site does not accurately reflect their beliefs and experiences. How can we ignore that and insist that it does, but become exercised when it is used to verify the beliefs and experiences of another religion? Why cannot fairness prevail?

It is insufficient to force the opinion that because a site speaks ill of our enemies that it must be true. Our own prejudices are seldom impartial arbiters of truth.

M:)

---

I never said that it represents this person's particular way of practicing Wiccan since I don't know what brand of Wiccan worship this individual practices. What I said was that I agree with the biblical conclusions in respect to type of Wiccan worship that the article puts forth. And if indeed the person's manner of worship doesn't harmonize with any known Wiccan practices, then he shouldn't be calling it Wiccan at all.

BTW
You say I consider this person my enemy?
That's a lie. How many more lies are you going to come up with in your effort to stir things up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jesushelper76

Everybody has there own personal right to practise whatever religion suits them. It is our duty to God the creator to love one another. Even love the ones that do not know, or have chosen other ways. Practising rituals that are against the beliefs of Christian ways. We need to lead our lives by example and not direct hate to anybody. Of course, God is the creator and it is only him that will know what is in each of our hearts and where we will go after this life. Like many said there are lots of examples, lots of people writing whatever they feel like and we all have that right to speak. Many examples of the bible it teaches that worship of anything else except for him the creator of all is going off the wrong path. At the same time we are told to love others as God loves us and love the ones that are on the wrong path. For then we will know true love. How easy is it to love somebody you know, but how hard is it to love your enemy. We are to let God handle such decisions he is the one with the final call of what is in each of our hearts.

---

The Bible tells us that if someone is on the wrong path and you fail to warn him you will be responsible for the evil which comes upon this person because of your silence. Worse yet is to encourage a person about to embark on the wrong path to take it or to encourage someone on the wrong path to continue on the wrong path by saying that any path taken is OK. In fact, withholding such life-giving information is tantamount to an expression of cruelty and hatred. So maybe-just maybe the road to perdition is indeed often paved by those having good intentions of being kind.

As for God handling things and not us, haven't you read where Christians are given the mission to tell others about salvation? Or is it that you consider that assignmernt invalid becausae from your standpoint it is tantamount to judging those to whom we are supposed to speak? The one whose name you are using on this forum to identify yourself with certainly didn't think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

I also hope you realize that Jesus is described in Revelations and other parts of the NT as coming to earth with his heavenly armies to destroy those practicers of false religions who refuse to worship the only true God. The Jesus you describe is NOT the Jesus that the Bible describes. In order to believe in the Jesus you describe requires us to ignore a host of scriptures which tell us that Jesus definitely doesn't tolerate false religions nor those who insist on following them.

---

Though I will in no way claim any great knowledge here, the first line of this quote does not seem, well... very "Christian" to me.
Secondly, what exactly constitutes a "false religion." This seems antithetical to the very definition of the word. Believing yours to be the "correct" one, does in no way imply via odd juxtaposition or loose association, that another is inherently false. Everyone believes they are married to the most beautiful person in the world. That doesn't mean your neighbor's mate is a "horse." :confused:
As many have previously pointed out, there are good reasons that there are many versions of the Bible. Not one of which, is likely that religion has often been the politics of its day. It's often difficult to garner absolute authority, without instilling some fear, or in some way discrediting your fellow candidates. Or, in this case, denominations.
You either believe in the freedom to choose, and goodwill toward all, or you do not. If you say all other religions are false, then what choice is really left?
This is akin to what is known in philosophy as a "Hobson's choice":

From Random House:

Hobson didn't have a problem at all; he was the man in charge. It's the choosers who had the problem.

Thomas Hobson--yes, he was a real person, and we know who he is--ran a livery stable in Cambridge, England in the seventeeth century. A customer who wanted to rent a horse had only one real choice: to rent the horse nearest the stable door; Hobson wouldn't rent horses out of order.

As a result, we have the proverbial Hobson's choice, which is something that seems like a free choice but really isn't; it's the absence of a real alternative. This or nothing.

Hobson lived from about 1544 to 1631, and was apparently something of a hit in his time. Milton commemorated him in two epitaphs, and issue 509 of Addison and Steele's Spectator was devoted to him in 1712. The term Hobson's choice itself is first attested in the mid-seventeenth century.




Well, okay... Maybe your neighbor's mate really is a horse. :rolleyes: :)

And one for the people who aren't fond of betting on the horses:

pons as·i·no·rum (pŏnz' ăs'ə-nôr'əm, -nōr'əm)
n.
A problem that severely tests the ability of an inexperienced person.

[New Latin pōns asinōrum, bridge of fools (nickname of the Fifth Proposition in the Elements of Euclid, due to its difficulty) : Latin pōns, bridge + Latin asinōrum, genitive pl. of asinus, fool.]




Please, let us not let it degenerate to this point! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas1970

Though I will in no way claim any great knowledge here, the first line of this quote does not seem, well... very "Christian" to me.
Secondly, what exactly constitutes a "false religion." This seems antithetical to the very definition of the word. Believing yours to be the "correct" one, does in no way imply via odd juxtaposition or loose association, that another is inherently false. Everyone believes they are married to the most beautiful person in the world. That doesn't mean your neighbor's mate is a "horse." :confused:
As many have previously pointed out, there are good reasons that there are many versions of the Bible. Not one of which, is likely that religion has often been the politics of its day. It's often difficult to garner absolute authority, without instilling some fear, or in some way discrediting your fellow candidates. Or, in this case, denominations.
You either believe in the freedom to choose, and goodwill toward all, or you do not. If you say all other religions are false, then what choice is really left?
This is akin to what is known in philosophy as a "Hobson's choice":

From Random House:

Hobson didn't have a problem at all; he was the man in charge. It's the choosers who had the problem.

Thomas Hobson--yes, he was a real person, and we know who he is--ran a livery stable in Cambridge, England in the seventeeth century. A customer who wanted to rent a horse had only one real choice: to rent the horse nearest the stable door; Hobson wouldn't rent horses out of order.

As a result, we have the proverbial Hobson's choice, which is something that seems like a free choice but really isn't; it's the absence of a real alternative. This or nothing.

Hobson lived from about 1544 to 1631, and was apparently something of a hit in his time. Milton commemorated him in two epitaphs, and issue 509 of Addison and Steele's Spectator was devoted to him in 1712. The term Hobson's choice itself is first attested in the mid-seventeenth century.




Well, okay... Maybe your neighbor's mate really is a horse. :rolleyes: :)

---

It is 100% Christian to believe that Christianity is the only path to salvation and that there is no other. As bitter as it might be for non-Christians to accept, Christians believe that the only way to be in good standing with God is to accept Jesus' Ransom Sacrifice for our sins. True, there are other religions and their adherents feel they are the ones who have the truth. But that does not in any way obligate a Christian to discard his faith and agree with them-does it? A Christian is a Christian for the same reason that a Moslem is a Moslem, a Buddhist is a Buddhist. Because that's the religion a Christian has chosen to place his faith in.

It is also 100% Christian to tell others about Jesus' Ransom Sacrifice. Such a telling of others, of course can be interpreted as instilling fear or intolerance of other people's beliefs. But that telling of the Good News to others and that effort to bring them into the Christian fold is an assignment given us by Jesus himself and is an inseparable part of Christianity and will always be a part of Christianity despite vehement protests as the type you have just posted.

It seems rather strange to expect a Christian to tell others that he doesn't have a reason to believe in what he believes and that any path is good enough. That sort of thinking is neither Christian nor logical.

As for versions of Bibles and many reasons for versions of Bibles, that is really of no consequence from where I stand in the same manner that the practice of magic and worship of many gods is of no real consequence from where you stand. As for good reasons? I also have my good reasons I discourage others from practicing magic and worshipping many gods. If you take umbrage with this despite the fact that I have my good reasons, then I guess that's your problem-not mine.

About choice, to choose all paths as equally viable is unbiblical. Religiously there is no middle ground just as there is no middle ground in reference to many other things which either are or are not. All choices by the very nature require an elimination of alternatives. That of course doesn't mean hating and disrespecting the right of others to choose. In fact, your vehement demand that I shut the hell up, accept your way of thinking and not speak my mind as I see fit is a disrespect for my right to choose and a demonstration of the animosity that you claim to condemn. Think about that.

BTW
Actually your presumptuous certainty that I am lying when I claim not hate people who worship differently than I do requires reading of hearts which only the creator is capable of-are you he? Or is it that you belong to a religious group of people who feel they have attained such powers

As to degeneration to the status you mention? Too late! You already have. : )

It's funny how you say this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

It is 100% Christian to believe that Christianity is the only path to salvation and that there is no other. As bitter as it might be for non-Christians to accept, Christians believe that the only way to be in good standing with God is to accept Jesus' Ransom Sacrifice for our sins.

---

Then you say this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

How in all sanity have you reached the conclusion that I don't recognize other people's right to choose

---

Do you not see the problem here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

Your mention of ill feelings and lack of good will completely unwarranted

---

I have seen this in your posts. You seem to believe that anyone that does not share your brand of christianity is a lower form of human. That, to me, would be a lack of good will. What do you think?

I think it is and will continue to be more and more important to believe in what you believe while learning or being (if you have already learned) respectful of others beliefs. This issue is not one of religion really, not at all, LOL.

It is one of manners. And respect and the appropriate boundary management that flows from that seemingly small and almost trivial word "manners". It seems to me, watching the world over time, that following this glorious Age of Information will very likely be either the Age of Manners or the Age of Armageddon.

It will become more and more clear as stuff heats up that its incumbent on each of us to look at ONLY ourselves and decide which age we are beckoning. Each of our creators will be taking notes, no doubt too. I believe, I hope the majority of earth's population will "vote" for manners. I am.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

It's funny how you say this:
Then you say this:
Do you not see the problem here?
I have seen this in your posts. You seem to believe that anyone that does not share your brand of christianity is a lower form of human. That, to me, would be a lack of good will. What do you think?

---

Yes, that would definitely constitute a lack of good will.

However, there is absolutely nothing that I have posted that warrants such a drastic conclusion and neither are the comments you have just used as an example a basis to reach that conclusion. I strongly suspect that you are identifying my beliefs and my behavior with that of certain fanatically-inclined misguided individuals you might have met who gave you the weird unchristian impression you describe. It is best to direct your comments to them and let them give you an explanation for their behavior if indeed that is the case. As for me, I certainly don't see others or treat others as sub-humans although I have been very often subjected to that kind of treatment myself. Just because others don't see things my way? To me that would be the epitome of stupidity.


Also, Christians don't consider others sub-human because they are not Christians.
That is an unchristian way of thinking and it is truly sad that you perceive Christianity in such a negative light.

You Christians can believe whatever you want. No problem at all. But don't tell me you respect my beliefs and then rail on with that self-righteous dogma that you have the only way and I'm wrong because the bible says so. And you may think correcting ones false beliefs, because your bible tells you to is both condescending and an insult to my intelligence and a basic disregard for what I believe. YOU may be bound by and old history book that many have changed over centuries but I am not. Don't get me wrong, There are some excellent examples of good humans who are Christians whom I have a great respect for but the one's that use the bible to justify bad manners and put any one different down, I truly think your paving your own path to hell. Just my humble opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

Also, Christians don't consider others sub-human because they are not Christians.
That is an unchristian way of thinking and it is truly sad that you perceive Christianity in such a negative light.

---

I certainly was not speaking of all christians. I have LOTS of christians friends, in fact the large majority of my friends and family are christian. They do not share your narrow view of christianity. In fact they allow others to live their lives regardless of their religious affiliations. No one is trying to convert anyone.

Gee, my "let's stick up for good manners" plug didn't get very far. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow

Gee, my "let's stick up for good manners" plug didn't get very far. :(

---

Now, now, you no us guys are a speak it as you feel it bunch.

Okay Tal, but its really is a matter of a person can think or feel and certainly post any belief they like, including ignorant, prejudicial, or even outright wrong stuff (so long as its not tangibly dangerous) so I take caution not to mix those up with the real objectionable stuff. And I am NOT saying any Christian's (or any other religion) view is that. I have never complained about anyone's belief here and I would recommend that to others too. In fact, I honor Starman and every single Christian here their right to their beliefs. I believe he and I had a really interesting discussion a while back (before I left and returned) about where the line is concerning impolite actions. If attempts are made to convert me that are not solicited, its over the line and he agreed, if I recall. Short of that, he can spout all he wants with my blessings. As strange as this may seem, I am sticking up for him here all the while as I disagree with a great deal of his beliefs and he with mine.

It's the actions that matter for only there can someone else be harmed. And it's the actions that laws addresses too. It's the same line that is set up in the rules of disparaging here at AMHD. Talk to the IDEA but leave the other person out of it. If you are going to talk personal, it best be about YOUR OWN STUFF. I have and will continue to object if someone gets personal about me and its derogatory, count on that. They will be dealt with by the moderators, I am also assured of that.

But beliefs, particularly religious ones, are quite a lot like that old childhood rhyme about "sticks and stones..." So I say believe anything you like about me or your fellow humans. Prejudicial thought, umm while I wouldn't recommend it, is still nothing in and of itself-- it takes an action to make it harmful.

And to be fair to the site, if you think an action is inappropriate, use the proper method for complaining about it and click that "Report Inappropriate" button or pm the person privately. It doesn't belong in a public post-- I think that's crappy and a really big lesson I learned here recently from the now removed "dead marine" thread.

If one does choose to question another here publicly, then something needs to be said for taking it at face value too, ie-- "Did you mean ill will with that?" "No I did not." -- equates to end of debate.

Val,
Over and over again we read posts where Starman basically says that if you don't observe christianity the same way he does then you are on the wrong path. He further says that his way is the only way.

You'll have to forgive me if I just don't lay down, roll over and drink the Kool-Aid. I'll defend my beliefs as well.

Have a great day, I'm off to the Red Cross to donate.

Yes he does. LOL It is his right to. As is yours about your beliefs. And you certainly don't have to drink any koolaid either NK. And none of us has to listen to any one person here too - I think a number of us have learned THAT lesson as well -- I know I have. Its wise to develop the skill of "selective post reading".

Heads off to the Lounge with a sudden thirst now. :D

I name no names , but I think I am as entitled to voice my opinon as anyone and of course any one can agree or disagree, no problem as I really have NO animosity towards any one. For the record Starman is one of my favorites Its about the debate and okay I can get BLUNT but no harm intended and I will call names if namecalling is directed at me, personally. On the whole though I love a good debate. I'm human, sue me! Off topic a bit but I could use some kool-aid about now, er maybe I'll make my own.

Well you do know, don't you, that there is a 12-step program for people who are addicted to endless debate?? :eek:

I think its called "On and On Anon :p Oh but wait, that's a whole n'uther forum!

LOL sign me up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Val,
Over and over again we read posts where Starman basically says that if you don't observe christianity the same way he does then you are on the wrong path. He further says that his way is the only way.

You'll have to forgive me if I just don't lay down, roll over and drink the Kool-Aid. I'll defend my beliefs as well.

Have a great day, I'm off to the Red Cross to donate.

---

You donate Kool-Aid to the Red Cross?

:)

LOL Morg, let's hope it was cherry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

It is 100% Christian to believe that Christianity is the only path to salvation and that there is no other. As bitter as it might be for non-Christians to accept, Christians believe that the only way to be in good standing with God is to accept Jesus' Ransom Sacrifice for our sins.

---

I do not have a problem with you believing personally, that yours is the only right path. What I do find bitter, is saying that anyone who does not follow your particular brand of religion, or even Christianity, will be trod under the hobnailed boots of a celestial army.
My religion neither teaches or advocates bruised egos, nor vengeance.
I do accept Jesus sacrifice, which is why I feel we have the right to choose, as long as our hearts are pure. To discriminate against or exclude anyone, is to me, the ultimate insult and negation of that sacrifice.

Quote:

---

True, there are other religions and their adherents feel they are the ones who have the truth. But that does not in any way obligate a Christian to discard his faith and agree with them-does it? A Christian is a Christian for the same reason that a Moslem is a Moslem, a Buddhist is a Buddhist. Because that's the religion a Christian has chosen to place his faith in.

---

Please cite one line in which I ever attempted to coerce you away from your faith, or suggested, no less enjoined you, to adopt mine. I am glad we can now agree about the freedom of choice thing, that was 50% of my inquiry. :)
The other 50% being, "What constitutes a false religion?"

Quote:

---

It is also 100% Christian to tell others about Jesus' Ransom Sacrifice. Such a telling of others, of course can be interpreted as instilling fear or intolerance of other people's beliefs. But that telling of the Good News to others and that effort to bring them into the Christian fold is an assignment given us by Jesus himself and is an inseparable part of Christianity and will always be a part of Christianity despite vehement protests as the type you have just posted.

---

Which is why I have I have always politely respected the "proselytizing" of such denominations as the JW's, the "Moonies", and the Boston Church of Christ, even once having attended the services of the latter on the behest of a friend, despite some rather condescending remarks on their part priorly.
You are free to show up at my door any time, if it's in good faith, and on the basis of equality.
Vehement protests? I'm rarely vehement about anything. Honest intellectual inquiries coated with a liberal dose of my sometimes, admittedly obscure, even a bit off-color humor. Nothing more. ;)

Quote:

---

It seems rather strange to expect a Christian to tell others that he doesn't have a reason to believe in what he believes and that any path is good enough. That sort of thinking is neither Christian nor logical.

---

I certainly do not expect you to tell me this. In fact, I'm glad you believe much of what you do so strongly. I have met far to many "Christians" for which it was nothing more than a birthright, given no more thought than the family name, if that.
Despite your beliefs though, that still doesn't necessarily mean that others beliefs are inherently wrong. Neither does it yet explain to me exactly what constitutes a "false religion." Many world faiths far predate the birth of Christ.

Quote:

---

As for versions of Bibles and many reasons for versions of Bibles, that is really of no consequence from where I stand in the same manner that the practice of magic and worship of many gods is of no real consequence from where you stand. As for good reasons? I also have my good reasons I discourage others from practicing magic and worshipping many gods.

---

I would have to politely disagree with you here.
First off, you did appear to take great offense at Morganite's readings or interpretations of Biblical scripture. Teachings, that to me, seem far more in line with loving your fellow man.
Secondly, out of the hundreds of Tibetan Buddhist monastic precepts, "To not use psychic powers to burn down villages." is still on the books, so to speak. Among others, of course. :)

Quote:

---

If you take umbrage with this despite the fact that I have my good reasons, then I guess that's your problem-not mine.

---

I take umbrage with little. But as a human being, I do admittedly get a bit frustrated from time to time. Call it a character flaw.
Chalk to the rest up to tough love, and trying to get people to think outside the box.

Quote:

---

About choice, to choose all paths as equally viable is unbiblical.

---

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

There is no middle ground just as there is no middle ground in reference to many other things which either are or are not.

---

Buddhism is often referred to as the "Middle Path." From my point of view, "are" and "are not" are false perceptions of a dualistic world view, based on cognitive discrimination.
Though this may in fact be your view, please don't assume it for all of us. To many of us, shades of grey are abundant. To me, there is little but shades of grey.

Quote:

---

All choices by the very nature require an elimination of alternatives.

---

This is a very dangerous view. You fail to note the crucial distinction between respectfully "opting out" of "alternatives" and eliminating them.
Among the people who have shared this latter view: Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung...

Quote:

---

That of course doesn't mean hating and disrespecting the right of others to choose.

---

But if you insist on "eliminating" the alternatives, we're back to the proverbial Hobson's choice. Though you may feel that you respect others, many will not overly respect you, if they feel that you impinge upon their fundamental human rights, regardless of whatever higher calling may impel you.

Quote:

---

In fact, your vehement demand that I shut the hell up, accept your way of thinking and not speak my mind as I see fit is a disrespect for my right to choose and a demonstration of the animosity that you claim to condemn. Think about that.

---

If I wanted you to "shut the hell up", I would have ignored you! Seems only logical to me. :) Far less effort involved that way.
I don't feel that I've ever disrespected your right to choose, and all I ask is that you be careful not to disrespect such the right of others.
Nothing to think about, no animosity here. A bit of heated discussion maybe, other than that, nothing but tough love, and an encouragement to think outside the box.

Quote:

---

BTW
Actually your presumptuous certainty that I am lying when I claim not hate people who worship differently than I do requires reading of hearts which only the creator is capable of-are you he?

---

Hate is a very strong word. Though, by comparison, I am capable of making a reasoned "assumption" as to when individuals likely are reasonably respecting others beliefs.
Am I the "Man" at the top? No, I'm far too humble for that; but I'm flattered that you asked. Though there were a few people, many years back on the psych ward... Never mind, you probably don't wish to know my past that well. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Or is it that you belong to a religious group of people who feel they have attained such powers

---

Again, my religion has this whole thing regarding the proper usage of psychic powers... Best not to get into it. :)

Quote:

---

As to degeneration to the status you mention? Too late! You already have. : )

---

Well, again, only trying to lighten it up with a little pseudo-intellectual humor. My reference to "those who do not bet on the horses", referring to the atheists among us, who incidentally, I do respect as well.
But perhaps you're right. Maybe this is turning into nothing more than a "bridge of fools." It's hard to span the knowledge gap when the building materials are being misused.

"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." - Matthew 7:5

Now we are all learning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I name no names , but I think I am as entitled to voice my opinon as anyone and of course any one can agree or disagree, no problem as I really have NO animosity towards any one. For the record Starman is one of my favorites Its about the debate and okay I can get BLUNT but no harm intended and I will call names if namecalling is directed at me, personally. On the whole though I love a good debate. I'm human, sue me!!Off topic a bit but I could use some kool-aid about now, er maybe I'll make my own.

---

I agree that you should make your own and not drink any that Jimmy Jones brings round to you. He is too apocalyptic for my taste.

M:)

First, I apologize for being unable to tell whether you are calling me a fool with indirects or just jesting. I'm probably wrong with assuming that now you are calling me a hypocrite as well so since that is probably the case I will simply ignore your reference to hypocrites and attribute it to perhaps another way of jesting. In any case, I was wrong in
responding in kind and if that is the hypocritical part then I guess the shoe fits.

About the gray areas and middle grounds, as I previously stated, for a Christian there can be no compromise. You say I am condemning everyone who doesn't believe as I do to death. People who know me better would tell you that I have never made that kind of statement on this site. Actually, what I have said plain and simple is that God expects those who are to gain eternal life to accept Jesus as savior. I have also said that those presently not accepting his sacrifice based on ignorance, upbringing, or any other thing beyond their control will be given a chance to see clearly that Jesus is indeed the way to eternal life. However, if after this is done the persons knowing this full well insist on not accepting God's provision for salvation then God is definitely not to blame for their destiny since it will be an informed decision on their part and not one based on lack of knowledge, misinformation or ignorance. That is what I have posted repeatedly on this forum-nothing more and nothing less.


About my disrespecting others by telling them what I have learned and believe to be the truth as revealed via inspiration, that certainly can be viewed that way and is viewed that way by some as is evident by your reaction and the advice you give me to not do so again. But unfortunately the message God gave us is clear and has to be told regardless of how someone who thinks differently might interpret it.

And as I stated previously and continue to be ignored, I don't challenge any person's right to worship as he pleases. Neither has God given Christians the authority to challenge that human right which he gave them. What God does challenge as explained in the Bible is that humans DO NOT have the right to worship as they please in HIS universe and that he will not forever tolerate worship which he has not authorized. He also tells us that those who are informed of his displeasure and insist on doing things their way in HIS universe will have to be removed. That is also part of the message given us to tell others.

If indeed that comes across as hatred, or as an effort to take away people's rights,
perhaps it is because people's rights are not unlimited as they imagine them to be.

BTW

I commend you for accepting Jesus's ransom sacrifice. However, I'm not sure where you are deriving your concepts concerning the applicability of the ransom sacrifice from since your concept has no scriptural support. Jesus died for all, but not all would accept that sacrifice. Neither is the value of that sacrifice forced on everyone regardless of their attitude towards it. If the gift were were forced on everyone as you seem to imply, then that would be depriving them of their freedom to reject it-freedom of choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You Christians can believe whatever you want. No problem at all. But don't tell me you respect my beliefs and then rail on with that self-righteous dogma that you have the only way and I'm wrong because the bible says so. And you may think correcting ones false beliefs, because your bible tells you to is both condescending and an insult to my intelligence and a basic disregard for what I believe. YOU may be bound by and old history book that many have changed over centuries but I am not. Don't get me wrong, Their are some excellent examples of good humans who are Christians whom I have a great respect for but the one's that use the bible to justify bad manners and put any one different down, I truly think your paving your own path to hell. Just my humble opinion.

---

First, I don't believe in a hell created specially to torture people who sin and don't repent. Neither am I willing to worship a god who approves of such a thing. Second, Jesus did not tell his disciples to rail on as you say, despite a person's clear rejection of his message. What he told Christians to do when a person rejects the gospel is to symbolically wipe their feet and go elsewhere and leave the person alone. So if anyone has been railing on at you despite your rejection of the message it isn't because Jesus tells them to but simply because they mistakenly think they are supposed to.

Or perhaps you might feel Christians are railing on at you because you are associating with Christians who rail, or tuning in on certain denominational radio stations which are characterized by constantly railing followed by a fervent request for donations.
Interestingly, the only time any Christian has railed at me was when I was a kid and had no control over who entered our house or where I was take. After I became an adult I have had sufficient control over my immediate environment to prevent people from inflicting that sort of annoyance on me. Make sense?

As for your speaking disparagingly of what I and other Christians consider a sacred book, that's nothing new. So it has little shock value left and is only useful to those who are in need of blowing off some anti-biblical steam now and then and who perhaps believe that they are shocking the "hell" out of Christian. In any case, you have as much a right to your opinion about the Bible as I have a right to have an opinion about godless evolution theory which I consider tantamount to a mother goose father rooster tale despite other people's great belief and respect for those inanities.



BTW

I don't believe that a person is drawn to God simply because his or her religious beliefs are corrected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

First, I apologize for being unable to tell whether you are calling me a fool with indirects or just jesting. I'm probably wrong with assuming that now you are calling me a hypocrite as well so since that is probably the case I will simply ignore your reference to hypocrites and attribute it to perhaps another way of jesting. In any case, I was wrong in
responding in kind and if that is the hypocritical part then I guess the shoe fits.

---

I apologize for not being more clear. Just another off-color attempt at humor, not aimed at anyone in particular. We're all hypocrites and fools at times. I'm very reluctant to trust anyone who isn't. As I did state, "Now we are all learning."

Quote:

---

About the gray areas and middle grounds, as I previously stated, for a Christian there can be no compromise. You say I am condemning everyone who doesn't believe as I do to death. People who know me better would tell you that I have never made that kind of statement on this site. Actually, what I have said plain and simple is that God expects those who are to gain eternal life to accept Jesus as savior. I have also said that those presently not accepting his sacrifice based on ignorance, upbringing, or any other thing beyond their control will be given a chance to see clearly that Jesus is indeed the way to eternal life. However, if after this is done the persons knowing this full well insist on not accepting God's provision for salvation then God is definitely not to blame for their destiny since it will be an informed decision on their part and not one based on lack of knowledge, misinformation or ignorance. That is what I have posted repeatedly on this forum-nothing more and nothing less.

---

Well, there was this little, not very "religious" gem:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

I also hope you realize that Jesus is described in Revelations and other parts of the NT as coming to earth with his heavenly armies to destroy those practicers of false religions who refuse to worship the only true God.

---

Quote:

---

About my disrespecting others by telling them what I have learned and believe to be the truth as revealed via inspiration, that certainly can be viewed that way and is viewed that way by some as is evident by your reaction and the advice you give me to not do so again. But unfortunately the message God gave us is clear and has to be told regardless of how someone who thinks differently might interpret it.

---

I never told you not to do it. I'd never presume to tell anyone what is right for them. I did though conscientiously, and hopefully somewhat friendlily, advise you against summarily condemning others. I doubt you are any more the Creator than I, regardless of whether you feel you have a closer connection, or more spiritual brownie points.

Quote:

---

And as I stated previously and continue to be ignored, I don't challenge any person's right to worship as he pleases. Neither has God given Christians the authority to challenge that human right which he gave them. What God does challenge as explained in the Bible is that humans DO NOT have the right to worship as they please in HIS universe and that he will not forever tolerate worship which he has not authorized. He also tells us that those who are informed of his displeasure and insist on doing things their way in HIS universe will have to be removed. That is also part of the message given us to tell others.

---

And as I have previously stated in other posts, it is my own personal belief, that we were created in God's image, not Him in ours. I believe God is essentially devoid of ego, and all the afflictions that come bundled with one.

Quote:

---

If indeed that comes across as hatred, or as an effort to take away people's rights,
perhaps it is because people's rights are not unlimited as they imagine them to be.

---

I never said peoples' rights were unlimited. If nothing else, karma teaches me that.

Quote:

---

BTW

I commend you for accepting Jesus's ransom sacrifice. However, I'm not sure where you are deriving your concepts concerning the applicability of the ransom sacrifice from since your concept has no scriptural support. Jesus died for all, but not all would accept that sacrifice. Neither is the value of that sacrifice forced on everyone regardless of their attitude towards it. If the gift were were forced on everyone as you seem to imply, then that would be depriving them of their freedom to reject it-freedom of choice.

---

Once again, I feel, in an effort justify your own proclivities, you accuse me of yet another act, I don't feel it can be reasonably surmised I committed. I don't feel Jesus ever forced anything upon anyone, least not me, and certainly not his death or resurrection. It is my opinion that you could do far worse than to follow his example.
Again, this is only my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas1970

I apologize for not being more clear. Just another off-color attempt at humor, not aimed at anyone in particular. We're all hypocrites and fools at times. I'm very reluctant to trust anyone who isn't. As I did state, "Now we are all learning."

---

Now you're speaking in oxymorons.

Quote:

---

Well, there was this little, not very "religious" gem:

---

Perhaps a definition of the word "religious" is in order in order to avoid equivocation.
"Gem?" That's simple enough I suppose. Irony? Well, that's totally beyond my capacity I think.

Quote:

---

I never told you not to do it. I'd never presume to tell anyone what is right for them. I did though conscientiously, and hopefully somewhat friendlily, advise you against summarily condemning others. I doubt you are any more the Creator than I, regardless of whether you feel you have a closer connection, or more spiritual brownie points.

---

I see nothing friendly in your manner of approach which ignores explanations concerning my motives as if they were drivel and cunningly propagates your own view of what I really feel and think-sorry. Didn't tell? Not necessary to tell-simply giving a general impression via criticism barbed with sarcasm suffices.

I feel I have a closer what? There you go again Jimmy! Are you sure you aren't HE?

Quote:

---

[And as I have previously stated in other posts, it is my own personal belief, that we were created in God's image, not Him in ours. I believe God is essentially devoid of ego, and all the afflictions that come bundled with one.

---

This gets curiouser and curiouser! To me YOU come across as creating God in YOUR image since the ideas you keep repeating are your own.

Quote:

---

I never said peoples' rights were unlimited. If nothing else, karma teaches me that.

---

Karma? Aha! Isn't that the idea of the cycle of reincarnation? For a person who claims to accept Jesus as his savior it seems a bit strange that you unconditionally accept a concept that has absolutely nothing to do with his teachings.

"This is my beloved Son; listen to him" (Mark 9:7).

Please try not to interpret the following as a savage attack on your right to believe anything you want. Thanks!


Excerpt:
In much of the Orient, this strict belief in karma has resulted in a hopeless, pessimistic view of life. Their lives are seen as dreary, endless cycles of suffering and rebirth. Because of this endless chain of karma, reincarnation does not resolve the problem of evil, but simply points toward the impossible goal of perfection and self-salvation, the ultimate freedom from reincarnation. In modern, western reincarnation, the objective is to join with "ultimate reality," merging with God and becoming God. Modern reincarnation often promotes the divinity of the soul and denies the biblical concept of a sovereign, personal God.

Author: Mark Van Bebber of Eden Communications.



http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-r009.html

If people are held unaccountable for their behavior by God then their rights are unlimited and self conceived. In short, man becomes his own god.

Quote:

---

Once again, I feel, in an effort justify your own proclivities, you accuse me of yet another act, I don't feel it can be reasonably surmised I committed. I don't feel Jesus ever forced anything upon anyone, least not me, and certainly not his death or resurrection. It is my opinion that you could do far worse than to follow his example.
Again, this is only my opinion.

---

Justifying what? Proclivities?

With all due respect, bon ami, but I should not need to be justifying anything to anyone on this forum. All I did was give an opinion in response to a person who requested opinions and did so only after several other people had given their more extensive with which I disagreed. I remained silent because they are entitled to their opinions. My more extensive commentaries only surfaced after these same people took offense and began hurling a barrage of protests concerning my opinion in my direction. Since that is the case, I think that justification of proclivities applies more to you and them than it does to me.


About Jesus forcing? No, you don't directly say it in so many words-but your argument implies that by saying that his sacrifice applies to all without regard to beliefs, behavior-or any other criterion which he spoke about. Which of course amounts to the convenient creation of your own Jesus.


BTWI am an idiot

Acts 4
18Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. 20For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starman

... Permitting a person to plough ahead in the wrong direction because one doesn't want to hurt his feelings by showing him the way isn't kindness. ...

---

In this post you hit on the crux of the problem of appropriate behaviour for those who believe that the religious truths and insights that light their personal world and spiritual quest are the only religious truth that matters and that, as a consequence, they are commissioned to knock down all other faiths and beliefs under the guise of 'steering them right to save their souls.'

It is this very attitude that fuelled the medieval inquisitions where the body of a 'heretic' was excoriated, scarified, torn, pulled limb from limb, and even burned “for the good of his soul.”

It is a view that is totally opposed by the teachings of Jesus and his ministers. Jesus nowhere gives sanction for either bitter argument or physical punishment, far less the killing of anyone whose grasp on his teachings is less than is, perhaps, should be.

Jesus saved his opposition for those of his own faith whose behaviour laid heavy and unjustified burdens on the heads of ordinary men and women who sought to follow the commandments of God.

We look in vain for Jesus advising his disciples to 'go after' those who did not strictly understanding or follow his teachings. Jesus knew that well a person follows his teachings is an individual matter and that those who strayed unwittingly answer to God.

It is sad state when someone assumes the role of Judge in these matters, as if they were arbiters of orthodoxy, or commissioned by God to fell strays.

Jesus told his disciples to let the Pharisees alone, and not bother them. He did not tell them that they should appoint themselves ministers to them, even though they might stand in need of ministry.

Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Paul gave similar advice to the saints who had been taught by … Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away many people after him: he also perished; and as many as obeyed him, were scattered.

And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

The apostles complained to Jesus that some men they did not know were … casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.

If Christendom has gone astray in doctrine and dogma, those matters are of less consequence than the imposition of strictures on members of the Christian church by the church itself.

It is sad that an Inquisitorial spirit lives on in the minds of men who make stirrings to disturb the peaceful pursuit of faith by those designated as enemies of God, because they have chosen a different path through which to, exercise their faith in God and Christ.

What are we do to with such fellows? Had we their spirits in us, we would seek to harass, beat, scourge, them and make them as miserable as we would be, were we engaged in this same pseudo-religious sadism.

The systematic pursuit of heresy and the punishment of heretics is an Inquisition, which is the name given to the detection and punishment of perceived heretics and all persons guilty of any perceived offence against perceived orthodoxy.

Christian went on to recognise the evils of inquisitions, and this dawning horror played a major part in the reforming movement. Yet despite proclaimed repugnance at the practice, it soon adopted the same program through which to persuade men to be obedient to the doctrines it had lately fashioned, so that the reformers were no better than those they railed against and did not spare to torture and slaughter 'heretics.'

While such practices would be swiftly suppressed today, the spirit that gave rise to holy murder is still abroad in the land and manifests itself each time the self-appointed 'inquisitors' catch someone holding an 'illegal' and punishable opinion.

Bigots, when challenged over bitterness and polemic, claim to be following Jesus cleansing the temple, or rebuking the Pharisees. They have their Bible passages ready to invoke as the legality of their commission, and they are not slow to state that they are acting like dunderheads for the sake of the 'lost,' and those who are 'out of the way.' It is my position that 'showing someone the way' is not unkindness, but being bloody minded about the way you do it most certainly is.

If I ask you whether you would like a piece of cake, and you say you do, I can either smear it all over your face or else present it nicely on a bone china plate. Either way you get the cake, but the methods of presentation are different, and it is obvious that the method of presentation, whether of cake of faith, DOES matter.

The ultimate destination of bigotry is a narrow fundamentalism that brooks no rivals and must destroy all opposing or non-consonantal views without hesitation or thought. The main problem with such ideologues is that they cannot even consider that they can be guilty of irrationalism and uncritical scholarship just as easily as those whom they criticize. Indeed, having discerned error only on one side (his opponents'), he acts as if he was infallible, and omniscient, both of which are unattractively unpleasant.

It is utterly conceited for one person to believe that he knows what another person believes. When it comes to matters of my personal faith, for example, you must trust my word implicitly if we are to communicate about it, because that is the only access you have to the world I live in. Yet we find these harsh critics determining what each person who matches their inquisitorial designation of denomination and religion MUST believe, because they know better than the person under their scrutiny. That this position is an untenable nonsense is patent.

Therefore, because a person says they are Wiccan, it does not necessarily follow that they espouse, adhere to, follow, or even believe everything contained in a supposed description of “What Wiccans Believe,” especially if they do not. Having denied participation in what has been claimed, it is tragic to for 'know-it-alls' to jump on them and controvert them, claiming greater knowledge.

I read in a book written by former Jehovah's Witness, and now conducting a persecuting ministry against them she makes the statement of appropriate to the intelligence of the mental midget she is.

“Those who are not in the religion do not know anything about it, and those who are in the religion it cannot tell the truth about it.”

We should enjoy discussing godly and spiritual manifestations of the pathways of faith that are common to the endless variety of the human religious experience. Yet such discussions should not be harsh, but enlightened, having regard for the feelings and sensitivities of others who do not share our views, nor enshrine certain tenets as devoutly as we do, nor track the same markers to piety and holiness that seem proper to ourselves.

All should be done with kindness, sensitivity, and with due honour to our friends who, though they do not share our pews, are still our neighbors, and are the divinely appointed recipients of our love, however much a bad taste the devil might infuse into our mouths at having to be gracious towards them.

Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice, and know me, and follow me, and a stranger they will not follow, for they know not the voice of strangers."

If any do not come willingly to the fold of the Good Shepherd, they are not to be driven there with sticks, firebrands, thumbscrews, iron maidens, pillories, or stakes, nor with verbal equivalents of such cruel ungodly instruments.

The duty of Christians is to acquire knowledge and love so that everything they do is right and true, patterned after Jesus Christ, for "this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3).

Paul reminds the Galatians to rekindle their love for him and live the Gospel, which he taught them. If the Galatians discover misconduct, they who are spiritual are to restore and correct in a spirit of meekness. They are to carry each other's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. Every man is to examine, or put to the proof, his own work or conduct (Gal. 6:1-5).

Jesus Christ transforms the lives of men and society by its principles. When shared in meekness and love the Gospel offers aid to all who seek to find light in a troubled world, it comforts those who need comfort, encourages those who need courage, guides those who need guidance, brings unspeakable peace for those in need of peace, and spiritual challenges for those who need such challenges to grow on their journey to spiritual maturity.

M:)RGANITE

Much easier I think Morganite (and perfectly okay with God too, I bet) to consider everyone over the age of, oh say, 12 to be grow'd enough to be accountable for their beliefs and let sleeping dogs lie unless and until they ask you to comment. I cannot honestly see how spirtual maturity can leave out spiritual manners.

Belief does not do harm to anyone, action does. From the terrible Inquistion you mention to the tiny, personal, only slightly disrespecting sneer.

How easy it is for some to defend their belief with such fervor and never once consider their often offending actions. Like that is or ever will be sanctioned by the creator who made us all...

... the problem is I know better but I had to learn that for myself. And so will everyone else too. Or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

In this post you hit on the crux of the problem of appropriate behaviour for those who believe that the religious truths and insights that light their personal world and spiritual quest are the only religious truth that matters and that, as a consequence, they are commissioned to knock down all other faiths and beliefs under the guise of 'steering them right to save their souls... ]

---

People who encouraged this fellow toward toward Wiccan, believe that their
encouragement is correct--right? The privilege to feel that way should not be limited to non-Christians.


Anyway--

"to knock down" = Tell others what Jesus told us to tell them.

"Personal world" = The world as the Bible describes it.

"Spiritual quest" = TO desire the eternal life promised us and tell others about it.

To try to live as Jesus and the rest of the scriptures tells us to do.

"Commissioned" = Told us to do.

"Guise" This word assumes maliciousness and requires omniscience.

"Insights" = Concepts-such as the resurrection of the dead, belief in the promise of God's kingdom on earth, realization that sin leads to death, appreciation of sacrifice for our sins,
acceptance of Christian duty to spread the gospel.

Quote:

---

... Jesus saved his opposition for those of his own faith whose behaviour laid heavy and unjustified burdens on the heads of ordinary men and women who sought to follow the commandments of God.

---

Jesus' message by its very messianic sacrificial salvational nature set it in opposition to all other religions on earth. So those worshippers of others gods and adherents of other religions who are told about it will automatically perceive it as an opposition, just as you are seemingly doing, if they are not inclined to accept the gospel. That is a given and one which every Christian who preaches encounters sooner or later in the ministry. That it is a focus of controversy at this late stage of the game seems quaint.

Quote:

---

We look in vain for Jesus advising his disciples to 'go after' those who did not strictly understanding or follow his teachings. Jesus knew that well a person follows his teachings is an individual matter and that those who strayed unwittingly answer to God.

---

Looking in vain and perhaps never will find because the sought is a figment of the imagination. Certain rhetoric here reminds me of the way people use language in devious ways in order to push their own propaganda in the hopes of fooling the simple-minded.

"friendly fire" "anti personnel mission" "police action" "demilitarized zone"


"Go after?"

There are so many other ways that this could be said:

"seek" "approach" "search for" But naturally, those won't do. So "Go after" with all its negative connotations is chosen. Very transparent.

Quote:

---

It is sad state when someone assumes the role of Judge in these matters, as if they were arbiters of orthodoxy, or commissioned by God to fell strays.

Jesus told his disciples to leave the Pharisees alone, and not bother them. He did not tell them that they should appoint themselves ministers to them, even though they might stand in need of ministry.

---

The religious leaders were to be left alone because Jesus had read their hearts and knew they were beyond hope. The common people were to be spoken to and kindly informed.

As for the felling strays indirect, that's an accusation requiring the delusion of omniscience. Believe me, if there is one person who gives the impression on this forum of feeling a judge of orthodoxy you don't have far to look to find him.

Quote:

---

Bigots, when challenged over bitterness and polemic, claim to be following Jesus cleansing the temple, or rebuking the Pharisees...

---

Bitter, polemical bigot, dunderhead, and feller of strays?

My response to this poster was neither bitter nor intended to be polemical.
It was mnerely a simple short response to his request for an opinion.
Polemical and bitter is just the way you chose to perceive.

The Christian attitude toward strays, by the way, is is to help them spiritually so thery can return to the fold--not to topple them into perdition:

It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. (Luke 15:32, KJV)


BTW
Name-calling does very little to support arguments. All it does is indicate anger and a desire to offend-both which are unchristian conduct and which weakens any claim of favoring a non-belligerent approach to discussion.


Anyway -- The Christian commission to teach all nations about his message is clear and the only dunderheads are those who know about this commission and deny it based on some ulterior motive. Calling Christians who heed Jesus' command to preach the gospel bigots will only convince those who are ignorant of the Christian's duty. Those familiar with their Christian duty will immediately recognize the charade.

Quote:

---

If I ask you whether you would like a piece of cake, and you say you do, I can either smear it all over your face or else present it nicely on a bone china plate. Either way you get the cake, but the methods of presentation are different, and it is obvious that the method of presentation, whether of cake of faith, DOES matter.

---

The personality uniformity you prefer is humanly impossible. Each Christian is different as every other human being is different. Because of this you will have variety of approaches to telling other about the glorious good news of God's kingdom.

Some will be a bit more forceful than others. Peter, for example, was different from Paul and Paul from John. So your requirement that everyone preach in accordance with YOUR particular preference is a bit unrealistic, and might verge on the dictatorial.

Quote:

---

The ultimate destination of bigotry is a narrow fundamentalism that brooks no rivals and must destroy all opposing or non-consonantal views without hesitation or thought...

---

Now I am a non-thinking destroyer of all opposition! LOL

Anyway, a non sequiter and your slippery fallacy has reared its head here.
Just because a person is a bigot it doesn't mean that he will wind up being a fundamentalist.

Bigotry leads to fundamentalism
He is a bigot
He will wind up being a fundamentalist..

Valid conclusion but false.


There are millions of bigots who have been atheists, orthodox Christians, agnostics, deists, prior to being bigots. So it should be more than obvious that bigotry need not always precede and lead to fundamentalism. Perhaps what you meant was bigots are far more likely to become fundamentalists. But in order to extricate that from the area of mere opinion you need to provide acceptable non-biased, statistical data-- which you did not.


Anyway -- Fundamentalism today has many adherents with many different concepts and not all the concepts are in agreement. I for example do not believe in the young earth idea, the speaking in unintelligible tongues, the hellfire and brimstone fundamentalist ideas while other fundamentalists might. So viewing all fundamentalists as carbon copies of one another isn't really being fair, as a matter of fact, it borders oon the deceitful since I am sure that you are more aware of the differences within this category than anyone else on this forum.

Quote:

---

It is utterly conceited for one person to believe that he knows what another person believes... Therefore, because a person says they are Wiccan, it does not necessarily follow that denied participation in what has been claimed,.

---

Strange, you claim to know what I really feel and believe despite my explanations
and proceed on that assumption. Is that conceit as well? If a person claims to be Wiccan on a posting board he will be assumed to be Wiccan. Not taking him at his word is disrespectful until you have proven otherwise.

As I previously have said, I never accused this fellow of following anything. I only said I agreed with the article he found to be wrong in its conclusions. Obviously that has almost caused you a cerebral hemorrhage for which I am truly sorry. But that is my opinion and I still stand by it regardless of your obvious distress Sorry!

BTW
It isn't "controvert" its "convert."

Quote:

---

I read in a book written by former Jehovah's Witness, and now conducting a persecuting ministry against them she makes the statement of appropriate to the intelligence of the mental midget she is.

---

What does this have to do with this subject?

Quote:

---

discussions should not be harsh, but enlightened, having regard for the feelings and sensitivities of others... All should be done with kindness, sensitivity,

---

Exactly the qualities that are missing in your name-calling, table palm-slamming, fist-pounding post.

Quote:

---

If any do not come willingly to the fold of the Good Shepherd, they are not to be driven there with sticks, firebrands, thumbscrews, iron maidens, pillories, or stakes, nor with verbal equivalents of such cruel ungodly instruments.

---

Self-appointed judge, stick goader, cruel and ungodly dunderhead, conceited torturer, feller of strays, bitter, polemical bigoted, mindless destroyer of all opposiition. That's me? Shields up! Incoming! Yikes! Lol

To tell others about Jesus is not to "drive" that's just the way some people who are averse to the gospel perceive it. Neither can a Christian's telling a person he disagrees with worshipping many gods and the practice of magic after the person requests an opinion be compared to all the cruel savagery that you compared it with. Hyperbole
I suppose?