Coexist?

[Cabal]

I'll betcha as we go forward they will be taking fewer and fewer cases protecting Christians...if at ALL...

Your paranoia is duly noted, and disregarded.

 

[KM Richards]

Your paranoia is duly noted, and disregarded.

You are out of touch with reality on this issue...obviously, them taking almost ever case they can against Christians and very few for Christians is not a problem for you.

Apparently, you enjoy standing up for enemies of Christianity more than standing up for Christianity.

God has duly noted who in this life is against the brethren and who is for the brethren....don't forget, we are are reaping what we sow in this life!

 

[Cabal]

You are out of touch with reality on this issue...obviously, them taking almost ever case they can against Christians and very few for Christians is not a problem for you.

Why should it be? You haven't shown why this is a problem, you've only repeated a fact, based on a list neither of us are certain is a complete list of cases of defending Christian groups. You are jumping to conclusions, which is surprising given that you were already shown to be in error on this issue.

Here's a hypothesis for you: maybe, just maybe - some Christian groups in the US impinge more on the civil liberties of others than others impinge on theirs?

Apparently, you enjoy standing up for enemies of Christianity more than standing up for Christianity.

Yet again, you get your opponent's viewpoint spectacularly wrong.

Declaring someone an enemy of Christianity for no good reason is not going to enamour people with us - so why shouldn't repeated attacks of this kind be countered? If someone dislikes Christianity, they wouldn't go about protecting Christianity from that kind of harm.

The best way to harm Christianity would be to let go unchallenged the kind of nonsensical rhetoric that decries the ACLU and other groups as enemies of Christianity for no good reason.

God has duly noted who in this life is against the brethren and who is for the brethren....don't forget, we are are reaping what we sow in this life!

And no doubt you have your opinion on who that applies to. That doesn't mean that's it's the same as God's opinion, and as I said elsewhere, don't flatter yourself that it is.

 

[The Penitent Man]

So whose side are you on, Cabal?

 

[Cabal]

The best way to harm Christianity would be to let go unchallenged the kind of nonsensical rhetoric that decries the ACLU and other groups as enemies of Christianity for no good reason.

 

[airō]

So...11 days and still no answer?
tulc(being patient here)

Absolutely positive of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JQOBMi4QS8

 

[cubinity]

So whose side are you on, Cabal?

There are sides? I thought we're all in the same boat, having sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

The thing about the article that stood out most to me was the contrast between Jesus as the Way to the Father, and all other religious paths leading to eternal life.

All other religions may or may not result in eternal life, but only Jesus leads to the Father. The destinations are different, so the contrast is, in my opinion, meaningless.

Also,as far as "ways" go, Jesus is a person, an entity, a being, whatever. He is not a road we walk along, he is not something we do. He just is, and nothing we can do or fail to do changes that.

I'm not convinced any religion, including Christianity, can lead us to either eternal life or the Father. We need a Savior. We all need a Savior. All of us, Christian and non-Christian alike. I happen to be a Christian.

Christianity as a institution will not be resurrected. Christians, individuals whom Christ saves, will be. Or, at least that's how I understand the resurrection message. I admit I could be mistaken.

I consider this regularly. The decision that saves me belongs to Jesus. He is the Lord of the Kingdom I want to get into, and he holds the key. The decision is His, and the decision is arbitrary from my vantage point. I can do this whole Christian thing right. I can walk the path laid out before me by Orthodoxy. I can do everything I think the Bible is telling me to do. But, in the end, the choice is still His to make.

I don't know if I'll live forever. I don't know if I'll ever get to the Father. I don't know if I'm in or out of the Kingdom. I only believe Jesus is the one who decides, and in humility, I leave it up to him. In the meantime, I do what I believe is right in glorifying him as that Lord.

Since sin and falling short are the cases for all of us, I don't see any reasons to pick sides. I just want to be careful not to embarrass my brothers and neighbors by insisting something is true just because I believe it is. We all learn, and in the meantime, we respond to what we believe to be true. This is called faith, as I understand it.

Thank you for this thread. It has ministered to me.

 

[KM Richards]

God has duly noted who in this life is against the brethren and who is for the brethren....don't forget, we are are reaping what we sow in this life!
​

And no doubt you have your opinion on who that applies to.

God said you will reap what you sow...
You'll have to go back and forth with Him bout that!

 

[tulc]

Absolutely positive of it.

...you're positive you have the only true understanding of God and everything everyone but you is wrong?
tulc(just making sure)

 

[Cabal]

God said you will reap what you sow...
You'll have to go back and forth with Him bout that!

Ah yes, and we've reached your standard response when you can't answer points. Disappointing, but not unexpected.

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

Coexist is better than the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Brother aero,

I have read thru this thread, seen your arguments, understood your position, and felt as if I could make one comment irt your position.


It's TRUTH!

However, the fight for the world is over. satan and his followers already rule this world. Each day we march closer to his nwo, the GT, and the hunt that will ensue, lead by satans a/c, who will lead this universalistic movement.
he is called rabbi, deliverer, teacher, and to most, maitreya.

Indeed these bumper stickers are his work, and those who fall for him, his minions.

Many, many socalled christians(goats,lukewarm) are already at his service.

May the Lord ALmighty and His Son our King, reward your diligence, and keep you from their reach.

Praise and exalt Him above all forever!

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

such as muzlims for instance, who publically advocate killing Christians and Jews.

Christians have the God given right to self defense, so we will and are fighting back against those that use violence against us

You were good up until this.
Jesus is our defense. He is our shield, and He is our sword.

As for Muslims advocating violence.
I would say they no more or less advocate it than we do. But any who do are in sin, and in desperate need of redemption.

Thou shalt not kill.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

[Octorock]

However, the fight for the world is over. satan and his followers already rule this world. Each day we march closer to his nwo, the GT, and the hunt that will ensue, lead by satans a/c, who will lead this universalistic movement.
he is called rabbi, deliverer, teacher, and to most, maitreya.

Indeed these bumper stickers are his work, and those who fall for him, his minions.

So...the whole "love your neighbor" thing is really from satan?

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

So...the whole "love your neighbor" thing is really from satan?

I do love my neighbor. But above my neighbor is my ALmighty God, whom I love with all my heart, mind, and soul.

It is not hate, to know who your neighbor is. Nor is it hate to behold your enemy. Even he is your neighbor.

Loving your neighbor and falling for satans deception, are two entirely different concepts.

Do you not know that satan has the Holy Scripture committed to memory. Indeed he does, and will use it accordingly to fulfill his endgoal of deceiving and betraying all of socalled Christianity.

 

[Octorock]

Again, can someone please explain why peaceful co-existence is a bad thing?

 

[cubinity]

Again, can someone please explain why peaceful co-existence is a bad thing?

Theology (unlike Biology, for example) is not the study of God, but what one already believes and teaches about God. Theology, in this sense, represents not your pursuit of God, but what you think you've already grasped about him. Theology has been subtly replaced by dogma, and dogma is enforced by the validity of the institution, and vice versa, the institution is validated by its dogma.

Therefore, if others who are studying God (theology, in the biology-like sense) find something other than that which our institution already holds to be true (theology, in the dogma sense), then those findings threaten the validity of our institution by challenging our enforcement of some particular dogma.

Coexisting means we have to be humble enough to accept that there is a range of uncertainty about God, a range our dogma does not allow. So, we find that we must choose between coexistence and our institution. For us, the choice is obvious. We must side with the institution and defend its power, or the "truth" will be lost to the pagans!

Thus, peaceful co-existence is bad for our power struggle, and therefore bad for us.

It does not phase us that the central story of our faith revolves around an episode in which a man challenged the predominant religious institution of his day to set down their struggle for power in order to co-exist with those they saw as enemies, and to love freely. In our story, they killed him over this, and we praise him for that martyrdom, among other things. We make villains out of that institution and its struggle for power. We think we're better than they were. We think we understand God better than they did. We think we grasp that man's message as they clearly did not.

And then, we show we are just like them by spouting off rhetoric that is not fundamentally different than theirs. We choose power over love, judgment over co-existence, fundamentalism over humanitarianism. We choose sides by creating sides. We choose to preserve the church over preserving the truth.

At least, that's what it looks like from the perspective of most non-Christians I minister with, which is the number one reason they are content remaining agnostic. Maybe we can afford some unaffiliated peer review. Maybe.

 

[Octorock]

Theology (unlike Biology, for example) is not the study of God, but what one already believes and teaches about God. Theology, in this sense, represents not your pursuit of God, but what you think you've already grasped about him. Theology has been subtly replaced by dogma, and dogma is enforced by the validity of the institution, and vice versa, the institution is validated by its dogma.

Therefore, if others who are studying God (theology, in the biology-like sense) find something other than that which our institution already holds to be true (theology, in the dogma sense), then those findings threaten the validity of our institution by challenging our enforcement of some particular dogma.

Coexisting means we have to be humble enough to accept that there is a range of uncertainty about God, a range our dogma does not allow. So, we find that we must choose between coexistence and our institution. For us, the choice is obvious. We must side with the institution and defend its power, or the "truth" will be lost to the pagans!

Thus, peaceful co-existence is bad for our power struggle, and therefore bad for us.

It does not phase us that the central story of our faith revolves around an episode in which a man challenged the predominant religious institution of his day to set down their struggle for power in order to co-exist with those they saw as enemies, and to love freely. In our story, they killed him over this, and we praise him for that martyrdom, among other things. We make villains out of that institution and its struggle for power. We think we're better than they were. We think we understand God better than they did. We think we grasp that man's message as they clearly did not.

And then, we show we are just like them by spouting off rhetoric that is not fundamentally different than theirs. We choose power over love, judgment over co-existence, fundamentalism over humanitarianism. We choose sides by creating sides. We choose to preserve the church over preserving the truth.

At least, that's what it looks like from the perspective of most non-Christians I minister with, which is the number one reason they are content remaining agnostic. Maybe we can afford some unaffiliated peer review. Maybe.

This is an excellent post, thank you.

 

[airō]

...you're positive you have the only true understanding of God and everything everyone but you is wrong?
tulc(just making sure)

I am positive that God has given us clarity on the fundamentals of Scripture. There is no room for subjectivity on these basic fundamentals. Anyone who rejects these fundamentals is either not born again or an apostate.

 

[Cabal]

I am positive that God has given us clarity on the fundamentals of Scripture. There is no room for subjectivity on these basic fundamentals. Anyone who rejects these fundamentals is either not born again or an apostate.

You have a very high opinion of your opinion, I'll give you that much.

 

[tulc]

I am positive that God has given us clarity on the fundamentals of Scripture. There is no room for subjectivity on these basic fundamentals. Anyone who rejects these fundamentals is either not born again or an apostate.

Interesting. Two things: 1) You do realize that doesn't even come close to answering the question I asked you right?
and 2) who gets to decide which of "these basic fundamentals." are the deal breakers?
tulc(just wondering)