Coexist

Originally posted by spiritmangr8ness
Wow you really sound angry! Keep it simple champ. I have seen many men fall from grace to the grave based upon what they have said. Do you really not get the simplistic connection between word and deed?

Good sir, perhaps I don't. That's a worrisome condition. I will have to reflect on that. Thank for pointing the anger out.

Originally posted by Stregone
Buddhism is not a religion!

O, to the contrary, many practice Buddhism as a religion. You are right, many solely practice it as a lifestyle/philosophy, but many still practice it as a religion.

Originally posted by wittywonka
O, to the contrary, many practice Buddhism as a religion. You are right, many solely practice it as a lifestyle/philosophy, but many still practice it as a religion.

That's true!

Originally posted by Evey Hammond
What? Because you say so?

What I have to say is inconsequential. What the Lord Jesus Christ has to say, well that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

"But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
We have the consolation that she shall burn in hell for her ecumenism.

Not necessarily. We have no certainty of her eternal status one way or another. She may very well be a believer.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Yeah. It would be much better for her to encourage the worship a monster-god who would banish people
to an afterlife of never-ending torture for sheer ignorance of the Christian tradition.

How very silly indeed.

Nemesio

It's unclear which of the monster-gods you reference, but you certainly know enough of the Bible to understand that such a title does not fit the God described therein. Nowhere in its pages does the Bible espouse eternal torture for ignorance of tradition. Every jot and tittle, however, does point to the salvation message and intent of the living God.

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

Originally posted by LemonJello
Gee, I hope you're kidding.

Otherwise, good example of the fundamentalist way. Take your silly limited understanding; set it in stone for all to see; and strike fear in the hearts of passers-by who dare to not genuflect. Take doctrinal conformity and assign it higher priority than the compassion and virtues your efforts putatively embody.

Hey, LJ. Long time, no wrestle.

Think of the situation this way. If you are aware of an emphatic danger and yet do nothing to stop another from traveling into its path--- in fact, even encourage the same to travel directly into the path--- can you be considered compassionate or virtuous?

Religion is a very sticky subject.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Hey, LJ. Long time, no wrestle.

Think of the situation this way. If you are aware of an emphatic danger and yet do nothing to stop another from traveling into its path--- in fact, even encourage the same to travel directly into the path--- can you be considered compassionate or virtuous?

"Hey" to you too, Freaky.

I do think there is deep down, in most cases, some core of compassion and virtue; some ball of metta; some tiny hub of loving kindness for others; that at least partially informs the way in which fundamentalists witness. There may well be within you something that aims toward protecting the interests of all humankind. The problem, however, is that your methods of going about this are ugly and perverse and just don't work. Consider the example provided in the opening post of this thread (the student). How best to go about inculcating the virtues and faculties that would enable him, as a rational and social creature, to flourish and successfully pursue meanginful projects and relationships? The nun felt it necessary to infix in him a tolerance that promotes the peaceful cohabitation of differing beliefs and practices. You feel it necessary to infix in him an irrational fear of constructed idols; you feel the need to repeatedly inform the kid that he is inherently worthless scum that will suffer eternal damnation if he doesn't consent to your dubious metaphysics.

Originally posted by LemonJello
"Hey" to you too, Freaky.

I do think there is deep down, in most cases, some core of compassion and virtue; some ball of metta; some tiny hub of loving kindness for others; that at least partially informs the way in which fundamentalists witness. There may well be within you something that aims toward protecting the interests of all humankind. ...[text shortened]... s scum that will suffer eternal damnation if he doesn't consent to your dubious metaphysics.

I do think there is deep down, in most cases, some core of compassion and virtue; some ball of metta; some tiny hub of loving kindness for others; that at least partially informs the way in which fundamentalists witness.
I disagree. In fact, just the opposite exists for the fundamentalist. His motivation is sheer, unadulterated fear and loathing, with a simmering guilt gravy. While the fundie is able to mask his hatred in all manner of pretty spiritual-sounding prose--- replete with concepts of duty, obligation and responsibility--- when the lights go out, the motivation was/is fear.

However, my query was directed toward the nun, not the fundamentalist. In full knowledge of the emphatic fact of salvation based solely upon faith in Jesus Christ, this sweet l'il ol' nun tut-tuts the truth and offers an ineffective substitute. Compassionate? Virtuous? Certainly by the norms and standards of non-biblical thinking. Certainly not by the norms and standards of truth.

How best to go about inculcating the virtues and faculties that would enable him, as a rational and social creature, to flourish and successfully pursue meanginful projects and relationships?
Were this the nun's only motive, perhaps she should have read him Aesop's fables or waited until this year's best-seller "The Secret" came out. Granted, that's under the assumption that one who follows the path of truth will somehow miss out on being "a virtuous, rational and social creature, [able] to flourish and successfully pursue meaningful projects and relationships." In your mind, only those who eschew doctrine are so equipped? How utterly narrow of you, LJ.

The nun felt it necessary to infix in him a tolerance that promotes the peaceful cohabitation of differing beliefs and practices.
Perhaps the nun should have stayed on the path of truth, then. Off of the path, there is no such tolerance, as demonstrated by your writings, in addition to the many 'open to every belief but Christianity' minded folks found herein. For the spiritually mature, among many guiding principles, life is a lesson in 'live and let live.' That is not the lesson the nun was trying to here impart. She was specifically illustrating the supposed fuzziness of truth, and informing her tolerance based upon the same. For the biblically-minded, the specificity of truth, and more pointedly, the characteristics of God inform the spiritually mature person's tolerance toward others.

...you feel the need to repeatedly inform the kid that he is inherently worthless scum that will suffer eternal damnation if he doesn't consent to your dubious metaphysics.
With all due respect, the beauty of your ignorance is that such statements as this actually underscore the truth by virtue of being the exact opposite. The nature of your loathing toward Christianity is a misunderstanding, both on your part as well as on the part of mainstream Christianity. Life is not about man. Human history is not about man. This entire drama has been about one person: the Lord Jesus Christ, His character, His integrity. We have simply been allowed to participate by virtue of being alive.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]............... In full knowledge of the emphatic fact of salvation based solely upon faith in Jesus Christ, this sweet l'il ol' nun tut-tuts the truth and offers an ineffective substitute. Compassionate? Virtuous? Certainly by the norms and standards of non-biblical thinking. Certainly not by the norms and standards of truth.
[b]

Whats the relevance of this passage :

1] Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Whats the relevance of this passage :

1] Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Yes, it’s the converse that is usually cited.

As Justin Martyr (died 165 C.E.) said, reflecting an apparently forgotten (at least by modern Biblicist Protestants, anyway) view of the very early church:

“Christ is the first-born of God, his Logos, in whom all people share. That is what we have learned and what we bear witness to ... All who have lived in accordance with the Logos are Christians, even if they have been reckoned atheists, as among the Greeks Socrates, Heraclitus and the like.”

The Protestant reformation (including Luther’s new doctrine of sola scriptura) was aimed strictly at what the reformers viewed as errors of Rome. The Greek East, for historical reasons, had been forgotten—as it still seems to be today.

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes, it’s the converse that is usually cited.

As Justin Martyr (died 165 C.E.) said, reflecting an apparently forgotten (at least by modern Biblicist Protestants, anyway) view of the very early church:

“Christ is the first-born of God, his Logos, in whom all people share. That is what we have learned and what we bear witness to ... All who have lived ...[text shortened]... Rome. The Greek East, for historical reasons, had been forgotten—as it still seems to be today.

Interesting. What are your personal views on this ?

Is it unreasonable and unbiblical to say that anyone (atheists included), who follow the commandments of Christ are in a sense Christians ?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Interesting. What are your personal views on this ?

Is it unreasonable and unbiblical to say that anyone (atheists included), who follow the commandments of Christ are in a sense Christians ?

My personal views are likely problematic in that I stand outside the fold., finding streams of the so-called “perennial philosophy” in most of the religious traditions. However, I have been studying the Greek Orthodox tradition recently.

The early church was hardly monolithic. However, such as Justin Martyr are cited favorably by the theologians I have read in the Greek Orthodox church. That does not mean that there are not those in Orthodoxy who take a more narrow view. Orthodoxy is not sola scriptura, but recognizes two traditions: written (Bible and creeds) and oral—what was handed down verbally by the apostles and the fathers, etc. Their scriptural hermeneutics are very different from that applied in the West, generally. For example, when Jesus says, “None come to the Father except by me”, they would likely read that as Jesus speaking out of his divine nature (the pre-existing, now incarnate Logos), etc., etc. [This is not something I want to debate right now; I have before.]

The main view of salvation (though not the only one) in Orthodoxy takes seriously the root meaning of the word soterias as making whole or making well: healing. The more conventional juridical model in the West (salvation as pardon) is not nearly so strongly represented in the East. Salvation is made available by grace (particularly via the incarnation), but requires our effort as well (the word they use is “synergy” ). Salvation is a process in which our participation is required. (Perhaps they would use the Epistle of James to con-textualize—there’s a pun in that hyphen—Paul, rather than the other way around: one person’s context is another person’s text, and vice-versa.)

The possibility of universal salvation is an acceptable, though not doctrinal, view in Orthodoxy—in which a temporary spell in hell might be seen as curative, rather than punitive. For a full-blown debate on that, mostly between Epiphenehas and myself, see the “God fails at salvation?” thread: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=66497&page=10. That might give you a general flavor.

Originally posted by Stregone
Cute story, but I'im not impressed with 'cute'! I do not believe that jesus is the messiah, the son of god. it's a myth; a fable, and therefore, christianity is rubbish! Wicca is fluff! Science, a religion?? Buddhism is not a religion! Perhaps many ignorant people make it so--it ain't so! Taoism I like! but I don't think it qualifies as a religion, either. ...[text shortened]... is not a sacred cow! Most people are ignorant, stupid, superstitious cowering fools!

Boy.....i bet you have a lot of friends!!!!