Originally posted by UllrI don't know if any Christian on this cares what a non-Christian has to say.
I don't know if any Christian on this cares what a non-Christian has to say. So I apologize for the intrusion. I generally read Christian threads out of interest and why shouldn't I? If you are interested at all in human history you cannot ignore Christianity and it's affect on the world. I also would say to those that suggest that a Christian should not ta ...[text shortened]... stile to Christianity. I would suggest do not create an enemy where one does not exist.
Just don't be surprised if you find they have ulterior motives.
I also would say to those that suggest that a Christian should not take in interest in other religions that by burying your head in the sand you are missing out on having a better understanding of history.
And, I would agree.
I suppose part of the problem here is the invective with which I responded to rc's barbs. For that, I apologize. Discretion is the better part of valor, and I was clearly lacking in discretion to carry on the conversation between him and I as though we were having a private conversation.
That being said, my comments were from a standpoint that only a few can either relate to or appreciate. As such, they're probably not fit for public consumption... and I should have known that.
If allowed to explain, I would say that Christianity is a pass/fail system: you either accept it or you don't. According to its founder, to accept it is life, to reject it is death. It doesn't get more divisive than this. Some would say that Christianity fits well on the smörgåsbord of the world's religion platter. It doesn't. Christianity condemns any and all opposing belief systems, which means that it rejects anything which doesn't stand for the Lord Jesus Christ.
That doesn't mean that somehow God isn't a gentleman; He is nothing if not one. In this world, there is plenty of room for any one to believe whatever they choose to believe. God gives each of us that same freedom. However, when it comes to truth, there is only one option: Him or fantasy. For this, I do not apologize.
Quite frankly, 'crap from a sewer' is pretty harsh. But does it cease to be harsh if one simply 'does' it without 'saying' it? All of us who have positions are essentially saying the exact same thing toward any other belief system we've rejected--- okay, except for that guy who says that all paths lead to the same place. But even that guy is saying one way is right (all of them) and one way is wrong (the one that says there's only one way).
So back to my avatar's apology.
Typing can be so deceptively empowering sometimes, huh.
My bad, mostly guys and you few gals.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOkay fair enough. No harm then. Thanks for the explanation.
[b]I don't know if any Christian on this cares what a non-Christian has to say.
Just don't be surprised if you find they have ulterior motives.
I also would say to those that suggest that a Christian should not take in interest in other religions that by burying your head in the sand you are missing out on having a better understanding of histor eptively empowering sometimes, huh.
My bad, mostly guys and you few gals.
For the record, I have learned and come to accept that a significant part of the religion of many a Christian is too spread the gospel. So I try not to get offended when a Christian tries to convince me that I am wrong and they are right as long as it is done respectfully and as long as there are no hard feelings afterwards when we finally agree to disagree. In other words, by all means evangelize, but please do not discriminate against or hold in contempt those that have ultimately chosen a different path. Seems fair to me.
Originally posted by UllrOkay fair enough. No harm then. Thanks for the explanation.
Okay fair enough. No harm then. Thanks for the explanation.
For the record, I have learned and come to accept that a significant part of the religion of many a Christian is too spread the gospel. So I try not to get offended when a Christian tries to convince me that I am wrong and they are right as long as it is done respectfully and as long as there are ...[text shortened]... ainst or hold in contempt those that have ultimately chosen a different path. Seems fair to me.
And thanks for the smelling salts.
So I try not to get offended when a Christian tries to convince me that I am wrong...
Which is exactly what is wrong with most of our efforts in evangelizing. All of our efforts (or, at minimum, most) are going toward trying to convince someone else that they're boneheaded, flat-out wrong. I find this approach insulting, and not at all akin to how God characterizes Himself. The intention (to save someone from a fiery, tortured eternity) is clearly exemplary; however, multiple wrongs cannot amend for one neutral right.
By 'neutral right,' I don't mean the acceptance by an unbeliever of the Good News (which is cause for celebration), but rather, the 'neutral right' refers to the desire of the believer to save someone from that otherwise inevitable end. Too often--- much too often--- Christians are leading with their emotions, completely devoid of thought. The irony, however, is that the Christian life is first, foremost and primarily a thought-based system! So when we decide to leave the tracks and catch a completely different train, how can we honestly expect good things to come from it?
The very people we are attempting to reach are pushed that much further away--- because we figured we had a better way of reaching them than God Himself. Don't misunderstand what I am attempting to say here: God does not appeal to us as being on equal footing with Him at any step along the path of salvation... save one. He treats as sacrosanct our individual will. As such, the appeals made by Him via the Holy Spirit are at a level which none of us can hope to reach on our own. That's why He provides the script, the talking points, the main issue, the closer.
My 'crap from the sewer' label is not limited to anything without the Christian trademark stamped somewhere on it: the vast majority of what passes as Christianity these days is sitting in that same sewer, stinking the place up far worse than anything offered by the other religions of the world as it relates to effective salvation.
In other words, by all means evangelize, but please do not discriminate against or hold in contempt those that have ultimately chosen a different path. Seems fair to me.
More than fair, it's downright godly. My previous tirade was never directed toward individuals, but rather toward ideas that set themselves up against the truth found in the Lord Jesus Christ. As stated, God treats each of us as equals in one regard: our individual wills. He did the seemingly impossible and created a rock that He cannot pick up by creating a will that could co-exist with His will... even if said created will chose against Him.
He refuses to trick, manipulate, or in any other manner violate your will. Who am I to do any different?
Originally posted by UllrFor the record, I have learned and come to accept that a significant part of the religion of many a Christian is too spread the gospel.
Okay fair enough. No harm then. Thanks for the explanation.
For the record, I have learned and come to accept that a significant part of the religion of many a Christian is too spread the gospel. So I try not to get offended when a Christian tries to convince me that I am wrong and they are right as long as it is done respectfully and as long as there are ...[text shortened]... ainst or hold in contempt those that have ultimately chosen a different path. Seems fair to me.
To spread the Gospel is to spread the love of God. God humbled himself to become your servant, even to the point of dying in order to redeem you. This belief is based in historical fact established by documents whose reliability puts the rest of recorded history to shame.
Listen to Jesus' words and see that no mere wise man could utter such sayings; he speaks with the true authority of God. His message is that nothing you can do can save yourself from yourself, that the only way to salvation is by accepting and receiving the perpetual, torrential outpouring of God's love to you through Christ, the Lamb of God.
Being born again is comparable to a nuclear explosion. In order for the love of God to explode outward from within you, you must first be bombarded from without by God's love, which will release the power of God's Holy Spirit from within you, in the form of passionate, suffering, sacrificial love. This has been the legacy of all true followers of Jesus Christ since Pentecost. The power behind this message, its basis in reality was demonstrated when Christ rose from the dead.
This is basically all we are trying to relate when we evangelize. And we speak as those who have tasted of God's goodness and know that everything we say is real.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by epiphinehasWell that was the best evangelical post I've ever seen. It doesn't change my beliefs one iota. But still ... well done!
[b]For the record, I have learned and come to accept that a significant part of the religion of many a Christian is too spread the gospel.
To spread the Gospel is to spread the love of God. God humbled himself to become your servant, even to the point of dying in order to redeem you. This belief is based in historical fact established by documen ...[text shortened]... e speak as those who have tasted of God's goodness and know that everything we say is real.[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhen you make comments about Christianity you should say "I THINK Christianity is...".
[b]I don't know if any Christian on this cares what a non-Christian has to say.
Just don't be surprised if you find they have ulterior motives.
I also would say to those that suggest that a Christian should not take in interest in other religions that by burying your head in the sand you are missing out on having a better understanding of histor ...[text shortened]... eptively empowering sometimes, huh.
My bad, mostly guys and you few gals.
For quite clearly Christianity can be interpretted in many different ways, and for you to say something like:"Christianity rejects abything which doesn't stand for the Lord Jesus Christ" is just an opinion. Maybe a very good opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I would say your views sound fundamentalist, and we all know how dangerous that can be.
Originally posted by epiphinehasJoh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
...God humbled himself to become your servant, even to the point of dying in order to redeem you. ...
The Bible says God sent his son Jesus to die for the sins of man.
Where does the Bible say that God died?
Why do you continue to preach your false doctines in the name of Christ.
Originally posted by karoly aczelWhen you make comments about Christianity you should say "I THINK Christianity is...".
When you make comments about Christianity you should say "I THINK Christianity is...".
For quite clearly Christianity can be interpretted in many different ways, and for you to say something like:"Christianity rejects abything which doesn't stand for the Lord Jesus Christ" is just an opinion. Maybe a very good opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I would say your views sound fundamentalist, and we all know how dangerous that can be.
You're absolutely right.
Lessee if I have it down (just a practice run, mind you).
When the Lord Jesus Christ said:
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,"
I think He really meant it.
How do you like me now?
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH[/b]Well, the reason that I was taken aback was because that remark seemed out-of-character for you, as I have known you over the years. 🙂 And I can’t claim to be guiltess…
[b]I don't know if any Christian on this cares what a non-Christian has to say.
Just don't be surprised if you find they have ulterior motives.
I also would say to those that suggest that a Christian should not take in interest in other religions that by burying your head in the sand you are missing out on having a better understanding of histor eptively empowering sometimes, huh.
My bad, mostly guys and you few gals.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI like you fine. You seem passionate about your views and you obviously set a high standard ,(ie. your interpretation of God's standards), as an example for others to follow. Of course I assume you will say that it is Jesus' or God's word and you are the messenger , but you will have to admit ,Freaky, that we all continue to create the world,(on whatever level), long after Jesus's death and God's apaarent non-showing🙂
[b]When you make comments about Christianity you should say "I THINK Christianity is...".
You're absolutely right.
Lessee if I have it down (just a practice run, mind you).
When the Lord Jesus Christ said:
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,"
I think He really meant it.
How do you like me now?[/b]
Other than free-will we have been given the power of imagination , which has created a great many good things which ultimately, in my view, have the power to "raise" the planet out of its duldrums..
Originally posted by epiphinehasThis belief is based in historical fact established by documents whose reliability puts the rest of recorded history to shame.
[b]For the record, I have learned and come to accept that a significant part of the religion of many a Christian is too spread the gospel.
To spread the Gospel is to spread the love of God. God humbled himself to become your servant, even to the point of dying in order to redeem you. This belief is based in historical fact established by documen ...[text shortened]... e speak as those who have tasted of God's goodness and know that everything we say is real.[/b]
There is no historical fact, as you put it, that Jesus was God. This view is based on 'faith', not 'fact'.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI take it you mean that "..no one comes to the Father except through me.." means that no one will get salvation except through Christ.
[b]When you make comments about Christianity you should say "I THINK Christianity is...".
You're absolutely right.
Lessee if I have it down (just a practice run, mind you).
When the Lord Jesus Christ said:
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,"
I think He really meant it.
How do you like me now?[/b]
What do you make of this passage then:
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness..
To me this passage says very clearly that there are Gentiles (who in the days of Paul had neither the Law of Christ nor the Law of Moses) whose conscience guides them to do the good works of the law, will be judged according to their works.
There are, as has been alluded to on this thread, some “great divides” in religious philosophy that, after all the best and most learned argument, are going to end in impasse. The main ones (as I see it) are:
(1) Non-dualism versus dualism. (I am a non-dualist.)
There are out-and-out non-dualistic religious philosophies (e.g., the Taoism of Lao Tzu, Zen Buddhism), and there are (sometimes broad, sometimes narrow) streams of non-dualism in otherwise dualist-theist religions (e.g., many of the Sufis; and there is a very broad stream in Judaism, influenced by kabbalah and Hasidism).
Some thoroughly non-dualist religions (e.g., Kashmirir Shaivism) nevertheless use dualist-theist terms symbolically (monotheistic or polytheistic)..
(2) Exclusivism versus non-exclusivism. (I am a non-exclusivist.)
I certainly don’t think all religions are “the same”. I do think that “one size does not fit all”—either in terms of belief-requirements or praxis-requirements (orthodoxy or orthopraxy). There are also aesthetic differences, that I think are important (after all, I live my life aesthetically as well as intellectually—more so, in fact), but seldom are addressed.
Exclusivists and non-exclusivists are likely to view the very nature of truth differently: the former viewing it as more univocal/univariate, the latter as more multi-vocal/multi-variate. As a non-exclusivist, I cannot claim to have the sole truth or the whole truth. But these very divides that I am outlining represent conflicting truth-claims: I think dualism is false; I think non-dualism is true. Freaky, for example, is on the other side of that impassable divide.
_________________________________________________
Those, I think are the two “biggies”. Others likely flow from them, especially from (2). For just one example—
(3) Doctrinal versus non-doctrinal, at least relatively.
One of the hardest thing for me to wrap my mind around when I began to explore Judaism (coming from a Christian background) was that Judaism is largely non-doctrinal and—instead—broadly hermeneutical (interpretive). The only real doctrinal statement of Judaism is the Shema, and even that is subject to some interpretation (e.g., non-dualist versus dualist). And this is true even among the Orthodox; though perhaps more pronounced among Reform, Reconstructionist, etc. expressions.
Judaism has no singular doctrine concerning messiah or salvation, for example.
This might be related to (or at least construed in terms of) Zalman Schachter-Shalomi’s statement that Judaism is not a religion of submission, but of covenant. Now, this would take a whole essay to flesh out—but, basically, it means that the terms of the covenant are subject to interpretation (and are supposed to be), whether one is talking about the written torah, the oral torah, or what I might call the “existential” torah.
An example: One interpretation of the Aqedah (the story of Abraham being told to sacrifice Isaac), that I heard from a rabbi, is that Abraham failed the test as soon as he did not refuse an immoral command—even from God! (“Oy, ve! This is the Abraham that stood up to me over Sodom?! Well, I’d better not let this go too far…” ) [I also know at least three other interpretations.]
___________________________________________
Now, these views are certainly arguable—but they do not seem to really be resolvable. They are too paradigmatically different.
[There is a view among some non-dualist/non-exclusivists that their “larger tent” includes the dualist/exclusivist views, even if adherents to the latter deny it. But that seems to me to smack of presumptuous condescension—whether it is intended as such or not.]
At some point, we just need to go our separate ways—with a nod to (borrowing from Freaky’s terminology) “mutual regard in consideration…”.
Originally posted by Rajk999Why do you continue to preach your false doctines in the name of Christ.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
The Bible says God sent his son Jesus to die for the sins of man.
Where does the Bible say that God died?
Why do you continue to preach your false doctines in the name of Christ.
Are you talking about doctrine of Christ's divinity, which has been taught since the inception of the early church, and remains today the most widely accepted doctrine among theologians? That one? Sir, you speak as if the doctrine of Christ's divinity were some fringe element I'm attempting to foist upon Christendom. 😀