1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidG-75 is Galveston.
Yes I guess I'm somewhat like "G-75" whoever that is. I consider those of other religions to be Pagans (afterall that is the definition of Pagan, to Christians) and misguided.
However I don't dislike the individual Pagans personally. And I do not consider them "unworthy."
We are all worthy of a God-given purpose, no matter who we are or what we believe.
So , once again just to be clear, would you call all the other religons and athiests,etc all "pagans"?
Isn't that kind of a broad (blanket) label which misrepresents the term "pagan"?
(I thought Paganism actually referred to a spiritual belief system and hence it would be silly to call athiests "pagans" )
To a Christian, a Pagan is someone who practices any religion that does not pronounce the God of the bible as our worthy, almighty Creator.
I gleaned this from relgioustolerance.org
Some believe that in the early Roman Empire, "paganus" came to mean "civilian" as opposed to "military." Christians at the time often called themselves "miles Christi" (Soldiers of Christ). The non-Christians became "pagani" -- non-soldiers or civilians. No denigration would be implied.
And this from newadvent.org
Paganism, in the broadest sense includes all religions other than the true one revealed by God [of the bible]...
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelI don't think Atheists fit into the category of Pagan. And I hope I didn't suggest otherwise because if I did then let me retract. Paganism to me implies worship. Atheists obviously don't worship.
G-75 is Galveston.
So , once again just to be clear, would you call all the other religons and athiests,etc all "pagans"?
Isn't that kind of a broad (blanket) label which misrepresents the term "pagan"?
(I thought Paganism actually referred to a spiritual belief system and hence it would be silly to call athiests "pagans" )
Originally posted by sumydidI have heard some Christians say that atheists worship themselves, since they don't believe there is any other being who deserves their worship.
I don't think Atheists fit into the category of Pagan. And I hope I didn't suggest otherwise because if I did then let me retract. Paganism to me implies worship. Atheists obviously don't worship.
But yeah, all this does is dilute the definition, I guess.
Originally posted by SuzianneJump in anytime 🙂
Can I jump in on this one?
You mention specifically hindus and muslims.
Well, I can totally buy into Islam, given the muslim history and the fact that they worship the God of Abraham. They've just taken it into a different direction, and for that, I'd call them "misguided" since they don't accept Christ as the Son of God or the Messiah.
Hinduism i ...[text shortened]... pretty much expect me to say that, given that I'm Christian and believe what I believe.
Thanks for clarifying your viewpoint on the matter. I suspect you are a good example of a "good christian", so I value your input. (no pun intended here).
It's very revealing that you would see the Muslims as misguided because they talk about some of the same things as the bible does. (Well there are some correlations, even if they have a different Messiah). The thing is I reckon that's just a geographic thing. The muslims and christians were near eachother and hence thier history and religous books contained accounts of the same people/events. The Hindus were isolated in thier own part of the world with thier belief system cooking away so they would not have written about christian stuff in their vedas and sutras.
Please note that rvsakhadeo,a hindu, calls himself a "theist". Hence your understanding that Hinduism has a "panoply of gods" may be incorrect.
(I know Hinduism has many avatars of God, but there is only one God. Perhaps rvsakhadeo could explain his theism,(as he lives in India ),and has life experience of being a Hindu in a Hindu country. As there does seem to be a paradox here)
Originally posted by mikelomI'm not sure I know how to be lipid. 😉
so many theists take the words of their holy books so literally.
Do they have nothing else to cling on to, when clining itself is unnecessary fear?
I agree the ethos of most of those books is true, in that they represent a few basic rules. All religions boil doen to the same few rules. Atheists live by the same rules too!!!!
Why the belief in these ...[text shortened]... rights above non-theists?
Anybody care to answer my questions, without being lipid?
-m.
This is your dilemma mike. You're shooting at a target from point blank range and you're missing every time.
And you don't know why. So you create a post like this one hoping that someone will show you how to shoot strait.
Your problem isn't that you don't know the particulars. The problem is in their arrangement. You need to prioritize your thinking beginning with the first cause.
The first cause is this; One must come to God on His terms.
Do you see what happened in you just then? Analyze it. Why do you resist? I'll give you a hint. YOU. We are flawed beyond repair. We stink as a species. Is it any wonder why we haven't annihilated ourselves by now? All the science and technological advances are never going to change the human condition. We suck, and we're getting worse. It's just a matter of time before the house of cards comes down.
Faith in God? Faith in man? Faith in nothing? Faith in self? In this life we will choose one.
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwExtremely well stated.
I'm not sure I know how to be lipid. 😉
This is your dilemma mike. You're shooting at a target from point blank range and you're missing every time.
And you don't know why. So you create a post like this one hoping that someone will show you how to shoot strait.
Your problem isn't that you don't know the particulars. The problem is in their arrangem n God? Faith in man? Faith in nothing? Faith in self? In this life we will choose one.
Compared to me, you don't post much (well today, anyway, I'm way too verbose today), but when you do, you hit the bullseye, more often than not.
Originally posted by mikelomI weigh everything against The Bible, not the other way around.
so many theists take the words of their holy books so literally.
Do they have nothing else to cling on to, when clining itself is unnecessary fear?
I agree the ethos of most of those books is true, in that they represent a few basic rules. All religions boil doen to the same few rules. Atheists live by the same rules too!!!!
Why the belief in these ...[text shortened]... rights above non-theists?
Anybody care to answer my questions, without being lipid?
-m.
So I'm stubborn in my beliefs. 😞
Originally posted by karoly aczelKaroly, thanks. I will give a reply directly to suzianne and you can have a look there.
Jump in anytime 🙂
Thanks for clarifying your viewpoint on the matter. I suspect you are a good example of a "good christian", so I value your input. (no pun intended here).
It's very revealing that you would see the Muslims as misguided because they talk about some of the same things as the bible does. (Well there are some correlations, even if t ...[text shortened]... experience of being a Hindu in a Hindu country. As there does seem to be a paradox here)
Originally posted by SuzianneLet me put the Hindu case. i) Hinduism is an open, tolerant belief system. ii) Hinduism is not a theocratic system similar to Christianity or Judaism or Islam. It is not based on an extra-cosmic-creator God. According to Hinduism, God, although not describable correctly or completely nor conceived completely or correctly, is permeating the Manifest Reality or our everyday Universe as well as the non-Manifest Reality. iii) Realization of the Ultimate Reality/Truth/God ( and the removal of delusions ) by a person here and now is the aim of human life, not the attainment of heaven after death. iv) To achieve this Spiritual Freedom or Liberation or Mukti, various paths are suggested. v) The appeal of Hinduism is universal and individualistic and to the inner spiritual person. It is not organised for proselytizing or fighting other religions. vi ) Hinduism welcomes every genuine and beneficial religious expression from the primitive to the most sublime. vii ) Hinduism has no founder/s nor does it have a supreme head etc.
Can I jump in on this one?
You mention specifically hindus and muslims.
Well, I can totally buy into Islam, given the muslim history and the fact that they worship the God of Abraham. They've just taken it into a different direction, and for that, I'd call them "misguided" since they don't accept Christ as the Son of God or the Messiah.
Hinduism i ...[text shortened]... pretty much expect me to say that, given that I'm Christian and believe what I believe.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoDasa would have a much different take on that one, no founder, etc.
Let me put the Hindu case. i) Hinduism is an open, tolerant belief system. ii) Hinduism is not a theocratic system similar to Christianity or Judaism or Islam. It is not based on an extra-cosmic-creator God. According to Hinduism, God, although not describable correctly or completely nor conceived completely or correctly, is permeating the Manifest Realit ...[text shortened]... mitive to the most sublime. vii ) Hinduism has no founder/s nor does it have a supreme head etc.
Also, the statement that belief comes after infusion of the holy spirit can't be right.
The 'holy spirit' if true, would be impossible for humans to reject since you define your god as being omniscient, an omniscient god would permeate the very fabric of every atom, particle, sub-particle and all the forces of the universe.
It would be like us standing on Earth and saying only certain people can have gravity.
Or only certain people can accept neutrino's that stream out of the sun.
Do you get my meaning here?
Of course I expect the usual 'god gave us free will' argument but that would mean some people have been given a bye on the power of your lord. Your god lets them reject neutrino's coming from the sun. Seems so unlikely to me as to cause me to reject the whole concept.
Please note I am not reverting to ad hominem attacks which are pointless and detracts from discussion.
Originally posted by sonhouseBut God does allow people to make their own decision to accept Him or to reject Him. Because of this, it's all on you, not Him.
Dasa would have a much different take on that one, no founder, etc.
Also, the statement that belief comes after infusion of the holy spirit can't be right.
The 'holy spirit' if true, would be impossible for humans to reject since you define your god as being omniscient, an omniscient god would permeate the very fabric of every atom, particle, sub-par ...[text shortened]... am not reverting to ad hominem attacks which are pointless and detracts from discussion.