[valinors_sorrow]

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?

[Starman]

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.

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.

[valinors_sorrow]

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

[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

[Thomas1970]

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.

[JoeCanada76]

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.

[Morganite]

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

[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: :)

[Morganite]

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:)

[Morganite]

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

[Morganite]

[...] 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:)

.

[Thomas1970]

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. :)

[Starman]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Thomas1970]

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! ;)

[Starman]

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. : )

[NeedKarma]

It's funny how you say this:

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:

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?

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?

[valinors_sorrow]

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.

[Starman]

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.

[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, 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.

[NeedKarma]

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.