India and Christianity

threefates:

Reed Lover said: "That is the point Maani is making, you ass! He is saying that you appear more extreme than me yet technically you and Maani are on the "same side." You just do not get it do you?"  You responded: "Maybe because thats not what Maani was saying... You should read that again..."  For the record, Reed Lover is correct; that is exactly what I was saying.

In responding to Reed Lover's claim that he does not cherry-pick people's comments, you say to Reed Lover, "Actually that is probably the most ludicris answer you've given so far. First off, I didn't accuse you of doing that, but you do cherry pick people's comments and you are quite defensive (proof here) and you do evade those questions you can not answer with wise ass remarks or attacks against those you can't respond to."

If there has ever been a perfect example of "Judge not, lest ye be judged in equal measure" and "Take the log out of your own eye, then you can take the mote out of" someone else's, this has to be it.  You cherry-pick comments more than anyone else in this discussion; you have done it with me continuously.  Yet rather than consider your own "cherry-picking," you attack the other person for cherry-picking!  And you think this is "Christian?"  In addition, re your comment that "you do evade the questions you cannot answer with wise ass remarks" - you mean unlike you, who simply evades "the questions you cannot answer"...by simply not answering them?  One can at least respond to a wise-ass remark.  One cannot respond to total evasion.

Also, you said, "See to me faith is something that has to be based from your heart, not from what you've read or studied... See you take that all in, along with experience and then you form your own opinion... and thats what I'm giving you.  I don't need to quote scripture.... or someone else's opinions, or experience or their biasness... I base it off my heart.. and to me thats less hypocritical than you spouting scripture at me.  I've heard so many ministers over the years give me their take on what the scriptures say... and hardly any of them saw it the same way.  I don't quote the scriptures anymore to prove a point... I find it pretentious..."

Once again, you simply prove that you do not "listen"; you simply presume what is being said.

First, why is it hypocritical for me to "spout Scripture" at you?  Do you even know the meaning of the word "hypocrite?"  It would be hypocritical to spout Scripture if I, myself, were not "walking the talk" and "practicing what I preach."  However, since I do both (to the best of my ability as a human being, a Christian and a minister), it is not "hypocritical" to "spout Scripture."

Second, of course faith comes from the heart (and mind, and spirit).  But this does not mean one cannot learn from others, to say nothing of learning from Scripture - since it is, after all, the foundation of Christian belief.  You are simply proving that you are willfully and obstinately unteachable (whether by me or anyone else).  In this regard, it is clear that if Jesus Himself came to you - in disguise - and told you that you were wrong, you would refute him, too.

My faith comes from the highest possible place, and is unshakeable.  However, that does not mean I cannot (and do not) continue to learn, to fine tune, to make new realizations via what I hear (sermons, fellowship with others, and even from non-believers) and read (including books, treatises, publications, etc.).  I am constantly trying to "better myself" as a Christian.  On the other hand, you seem to believe that you are a "finished product," and have nothing to learn, no need to modify or change.  You said "show me a perfect Christian...," and suggested that "you would not lose the bet" because no one would be able to.  Yet, unless I am very much mistaken - and others can feel free to comment on this - have you not all but inferred that you are that "perfect Christian," since you apparently have nothing to learn from anyone?

Peace.

Reed Lover wrote: Reed Lover wrote: So why did Christ get crucified and resurrected? So that things would just carry on the same as they were? What was the point, unless to produce a spiritual reawakening amongst a future generation of followers.He had gone to great trouble to produce a formula for people to "regain the Kingdom Of Heaven" and died to cement His part of the bargain.And yet, his followers cant even be bothered to venerate this sacrifice and follow his simple rules. Jesus was a Jew so you can take as read his belief in the Old Testament and at no point does he say that these traditions should be put aside.So basically there you have it-follow the Ten Commandments (commandment=order,so no leeway there) and follow Christs teachings which he died to ensure would be a spiritual template for His followers. By the way 3F8ts this is the argument I made from a Christian point of view!

You said:

Reed Lover wrote: I made one post that was totally in the Christian camp.

So you feel mocking Christ's cruxifiction put you in the Christian camp or that it was from a Christian point of view...??   That was it??  Well now I'm as disappointed as I am unimpressed...!

Maani wrote:

Even if Anglicans (and possibly others) share "dogma" and ritual with the Catholic Church, no Protestant denomination accepts the quasi-divinity or infallibility of the Pope, or lives by the Catholic catechism, Papal "bulls," etc.

Please Maani, Anglicans uphold The Catholic Apostolic faith ( http://www.cofe.anglican.org/faith/anglican/ ), Anglicans and accept the Nicen Creed (the same page), what else can you ask?

The Pope is not quasi devine, as a matter of fact only 10% of the Popes have been declared saints.

No Protestant Church accept the existence of Saints, The Anglican Church and the Orthodox Church do.

Some Anglican churchs are even more clear: 

All Saints' is a community of ordinary people who, since 1861, have worshipped God the Father through his Son Jesus, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and have lived out the Christian life in a rich Anglican Catholic tradition.

Orthodox Church shares all the dogmas and sacraments with Roman Catholic Church, we can even go to mass andc receive communion in an Orthodox Church.

In this case what do they share with Protestant faiths? Almost nothing, and the day all Catholic faiths reunite is closer than anyone can believe, because they are clear that their differences are so small in comparison with their similitudes that they need to share the same faith.

In the case of the Lutherans I also included the web page, so you can verify thre's no mistake of misinterpretation, but I quote:

Lutherans and Roman Catholics declared a common understanding on the doctrine of justification, the basic issue that divided the church in the 16th century and launched the Protestant Reformation. http://www.thelutheran.org/9808/page38.html

Iván

threefates wrote: Reed Lover wrote: [QUOTE=threefates] Threefates, the idea of debate as a purely logical excercise or as an end in itself seems to escape you.Have you ever heard of playing Devil's Advocate? I made one post that was totally in the Christian camp. And what was that exactly? This next response by you to Maani's : Indeed, reading back over your responses to me and others, it is clear that your "debate skills" consist of a "defensiveness" undergirded by obstinacy, obfuscation, evasion, a seemingly deliberate misreading (and cherry-picking) of people's comments, and an almost total lack of support other than your own opinion.  I know, I've been taking lessons from Reed... how'm I doing?? is stupid in the extreme. At no point have I misread,deliberately or otherwise, anything in the Bible. Actually that is probably the most ludicris answer you've given so far. First off, I didn't accuse you of doing that, but you do cherry pick people's comments and you are  quite defensive (proof here) and you do evade those questions you can not answer with wise ass remarks or attacks against those you can't respond to. As for cherry-picking anybody's comments-show me where?  Reed, you do this constantly... As you said to me in your personal message to me... you remember everything everyone says so you can throw it at them later.  You do this to everyone here, me and Gdub especially. I'm reminded of a message I sent about helping Tsunami victims.. and you turned it into an attack on me.  Sort of what you tend to do all the time... Shame on you!!!!!! I apologised-in public. Reed Lover Senior Member Joined: 16 July 2004 Location: Sao Tome and Principe Online Status: Online Posts: 2803 Posted: 29 December 2004 at 23:51 | IP Logged Mea Culpa   Posting on alcohol. I unreservedly apologise to Linda (Threefates) for this disgraceful attemp at scoring points for a reason I myself cannot guess at. Bad day at the office? Probably not. No excuses. Sorry to all> Edited by Reed Lover on 30 December 2004 at 11:44 You seemed obsessed with me being some kind of blundering halfwit,whilst continually demonstrating it yourself to virtually everyone who has contributed to this debate.  Unlike you, who seems to have a constant need to prove how smart you are or how nasty you can be, I don't really care how I look to you or anyone else here for that matter.  Everyone and anyone can have any opinion they want...and anyone here can express their opinion.. Since you feel the need to express yourself so pretentiously, why should anyone else here limit themselves.  Its not my place to change to impress any of you... And your arrogance, in thinking this kind of attack is gonna bother me... or impress anyone else here... I got a feeling is sorely mistaken... But you go ahead... and be the big man!! I have supported nearly every statement I have made and at no point has anyone, Maani or yourself included, corrected my quoting of the Bible.  You have quite a few times not supported your statements.. maybe you should look at that word nearly a little closer. And yes I have seen Maani claim to correct your quotings... The issue has been one of interpretation.Unless I am very much mistaken, you appear to be the only person to disdain my observations.Think about that one.  Uhh I don't think so!! Another misunderstanding of yours I would like to correct is this idea that I cannot know what being Christian is like.For the first 13 years of my life I was a practising Catholic (though latterly under duress) and the rest of my life has been spent in the company of practising Catholics (ie my family and some of my friends.) I am steeped in Christian Lore,I just choose not to believe in it. Could you please point out where I said you don't know what its like to be a christian... and on that point, being raised in a faith, does not make you one.  That doesn't prove that you know what it means.  As for this: Now I got a big laugh out of this one... where have you ever seen Reed willing to consider an alternative position on religion... if you have an example of that... I'm dying to see it!! That is the point Maani is making, you ass! He is saying that you appear more extreme than me yet technically you and Maani are on the "same side." You just do not get it do you? Maybe because thats not what Maani was saying... You should read that again... And as I'll tell you again Reed, if one is so easily swayed from their beliefs as you seem to think I should be... or Maani thinks I should be... because you throw insults or bible scriptures or research, or your opinions or your hatred.. or whatever else you have to throw...then it sort of means I have no faith then really do I... and yet I don't sway... even  when you come at me in PMs and agree with me... then come on here and attack me in order to impress people or make yourself feel better... I am not a child, and I'm not a man... I have lived a lifetime.. in good times and in bad... I've taken care of myself since I was 17, I've raised a child all by myself... I've put myself thru school, I've worked 2 jobs with a baby and college.. I've worked 19 years in the corporate market... I've seen plenty of your type... and of Maani's and guess what... I'm not impressed by you.. I'm not impressed that people don't like you, that you seem to get some pride out of being an asshole..(as you've said to me).  Personally I think its a very sad way to live... and I'll continue in my spiritual quest... wherever that leads atleast with some dignity in place because I know I've lived this life to the best of my ability... I pray you'll be able to do the same.

even  when you come at me in PMs and agree with me... then come on here and attack me in order to impress people or make yourself feel better...

I agreed on " basic Christianity being a good model to follow". I dont understand why you think I am being duplicitous in any way.

 I've seen plenty of your type... and of Maani's and guess what... I'm not impressed by you.. I'm not impressed that people don't like you, that you seem to get some pride out of being an asshole..(as you've said to me).  Personally I think its a very sad way to live.

 I meant that I dont mind being perceived as an asshole- meaning I dont mind making a fool out of myself or sending myself up or being honest about causing real offence. I have plenty of friends, but I aint getting into an "I've more friends than you" argument.I appreciate, as you said, that you have hundreds of friends in the Far East alone-I cant match that, but all my friends are real, not just acquaintances or useful narrative tools. I spend all day being "the good guy" and I like to redress the balance occasionally. You have not seen my type at all- you actually know nothing about me that matters. I am not defined by my non-belief in God, nor by my interest in a particular type of Music. Now Football (soccer to you yanks) that's another matter..........

James Lee wrote: It's getting to be a very colorful debate. Hey Reed, I wonder if born atheists have as much interest in this kind of thing as us ex-Catholics?

I'm sure the ones that love to hear themselves type do....

Reed Lover wrote: [QUOTE=threefates] Threefates, the idea of debate as a purely logical excercise or as an end in itself seems to escape you.Have you ever heard of playing Devil's Advocate? I made one post that was totally in the Christian camp. And what was that exactly? This next response by you to Maani's : Indeed, reading back over your responses to me and others, it is clear that your "debate skills" consist of a "defensiveness" undergirded by obstinacy, obfuscation, evasion, a seemingly deliberate misreading (and cherry-picking) of people's comments, and an almost total lack of support other than your own opinion.  I know, I've been taking lessons from Reed... how'm I doing?? is stupid in the extreme. At no point have I misread,deliberately or otherwise, anything in the Bible. Actually that is probably the most ludicris answer you've given so far. First off, I didn't accuse you of doing that, but you do cherry pick people's comments and you are  quite defensive (proof here) and you do evade those questions you can not answer with wise ass remarks or attacks against those you can't respond to. As for cherry-picking anybody's comments-show me where?  Reed, you do this constantly... As you said to me in your personal message to me... you remember everything everyone says so you can throw it at them later.  You do this to everyone here, me and Gdub especially. I'm reminded of a message I sent about helping Tsunami victims.. and you turned it into an attack on me.  Sort of what you tend to do all the time... You seemed obsessed with me being some kind of blundering halfwit,whilst continually demonstrating it yourself to virtually everyone who has contributed to this debate.  Unlike you, who seems to have a constant need to prove how smart you are or how nasty you can be, I don't really care how I look to you or anyone else here for that matter.  Everyone and anyone can have any opinion they want...and anyone here can express their opinion.. Since you feel the need to express yourself so pretentiously, why should anyone else here limit themselves.  Its not my place to change to impress any of you... And your arrogance, in thinking this kind of attack is gonna bother me... or impress anyone else here... I got a feeling is sorely mistaken... But you go ahead... and be the big man!! I have supported nearly every statement I have made and at no point has anyone, Maani or yourself included, corrected my quoting of the Bible.  You have quite a few times not supported your statements.. maybe you should look at that word nearly a little closer. And yes I have seen Maani claim to correct your quotings... The issue has been one of interpretation.Unless I am very much mistaken, you appear to be the only person to disdain my observations.Think about that one.  Uhh I don't think so!! Another misunderstanding of yours I would like to correct is this idea that I cannot know what being Christian is like.For the first 13 years of my life I was a practising Catholic (though latterly under duress) and the rest of my life has been spent in the company of practising Catholics (ie my family and some of my friends.) I am steeped in Christian Lore,I just choose not to believe in it. Could you please point out where I said you don't know what its like to be a christian... and on that point, being raised in a faith, does not make you one.  That doesn't prove that you know what it means.  As for this: Now I got a big laugh out of this one... where have you ever seen Reed willing to consider an alternative position on religion... if you have an example of that... I'm dying to see it!! That is the point Maani is making, you ass! He is saying that you appear more extreme than me yet technically you and Maani are on the "same side." You just do not get it do you? Maybe because thats not what Maani was saying... You should read that again... because I don't think Maani is saying that technically we are on the "same side"...

And as I'll tell you again Reed, if one is so easily swayed from their beliefs as you seem to think I should be... or Maani thinks I should be... because you throw insults or bible scriptures or research, or your opinions or your hatred.. or whatever else you have to throw...then it sort of means I have no faith then really do I... and yet I don't sway... even  when you come at me in PMs and agree with me... then come on here and attack me in order to impress people or make yourself feel better...

I am not a child... I have lived a lifetime.. in good times and in bad... I've taken care of myself since I was 17, I've raised a child all by myself... I've put myself thru school, I've worked 2 jobs with a baby and college.. I've worked 19 years in the corporate market...and I've seen more egotistical men than I can shake a stick at.. and I've seen plenty of your type... and of Maani's and guess what... I'm not impressed by you.. I'm not impressed that people don't like you, that you seem to get some pride out of being an asshole..(as you've said to me).  Personally I think its a very sad way to live... and I'll continue in my spiritual quest... wherever that leads atleast with some dignity in place because I know I've lived this life to the best of my ability... I pray you'll be able to do the same.

Velvetclown:

Alas, God is not progressive.  However, if it is any comfort, if we assume that God created everything, including us, and gave us our gifts, talents, etc., then He is directly responsible for having created progressive rock.  That is, He "invented" progressive rock at the beginnning of time; it just took us a while to "discover" it.

Ivan:

Even if Anglicans (and possibly others) share "dogma" and ritual with the Catholic Church, no Protestant denomination accepts the quasi-divinity or infallibility of the Pope, or lives by the Catholic catechism, Papal "bulls," etc.  Thus, if you are correct (and i agree with Jim that it sounds rather strange), it simply means that the Catholic Church has moved "center" vis-a-vis some of its teachings.  But this does not mean that it is not still very much a world unto itself.

James:

Re "sinning in the heart" versus "sinning by deed," this is what Jesus was talking about when He discussed the "spirit" of the law versus the "letter" of the law, which comes almost immediately after the "Sermon on the Mount" (the Beatitudes) in Matthew 5, in a series of "Ye have heard that it was said..."/"But I say unto you..." passages.  Among these is: "Ye have heard that it was said, 'Thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.'  But I say unto you, whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall say to his brother 'Raca' [i.e., "fool"] shall be in danger of the council...Ye have heard that it was said, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery.'  But I say unto you, whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart..."

Jesus was teaching two things here.  First, that the "law" is actually broader than what is written.  Second, but "qualifying" that, that it is our hearts that should "convict" us when we break the law, not a set of "legalistic" rules and regulations.  In other words, although the "law" remains in force ("I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.  For assuredly I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled"), it should not be interpreted "legally" (as the Temple Priests and Sanhedrin were doing), but "spiritually," through self-awareness and self-conviction.

This is admittedly a very simplistic explanation.  Note, however, that, despite what threefates contends, Jesus did not "change" the law, as His statement about "jot and tittle" makes very clear.  Rather, He was showing the hypocrisy of the Temple Priests and Sanhedrin who followed "the letter of the law" but not the "spirit of the law," and teaching that the latter was more important than the former.

threefates:

Since you remain "headstrong" in your convictions, no matter how right or wrong they may be, and maintain an attitude of "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts" (or even with alternative views), our part of this discussion must end.  It is sad - in the extreme - to me that even Reed Lover, a "rabid" athetist, is easier to debate with than you, and is more willing to consider alternative positions.  And despite your contention that I believe that I "have it all figured out" - which I never said or inferred - not only are my views comparatively "elastic" (within the basic foundation of my faith), but I provide support for my positions via both Scripture and the hundreds of books and publications I have read.

Indeed, reading back over your responses to me and others, it is clear that your "debate skills" consist of a "defensiveness" undergirded by obstinacy, obfuscation, evasion, a seemingly deliberate misreading (and cherry-picking) of people's comments, and an almost total lack of support other than your own opinion.  For example, not once have you even attempted to support your position via Scripture.  Indeed, you have all but "disclaimed" the Scripture in its entirety - except, of course, those parts that you, personally, find "logical."  As you are a self-proclaimed "Christian," this is a serious matter.

If you truly believe in your heart that your "walk" is the proper one, so be it.  However, I do not believe it is - I believe, based on your comments, that, at a very minimum, your walk has been "corrupted" somehow.  In that regard, the only thing I can do is pray and wish you peace.

Peace to all.