I appreciate all of the thoughtful responses given so far.
For clarity's sake, let me add that I do not mean the entirety of CF is ignorance and anger, but I am alarmed at the amount of people who, like Cardinal Newman said, express hatred for beliefs that are not even held by the groups they are hating on. Having attended a private Baptist school for 5 years, I was always irritated by the resources we used when studying other belief groups. We would read books written by a Southern Baptist, who attended a Southern Baptist Seminary and has never traveled out of the States or seemingly never even met a Muslim, and he would write volumes about the problems with Islam. I feel having read a single Qu'ranic verse out of context does not qualify you to right about an entire region, culture and religion.
I understand that you do not have to hold a doctorate in every area that you discuss, but if you are claiming to be well-informed on an issue, group or culture, you should probably at least read a book or two, or have discussions with people involved in that area. I have seen posts describing pro-choicers as genocidal, lovers of baby-killing, etc. I have met several pro-choicers, and I am yet to meet one who takes even the slightest delight in the act of abortion. I have met more "murder-loving" pro-lifers, but that is another matter.
I know I have started rambling, but the point is, I can't understand why these posts (I hope I am not violating the flaming rule by citing examples) like women being the cause of sodomy, tiller meets his maker, mother's letter to her son, etc, which vent hatred and prejudice under the guise of Christian concern, are met with almost equal measures of derision and endorsement. It seems like there is a chink in the Spiritual armor of modern Christians, and I am not sure how or where or even if it can be repaired and in doing so will revive Christ's reputation as a loving God rather than a petty, gossipy and hateful God.
What would you guys recommend (assuming you agree there is a problem)? Do you think this site has adequate measures to maintain civility and Spriritual purity in our discourses? What method do you think is most scripturally sound in rebuking or corrected people who act as I've described?
I don't agree there is a problem. I think this kind of discussion serves a valuable purpose in that it causes some people to think, something some people are very uncomfortable with and resist. Peter said something like be ready to give an answer to anyone asking you and it is a good idea for us to be able to answer an inquiry as to why we believe what we believe. I agree people should be courteous and kind with each other even as they discuss things, but I don't think there should be strict controls on people being able to express their beliefs to the extent it shuts down discussion. I learn much more discussing theology with someone who disagrees with me than with someone with whom I am in agreement. Maintaining spiritual purity is a red flag to me. That sometimes mean you must agree with my theology or we are ending the discussion, because obviously my theology is the spiritually pure one. James 3:2 says we all make many mistakes in our theology. That should be understood by everyone entering these discussion. No one has the perfect theology nailed down. Now we see as through a dark glass. It is only later we will be able to see clearly.
__________________ I believe in a loving Creator who created us for the purpose of being capable of receiving and responding to the love of the Creator. Our first gift of life is temporary. If we attempt to fulfill our purpose of loving others, we have the hope of receiving a second gift of eternal life. There is no pain in the after life. If we do not receive the second gift, we are simply left with the first gift and will not exist after we die.
I've noticed a trend on this site of people making gross mischaracterizations of people who hold views other than their own. There is such vitriol against different denominations than theirs, different creation views, reproductive views, witnessing views, and really just about everything.
Isn't the central message of Jesus that we are supposed to edify Him through our words and actions among each other and projected to the world? All I have seen is bickering over issues where there is no clear right or wrong answers, and I have seen people make sweeping generalizations, encourage terrorism and murder, and use very...interesting interpretations of scripture to endorse their sexist, racist and other discriminatory prejudices.
I am not going to say which sides are right or wrong, because I have no authority to do so (I am not God, as some seem to feel endowed to act as), but I will say that the ignorance, prejudice and elevation of individual understanding is not going to encourage any non-Christians or lapsed Christians to come to know God. All they can see of Him through this forum is a God who revels in condescension, ignorance and the misery of anyone who disagrees.
Am I missing something?
One thing I like it is that a lot of superficially polite, hypocritical conversations could be saved. Go directly to the point of argument. I don't think I can do this when I talk to anyone face to face.
Personally, I think there are two root causes, and I am sure to be reported for saying what I think 1. lack of the power of the Holy Spirit within. There are many people on this forum who admittedly are here to destroy Christianity and it's flow into the world. There are many others who openly admit that the Holy Spirit is not relavant. Love, the kind you refer to comes from God through the Holy Spirit in our lives.
2. The truth sometimes hurts. When people are hurt, and do not have the Holy Spirit within, demonstrating self control, people argue emotionally. This emotional argument is full of all kinds of things not appropriate to a public debate and it is that emotionalism that drives many to report things they find offensive, things they refuse to tolerate. The problem was so bad for a while that they decided to crack down on the rules, thus, anyone who wants to be intolerant need only click the report button, and send even more people into emotional stance. I myself have been reported and warned for everything from an offense by another poster to not reporting abuse right away and everything in between. Point is that just because what someone says stings a little doesn't make it any less truth, so now it's time for someone to click the report button for this post....
Personally, I think there are two root causes, and I am sure to be reported for saying what I think 1. lack of the power of the Holy Spirit within. There are many people on this forum who admittedly are here to destroy Christianity and it's flow into the world. There are many others who openly admit that the Holy Spirit is not relavant. Love, the kind you refer to comes from God through the Holy Spirit in our lives.
2. The truth sometimes hurts. When people are hurt, and do not have the Holy Spirit within, demonstrating self control, people argue emotionally. This emotional argument is full of all kinds of things not appropriate to a public debate and it is that emotionalism that drives many to report things they find offensive, things they refuse to tolerate. The problem was so bad for a while that they decided to crack down on the rules, thus, anyone who wants to be intolerant need only click the report button, and send even more people into emotional stance. I myself have been reported and warned for everything from an offense by another poster to not reporting abuse right away and everything in between. Point is that just because what someone says stings a little doesn't make it any less truth, so now it's time for someone to click the report button for this post....
No click from me. I do not agree that "Love, the kind you refer to comes from God through the Holy Spirit in our lives" if by that you mean people who do not call themselves Christian are not capable of loving others as demonstrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan and in Matt 25:31 and following. I think two people can believe they have the guidance of the Holy Spirit and believe different things. Since one can be mistaken about one's belief they are guided by the Holy Spirit, I don't see the presence of the Holy Spirit as a useful litmus test.
__________________ I believe in a loving Creator who created us for the purpose of being capable of receiving and responding to the love of the Creator. Our first gift of life is temporary. If we attempt to fulfill our purpose of loving others, we have the hope of receiving a second gift of eternal life. There is no pain in the after life. If we do not receive the second gift, we are simply left with the first gift and will not exist after we die.
In my honest opinion I believe the enemy uses "so-called believers" to insult other "non-believers" in order to become a stumbling block. I often hear that Christians are hateful, rude, insensitive...etc.
The fact is most people who claim to be christian are not.
Which is why at the end of this age The Good Lord Jesus Christ will reject those nominal "Christians."
If they will know us by our love then we must present love.
No click from me. I do not agree that "Love, the kind you refer to comes from God through the Holy Spirit in our lives" if by that you mean people who do not call themselves Christian are not capable of loving others as demonstrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan and in Matt 25:31 and following. I think two people can believe they have the guidance of the Holy Spirit and believe different things. Since one can be mistaken about one's belief they are guided by the Holy Spirit, I don't see the presence of the Holy Spirit as a useful litmus test.
The bible tells us that if we lack love we do not KNOW God. This is an intimacy kind of thing that comes from the Holy Spirit. Now admittedly this love, this biblical love is very different from the worlds idea of love, but I see a consistency throughout scripture for it coming from God. Can you offer scripture otherwise? I think that there is a kind of love that man is capable of, but it is very different from the biblical love.
Oh, and I am not referring to differences in belief, but rather how we react to differences.
(I am slowly learning to overstate everything, so let me say this, we are talking about why people react with venom...if one does not have the Love of God living within, how can he show it in a forum....I understand what you are saying about love by the worlds definition, and agree wholeheartedly, but I am referring to the love that brought a God to this earth in the form of a uncomely man...the love that put that man on the cross....a I Cor. 13 kind of love)
The bible tells us that if we lack love we do not KNOW God. This is an intimacy kind of thing that comes from the Holy Spirit. Now admittedly this love, this biblical love is very different from the worlds idea of love, but I see a consistency throughout scripture for it coming from God. Can you offer scripture otherwise? I think that there is a kind of love that man is capable of, but it is very different from the biblical love.
Oh, and I am not referring to differences in belief, but rather how we react to differences.
(I am slowly learning to overstate everything, so let me say this, we are talking about why people react with venom...if one does not have the Love of God living within, how can he show it in a forum....I understand what you are saying about love by the worlds definition, and agree wholeheartedly, but I am referring to the love that brought a God to this earth in the form of a uncomely man...the love that put that man on the cross....a I Cor. 13 kind of love)
I think too much is made of different kinds of love. The love that identifies the sheep in Matt 25:31 is love humans are capable of doing. The love exhibited by the Good Samaritan is love humans---all humans are capable of doing. I think the 1 Cor 13 love and the love for others in First John is that same love for our neighbor--that we are capable of doing---I am not saying we are capable of doing it to the degree that God is, but I am saying we are capable of obeying to some degree the command to love God and man. I am not saying we can love to the extent or with the quality that eliminates our absolute dependence on God's grace and forgiveness, but I am saying we have no hope of such grace and forgiveness if we do not seek God through our love for others.
__________________ I believe in a loving Creator who created us for the purpose of being capable of receiving and responding to the love of the Creator. Our first gift of life is temporary. If we attempt to fulfill our purpose of loving others, we have the hope of receiving a second gift of eternal life. There is no pain in the after life. If we do not receive the second gift, we are simply left with the first gift and will not exist after we die.
I think too much is made of different kinds of love. The love that identifies the sheep in Matt 25:31 is love humans are capable of doing.
oh how I long to discuss this further, it is a topic of incredible interest to me, but it is off topic, can we talk about this in a more appropriate place, like PM or different thread?
The love exhibited by the Good Samaritan is love humans---all humans are capable of doing. I think the 1 Cor 13 love and the love for others in First John is that same love for our neighbor--that we are capable of doing---
but there is a difference between acts of kindness (what we see in these examples), and love, the motive for which we do them
I am not saying we are capable of doing it to the degree that God is, but I am saying we are capable of obeying to some degree the command to love God and man.
admittedly, man can mimic, or copy parts of the love, but the love moves way beyond actions only....again, can we talk about this a more appropriate place?
I am not saying we can love to the extent or with the quality that eliminates our absolute dependence on God's grace and forgiveness, but I am saying we have no hope of such grace and forgiveness if we do not seek God through our love for others.
agreed, love is not love if it does not flow through us.
I appreciate all of the thoughtful responses given so far.
For clarity's sake, let me add that I do not mean the entirety of CF is ignorance and anger, but I am alarmed at the amount of people who, like Cardinal Newman said, express hatred for beliefs that are not even held by the groups they are hating on. Having attended a private Baptist school for 5 years, I was always irritated by the resources we used when studying other belief groups. We would read books written by a Southern Baptist, who attended a Southern Baptist Seminary and has never traveled out of the States or seemingly never even met a Muslim, and he would write volumes about the problems with Islam. I feel having read a single Qu'ranic verse out of context does not qualify you to right about an entire region, culture and religion.
Understandable.
I understand that you do not have to hold a doctorate in every area that you discuss, but if you are claiming to be well-informed on an issue, group or culture, you should probably at least read a book or two, or have discussions with people involved in that area. I have seen posts describing pro-choicers as genocidal, lovers of baby-killing, etc. I have met several pro-choicers, and I am yet to meet one who takes even the slightest delight in the act of abortion. I have met more "murder-loving" pro-lifers, but that is another matter.
I know I have started rambling, but the point is, I can't understand why these posts (I hope I am not violating the flaming rule by citing examples) like women being the cause of sodomy, tiller meets his maker, mother's letter to her son, etc, which vent hatred and prejudice under the guise of Christian concern, are met with almost equal measures of derision and endorsement. It seems like there is a chink in the Spiritual armor of modern Christians, and I am not sure how or where or even if it can be repaired and in doing so will revive Christ's reputation as a loving God rather than a petty, gossipy and hateful God.
What would you guys recommend (assuming you agree there is a problem)? Do you think this site has adequate measures to maintain civility and Spriritual purity in our discourses? What method do you think is most scripturally sound in rebuking or corrected people who act as I've described?
I personally, as a pro-lifer, am completely sickened at the death of Dr. Tiller. I do know that he was a late-term abortionist (murderer according to me) but also know that aborting him for what he did wasn't acceptable. After his being aborted, I know that many, if not all, of the pro-life groups condemned the killing, which wasn't shown by many media outlets. What bothers me also, is that despite the pro-life groups condemnations, a number (not all) pro-choicers publicly condemned pro-life groups for "instigating," as well as calling them "terrorists." Why, because they disagree with the pro-life stance?
Also, these pro-choice people often say that pro-life people violate the separation of church and state. Do they really? I don't think so. I know that my Church, the Catholic Christian Church can't stand when the government attempts to interfior and silence the voice of my Church. What we do believe is that we should combine is faith and politics. Big difference. No matter how much people may try to separate both, obviously, religion affects the individual, politics affects the individual, therefore the individual affects politics, which means that religion affects politics, too. Some (not all) will say that this violates church and state, still, but take a look at England for a minute.
In England, the government is trying to pass a law that would require all churches to hire homosexuals into positions at their churches, and if they don't it will be a "hate-crime." That is discrimination in reverse. Let me explain: If these people claim that the churches refusing in the first place is discrimination, then when the government interfiors with the matters of the Church, and who can and can't be hired, that is violation of church and state.
One more note: The Catholic Church hasn't or even tried to discriminate homosexuals (gays). The Catholic Church just says that gays shouldn't marry. Not as a form of discrimination but as a form of love to them. We believe that it is contrary to natural moral law. Ironically, a psychological association recently said, I'll sum it up: that over the past 30 years, being gay has been considered to be natural. Recently, though after a long time of studying DNA, evidence is now going towards the opinion that when someone is gay, it isn't natural. It is even suggested that with proper psychological help, the possible mental disorder can be fixed. (APA: American Psychological Association) Not official, but a possibility that shouldn't be looked away from. So what I was saying about my Church, is that we love and respect gays as they are human beings, but want them to remain celibate or marry in a natural marriage. Not for us, but for their own good.
Cardinal Newman
P.S. You had mentioned in your first post, the word "edify" when it came to Scripture. As in edify the Word of God, or something like that. At first I though it was a typo, but then thought you might mean edify as in like "to edit." If you meant that then I also disagree with you on that. The whole Bible, all 73 books, makes complete sense when you understand the Covenant.
Let me explain: There is a difference between a contract and a Covenant.
A contract is something like: "That is mine and this is yours." A Covenant is like: "You are mine and I am yours." In the OT, God told His people: "You are my people, and I am your God." The Covenant is everywhere throughout Scripture. I challenge you, when you read the Bible, to look for what I mean as Covenant. The Covenant of the Family, from God to us, His children, is the key to unlocking all of Scripture. Thank you!
Last edited by Cardinal John H. Newman; 24th June 2009 at 07:47 PM.
I appreciate all of the thoughtful responses given so far.
For clarity's sake, let me add that I do not mean the entirety of CF is ignorance and anger, but I am alarmed at the amount of people who, like Cardinal Newman said, express hatred for beliefs that are not even held by the groups they are hating on. Having attended a private Baptist school for 5 years, I was always irritated by the resources we used when studying other belief groups. We would read books written by a Southern Baptist, who attended a Southern Baptist Seminary and has never traveled out of the States or seemingly never even met a Muslim, and he would write volumes about the problems with Islam. I feel having read a single Qu'ranic verse out of context does not qualify you to right about an entire region, culture and religion.
Understandable.
I understand that you do not have to hold a doctorate in every area that you discuss, but if you are claiming to be well-informed on an issue, group or culture, you should probably at least read a book or two, or have discussions with people involved in that area. I have seen posts describing pro-choicers as genocidal, lovers of baby-killing, etc. I have met several pro-choicers, and I am yet to meet one who takes even the slightest delight in the act of abortion. I have met more "murder-loving" pro-lifers, but that is another matter.
I know I have started rambling, but the point is, I can't understand why these posts (I hope I am not violating the flaming rule by citing examples) like women being the cause of sodomy, tiller meets his maker, mother's letter to her son, etc, which vent hatred and prejudice under the guise of Christian concern, are met with almost equal measures of derision and endorsement. It seems like there is a chink in the Spiritual armor of modern Christians, and I am not sure how or where or even if it can be repaired and in doing so will revive Christ's reputation as a loving God rather than a petty, gossipy and hateful God.
What would you guys recommend (assuming you agree there is a problem)? Do you think this site has adequate measures to maintain civility and Spriritual purity in our discourses? What method do you think is most scripturally sound in rebuking or corrected people who act as I've described?
I personally, as a pro-lifer, am completely sickened at the death of Dr. Tiller. I do know that he was a late-term abortionist (murderer according to me) but also know that aborting him for what he did wasn't acceptable. After his being aborted, I know that many, if not all, of the pro-life groups condemned the killing, which wasn't shown by many media outlets. What bothers me also, is that despite the pro-life groups condemnations, a number (not all) pro-choicers publicly condemned pro-life groups for "instigating," as well as calling them "terrorists." Why, because they disagree with the pro-life stance?
Also, these pro-choice people often say that pro-life people violate the separation of church and state. Do they really? I don't think so. I know that my Church, the Catholic Christian Church can't stand when the government attempts to interfior and silence the voice of my Church. What we do believe is that we should combine is faith and politics. Big difference. No matter how much people may try to separate both, obviously, religion affects the individual, politics affects the individual, therefore the individual affects politics, which means that religion affects politics, too. Some (not all) will say that this violates church and state, still, but take a look at England for a minute.
In England, the government is trying to pass a law that would require all churches to hire homosexuals into positions at their churches, and if they don't it will be a "hate-crime." That is discrimination in reverse. Let me explain: If these people claim that the churches refusing in the first place is discrimination, then when the government interfiors with the matters of the Church, and who can and can't be hired, that is violation of church and state.
One more note: The Catholic Church hasn't or even tried to discriminate homosexuals (gays). The Catholic Church just says that gays shouldn't marry. Not as a form of discrimination but as a form of love to them. We believe that it is contrary to natural moral law. Ironically, a psychological association recently said, I'll sum it up: that over the past 30 years, being gay has been considered to be natural. Recently, though after a long time of studying DNA, evidence is now going towards the opinion that when someone is gay, it isn't natural. It is even suggested that with proper psychological help, the possible mental disorder can be fixed. (APA: American Psychological Association) Not official, but a possibility that shouldn't be looked away from. So what I was saying about my Church, is that we love and respect gays as they are human beings, but want them to remain celibate or marry in a natural marriage. Not for us, but for their own good.
Cardinal Newman
P.S. You had mentioned in your first post, the word "edify" when it came to Scripture. As in edify the Word of God, or something like that. At first I though it was a typo, but then thought you might mean edify as in like "to edit." If you meant that then I also disagree with you. The whole Bible, all 73 books, makes complete sense when you understand the Covenant.
Let me explain: There is a difference between a contract and a Covenant.
A contract is something like: "That is mine and this is yours." A Covenant is like: "You are mine and I am yours." In the OT, God told His people: "You are my people, and I am your God." The Covenant is everywhere throughout Scripture. I challenge you, when you read the Bible, to look for what I mean as Covenant. The Covenant of the Family, from God to us, his children, is the key to unlocking all of Scripture. Thank you!
Sorry about the second post again. For someone, my computer acts like it doesn't post and that I am logged off even though I already logged on. Well, this has been a good discussion, as I am on my second day on this site, I think I will leave this thread now and continue looking around at other parts of this site.
Linear Mode
