How tolerant are you of other religions?

[tcampen]

Originally Posted By: tcampen

How are we "accountable to God" for our sins within the Christian Framwork? Saved people go to heaven based on faith alone, and the non-saved go to hell....and this is regardless of the sins committed. Do the saved have to pay a price and be held accountable in heaven for their sins too? Hmmmmmmmmm.

No, I see a contradiction here.

I'm not sure what the contradiction is, but there is a piece of the puzzle missing.

First, God covers the sins of those who trust in the blood of His son. Whatever sins were committed. However, we will all face the judgment. Christians are also subject to different conditions while here on earth. God cleanses us of our sin so we will be deemed worthy on the final day. So, while we are saved by grace alone, through] faith alone, we are required to repent of our sins. If the faith is real, repentance comes with.

Yes, I understand the concept of Jesus "paying the price for sins." But that whole concept nullifies the idea of one personally being accountable for one's sins. It makes the whole idea of being specifically accountable to god for one's sins irrelevant, for the individual need not pay any personal price for committing those acts. On the other side of the coin, the person who does not "accept jesus" in the way many christains advocate will suffer the exact same punishment for there sins as anyone else who is not a christian - regardless of the number or severity of the "sins" committed. So, agian, the sins committed are irrelevant to the concept of accountability to god for those actions. Gandhi and Hitler suffer precisely the same fate, although any reasonable person would clearly see Hitler as more deserving of paying a higher price for his "sins."

So, what I'm saying is either one is personally accountable to god for her sins, or not. The Christain model of salvation by faith alone nullifies such an accountability.

that's all.

 

[tcampen]

This is why tcampen is debating TLG I feel that he really is seeking what to do about his hearts condition. He and the others that are of religion or are athiest, and do not associate themselves with Christianity came to this site for answers. Let us pray that he and others might see their need for Christ.

Palatka44, as hard as this may be to believe, did it ever occur to you that perhaps I came to this site also to provide answers to you and those that share your religious views? I too pray for you to see your need for greater tolerance and respect of people with differents faiths from your own. I see this a more god-like trait than a "I'm right, and everyone else who thinks differently is wrong and will burn in hell" attitude. I already have Christ in my heart, but just not in the way that you do. It is through these exchanges that perhaps people like yourself may think, "Hey, maybe it's ok to believe something different than me..."

That's why I'm here.

 

[vajradhara]

Re: vajradhara

I note your handle contains "rad" so I'm sure we'll be friends in time.

Man, you gotta catch up on your history. Stalin was crouching at the door, ready to take on Japan. There's absolutely no way Japan could have won, and I marvel you would even suggest it. What if America had not been there with the A-bomb and then gone in and rebuilt it? What if it took conventional weapons another two years to end the war? Japan as it turns out, was extremely lucky to have been conquered by America. It would not be a democracy- that's for sure!!!

Oh yeah, their "great military force" was so depleted at wars end that the populace was being trained to fight the Americans and Russians to the death. In Japan, that included children, just as in Germany.

Yes, I reassert, my Dad (and his generation obviously) paid for rebuliding Japan. Did you think it came from the tooth fairy tax? It's your logic that's astounding I'm afraid.

Oh, by the way. The cost of rebuilding Iraq and establishing democracy there will cost me at least $3000 because of my tax bracket, but the average will be $2000. We will have a huge deficit to pay off, just as my Dad did.

Rad

Namaste rad,

well.. i consider you "friend" already... perhaps, in time, you will count me the same way

in any event...

i enjoy discussing only a few things more than Asian History... and one of them is Military History and the Theories of Warfare. yeah, i know.. but before i was a Buddhist, i was an officer in our countries military.. and they teach you this kind of stuff....

in any event...

let's talk first about Japan... perhaps, this link would be of some value:
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2130.html

a quote from the site should further highlite the issue at hand:

"On the political sector, Japan received its first European style constitution in 1889. A parliament, the Diet was established while the emperor kept sovereignty: he stood at the top of the army, navy, executive and legislative power. The ruling clique, however, kept on holding the actual power, and the able and intelligent emperor Meiji agreed with most of their actions. Political parties did not yet gain real power due to the lack of unity among their members.


Conflicts of interests in Korea between China and Japan led to the Sino-Japanese War in 1894-95. Japan defeated China, received Taiwan, but was forced by Russia, France and Germany to return other territories. The so called Triple Intervention caused the Japanese army and navy to intensify their rearmament. New conflicts of interests in Korea and Manchuria, this time between Russia and Japan, led to the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05. The Japanese army also won this war gaining territory and finally some international respect. Japan further increased her influence on Korea and annexed her completely in 1910. In Japan, the war successes caused nationalism to increase even more, and other Asian nations also started to develop national self confidence."

so here we clearly see that "democracy" was established in Japan long before WW2. we also clearly see here, that prior to WW1, Japan was a clearly superior military force to the Russians.

so what, you may say, this isn't WW2! here's a link that you can review to see what Russian history records during WW2: http://w.w.ii-and-russia.ww2.klup.info/

here's a quick time line to the major events of WW2:
http://www.unverse.com/WW2.html

You will also note, that Russia had recently lost a war with Japan (1904-1905) and was eager to improve it's eastern defences. if you have a serious interest in this, you should consider reading some of the information from Mongolia and Korea.. you'd be surprised...

as for what Russia was doing... i'm unaware of your source for the information that "Stalin was crouching at the door." the most reliable texts that i've been able to read on the subject focus on the devestation of the Russian military and the tremendous difficulties they had with rooting out the Whites in Siberia and the Korean nationalists.

whilst it may be fun to speculate on "what if's" there is nothing to support the allegations being put forth.

as for the money spent to rebuild Japan.. i'm not disputing that your fathers generation paid for it.. i disputed your claim of "your father paid for it out of his wallet" to the seeming exclusion of the rest of the populace. perhaps that being nitpicky, and if so, i apologize. my logic, however, is quite sound in this case.

you may want to revise your estimated cost for rebuilding Iraq... we have no idea how much it will take in the end... we've already asked for another $87 Billion for the task.

 

[vajradhara]

I suggest it is the respectful, law abiding, honest and empathetic people who become Christians just as easily. Not to mention the most brilliant, benevolent and insightful people like M. Scott Peck, Charles Finney and Albert Sweitzer to name a few- and whose conversion only made their sensitivity more keen. While you can point to charlatans in the mix, Christians have set the standards for honesty, empathy and a love of justice.

1. Four Bible totin' Quaker men came out against slavery in 1680, although they were severely ostricised for so doing.

2. The first black female college graduate was graduated from Oberlin c 1840, a college started by "fundies," of which Charles Finney became president. Harvard did not even graduate females, let alone black ones for another 40 years

3. Charles Finney's budget for benevolent social action, feeding the poor, establishing hospitals and orphanages, at one time exceeded the entire federal budget.

4. The "factory laws" to reduce child labor in England were introduced by a Christian "fundy" named Stapleton.

5. George Whitefield, an Anglican minister and evangelist, was not allowed to preach in the churches of New England because he "allowed women, negroes and children" to come up and speak from the pulpit. Even the skeptic Franklin greatly admired him. Whitefield lived very modestly, and used most of the money he collected from his huge audiences to build orphanages.

6. Sherman said of the woman who lead the Christian Commission in the Civil War "She outranks me." He was of course expressing his profound admiration for her tireless benevolent acts of charity and empathy.

7, The vast majority of private hospitals and medical missions in the world were established by Christians.

Would you like some more facts, or will that do for now?

Read a history book not written by a liberal college professor, and you'll find out "fundie" Christians have set all the marks for empathy and honesty. If you think "respect" includes being dishonest about historical fact, or failing to tell people what they need to hear, or means being politically correct, then yes, I don't have much of that.

Thanks, but I'm not buying your holy claims. Compared to Christ, our inspiration, you have nothing to brag about.

Yeah I know, I'm being disrespectful.

Rad

Namaste Rad,

what a wonderful western outlook on things

point 1. Christians spoke out against slavery in 1680 CE. the Buddha spoke out against it in 500 BCE. Clearly Buddhism is a greater advocate for freedom than Christianity.. if we are using date for a criteria.

point 2. well.. good for them! there was never any basis for their blind bigotry in the first place.

point 3. of what country? the US? you will, of course, realize that there are vastly more countries than that in the world... though i would be very interested to read your source for this point.

point 4. England was a Christian nation in the first place... why would Christians inact such draconian laws to begin with? seems this is more of a balance correction than a real reform.

point 5. a woman was ordained as the first Buddhist Nun in 465 BCE and was empowed to teach in 460 BCE. again, if we are using date as the critera.. Buddhism is a much stronger advocate of womens rights.

point 6. and this is unique to Christianity how?

point 7. baseless allegation unless you have some source that you can cite for this information. i'm sure we'd all be pleased to review it.

historical fact, is more than simply the actions of the western world, despite what you may have been lead to believe if you investigate all the other world cultures, you may actually find that other people besides Christians have standards for love, honesty and justice. to claim otherwise is simply incorrect.

when one restricts oneself to a very particular section of world history, one tends to end up with views that are completely unfounded and skewed towards a particular paradigm... to the point where their vision becomes myopic when viewing other cultures and traditions.

 

[mo.mentum]

point 7. baseless allegation unless you have some source that you can cite for this information. i'm sure we'd all be pleased to review it.

historical fact, is more than simply the actions of the western world, despite what you may have been lead to believe if you investigate all the other world cultures, you may actually find that other people besides Christians have standards for love, honesty and justice. to claim otherwise is simply incorrect.

Umm yes. I couldn't resist imparting knowledge about the history of modern hospitals...

Possibly the earliest hospital in Islam was a mobile dispensary following the Muslim armies, dating from the time of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH); a tradition which remained throughout the centuries of Islamic Civilisation.

Decades elapsed, before the first hospital building was built in Damascus in 706CE by Al-Walid, the Ummayad Caliph. It was to cater for all sorts of patients (including the blind, and even the lepers). Its equipment, staff and organisation, served as model for other hospitals to follow. Both Caliphs Harun al-Rashid and Al-Mansur had hospitals built in Baghdad. In Cairo, the first hospital was established at al-Fustat by Ibn Tulun, governor of the city in 872CE.

By the 12th century, the hospital had become a very advanced institution, witness al-Nuri hospital, built in 1156 by Nur al-Din Zangi, a hospital where patients were well fed, and cared for, and where there was a large library for teaching. In Cairo, in 1285, Sultan Qalaun al-Mansur built the largest of all hospitals, described by Durant:

`Within a spacious quadrangular enclosure four buildings rose around a courtyard adorned with arcades and cooled with fountains and brooks. There were separate wards for diverse diseases and for convalescents; laboratories, a dispensary, out-patient clinics, diet kitchens, baths, a library, a chapel, a lecture hall, and particularly pleasant accommodations for the insane. Treatment was given gratis to men and women, rich and poor, slave and free; and a sum of money was: disbursed to each convalescent on his departure, so that he need not at once return to work. The sleepless were provided with soft music, professional story-tellers, and perhaps books of history.’

W. Durant: The Age of Faith; Simon and Shuster; New York; 1950; pp 230-1 / 330-1.

Taken from: http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID=327

 

[vajradhara]

Umm yes. I couldn't resist imparting knowledge about the history of modern hospitals...

Possibly the earliest hospital in Islam was a mobile dispensary following the Muslim armies, dating from the time of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH); a tradition which remained throughout the centuries of Islamic Civilisation.

Decades elapsed, before the first hospital building was built in Damascus in 706CE by Al-Walid, the Ummayad Caliph. It was to cater for all sorts of patients (including the blind, and even the lepers). Its equipment, staff and organisation, served as model for other hospitals to follow. Both Caliphs Harun al-Rashid and Al-Mansur had hospitals built in Baghdad. In Cairo, the first hospital was established at al-Fustat by Ibn Tulun, governor of the city in 872CE.

By the 12th century, the hospital had become a very advanced institution, witness al-Nuri hospital, built in 1156 by Nur al-Din Zangi, a hospital where patients were well fed, and cared for, and where there was a large library for teaching. In Cairo, in 1285, Sultan Qalaun al-Mansur built the largest of all hospitals, described by Durant:

`Within a spacious quadrangular enclosure four buildings rose around a courtyard adorned with arcades and cooled with fountains and brooks. There were separate wards for diverse diseases and for convalescents; laboratories, a dispensary, out-patient clinics, diet kitchens, baths, a library, a chapel, a lecture hall, and particularly pleasant accommodations for the insane. Treatment was given gratis to men and women, rich and poor, slave and free; and a sum of money was: disbursed to each convalescent on his departure, so that he need not at once return to work. The sleepless were provided with soft music, professional story-tellers, and perhaps books of history.’

W. Durant: The Age of Faith; Simon and Shuster; New York; 1950; pp 230-1 / 330-1.

Taken from: http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID=327

Namaste mo.mentum,

you do realize that he was claiming that Christianity was the force behind the creation of hospitals... which is the source information that i was requesting...

your posting, however, suffices to show that hosptials were founded by other traditions as well, if not prior to the Christians.

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

To be honest, I didn't care for the tone of the wording either. But it wouldn't be the first time I've heard someone speak this way regarding someone who didn't agree with their viewpoint.

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

Interesting claims you make TLG. Can you back any of them up with substantive evidence? Can you prove that we are wrong and you are right?

No?

Ok then, we'll give your religious rhetoric and condescending diatribe all the consideration it deserves.

[/size][/font]

Honest debate? I don't think you realise the irony of your statement.

You blink and whole pages have been posted. This is what my prior post was in reference to.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Yes, I understand the concept of Jesus "paying the price for sins." But that whole concept nullifies the idea of one personally being accountable for one's sins.

'Fraid not. Any Christian knows that rebellion is not a place they want to go. God does indeed hold us accountable. There is more than just the redemption to judgment. God does not make rebellion fun or sweet. He knows how to drive it out of those He loves. And he knows how to give His own people justice when they've been wronged, too.

On the other side of the coin, the person who does not "accept jesus" in the way many christains advocate will suffer the exact same punishment for there sins as anyone else who is not a christian - regardless of the number or severity of the "sins" committed.

The Bible says there will be degrees depending on what the person has done. Those who acted in ignorance will be treated with few blows, but those who knew God's will and didn't do it will beaten with many blows. You'll also notice the first four of the ten commandments have to do with our treatment of God, the remaining six with man. That should indicate something.

So, what I'm saying is either one is personally accountable to god for her sins, or not. The Christain model of salvation by faith alone nullifies such an accountability.

that's all.

Or, there's a piece missing from the puzzle. If you like, I'd be happy to look up some verses for you if you want to know more about it.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Palatka44, as hard as this may be to believe, did it ever occur to you that perhaps I came to this site also to provide answers to you and those that share your religious views? I too pray for you to see your need for greater tolerance and respect of people with differents faiths from your own. I see this a more god-like trait than a "I'm right, and everyone else who thinks differently is wrong and will burn in hell" attitude. I already have Christ in my heart, but just not in the way that you do. It is through these exchanges that perhaps people like yourself may think, "Hey, maybe it's ok to believe something different than me..."

That's why I'm here.

Are you attempting to remove this truth from them so that you will not be discomforted by it?

 

[tcampen]

"Originally Posted By: tcampen

Palatka44, as hard as this may be to believe, did it ever occur to you that perhaps I came to this site also to provide answers to you and those that share your religious views? I too pray for you to see your need for greater tolerance and respect of people with differents faiths from your own. I see this a more god-like trait than a "I'm right, and everyone else who thinks differently is wrong and will burn in hell" attitude. I already have Christ in my heart, but just not in the way that you do. It is through these exchanges that perhaps people like yourself may think, "Hey, maybe it's ok to believe something different than me..."

Are you attempting to remove this truth from them so that you will not be discomforted by it?

I don't view it as removing anything, but rather adding to. I don't want to take away or destroy anyone's beliefs, but rather enhance it by recognizing the value in religious diversity. There are plenty of good Christians who do not subscribe to the notion of having an exclusive insight into the TRUTH at the expense of anyone who disagrees. Any discomfort I may experience in all this comes from the knowledge that there is a more open, virtuous, and productive approach one can take without abandoning their core beliefs - yet so many prefer to reject such humility and cling to their own need to be right and the expense of all others. Sorry, but that's just not my style.

 

[tcampen]

Yes, I understand the concept of Jesus "paying the price for sins." But that whole concept nullifies the idea of one personally being accountable for one's sins.

'Fraid not. Any Christian knows that rebellion is not a place they want to go. God does indeed hold us accountable. There is more than just the redemption to judgment. God does not make rebellion fun or sweet. He knows how to drive it out of those He loves. And he knows how to give His own people justice when they've been wronged, too.

My point was that direct accountability to God for one's actions would require some direct response to that individual. The salvation by faith alone concept nullifies that premise entirely.

On the other side of the coin, the person who does not "accept jesus" in the way many christains advocate will suffer the exact same punishment for there sins as anyone else who is not a christian - regardless of the number or severity of the "sins" committed.

The Bible says there will be degrees depending on what the person has done. Those who acted in ignorance will be treated with few blows, but those who knew God's will and didn't do it will beaten with many blows. You'll also notice the first four of the ten commandments have to do with our treatment of God, the remaining six with man. That should indicate something.

If hell is defined as eternal separation from god, how can there by "degrees" of hell? Can one only be 57% separated? Or spend less than eternity separated from God? I am not aware of any scriptures in the NT that speak of such "degrees." Please enlighten me.

"So, what I'm saying is either one is personally accountable to god for her sins, or not. The Christain model of salvation by faith alone nullifies such an accountability. that's all."

Or, there's a piece missing from the puzzle. If you like, I'd be happy to look up some verses for you if you want to know more about it.

I always seem to have trouble communicating this issue as I see it, but I'll give it one more quick try...

If there is personal accountability to god for one's actions, it would only mean something if God actually responded in kind to that individual specifically. Salvation by faith alone totally disregards that premise and lumps all people into one of two camps: 1. The saved - who spend eternity with God in heaven, and 2. the non-saved - who spend eternity in separation from God. (And I am at this time not aware of any "degrees" of hell for the less bad, or degrees of heaven for the not as good.)

People are ultimately lumped into one of the two camps regardless of what acts they committed during their natural lives. All that matters is whether they sincerely accepted Jesus as their lord and savior before they died. Thus, there is no direct accountability from God for the actions of the individuals. If there was, then even the saved person would have some consequence for his actions, even tho he gets to spend eternity with god.

my 2 cents

 

[Palatka44]

Tcampen, you just go on believing as you will. Both of us will stand before God one day. If it is as I read scripture and there is eternal doom facing the spiritualy depraved He will know who had knowledge of the pending doom and ask why we did not warn others of it. However if it is as you say and all religions have merit with God, then you do well as do I and everyone else. If then my warning is not needed and God is accepting all that is religion, then again I am safe and have no worry.
I speak on this Forum to warn, because I am afraid for you and others that are not heeding this warning. I do not speak to condemn anyone. I warn because I am compelled to do so. I can not ignore this compulsion any more than I could not turn my back on a burning house while I have the means to save the occupants.
So get out of the house tcampen I fear it is about to colapse.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

"Originally Posted By: tcampen

I don't view it as removing anything, but rather adding to. I don't want to take away or destroy anyone's beliefs, but rather enhance it by recognizing the value in religious diversity.

But if this diversity is an affront to God, why would you want to bring it to a Christian forum where it is an affront to our God? The only thing that would be enhanced by this is judgment from God.

There are plenty of good Christians who do not subscribe to the notion of having an exclusive insight into the TRUTH at the expense of anyone who disagrees.

It's not man's opinion that matters, but God's. God would not call these people good Christians.

Moreover, I wouldn't be overly concerned with what a person feels when a person tells them their religion is invalid: I'd be far more worried about how they'll feel when they hear it from God.

Any discomfort I may experience in all this comes from the knowledge that there is a more open, virtuous, and productive approach one can take without abandoning their core beliefs - yet so many prefer to reject such humility and cling to their own need to be right and the expense of all others. Sorry, but that's just not my style.

Hm. This would not be virtuous by God's authority. Productive wouldn't be the word for Christians. We are called to do the Lord's work, which is to give them the truth and give them every opportunity to make peace with the only true, living God.

 

[Godzman]

tolerance is not equal to love and vice versa

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Well, all, I have to jet for tonight, but I wish you a very pleasant evening and I hope to pick up where we left off tomorrow. God's blessings to everyone.

 

[mo.mentum]

I don't view it as removing anything, but rather adding to. I don't want to take away or destroy anyone's beliefs, but rather enhance it by recognizing the value in religious diversity

But if this diversity is an affront to God, why would you want to bring it to a Christian forum where it is an affront to our God? The only thing that would be enhanced by this is judgment from God.

Isn't that a narrow view of God's Creation? Does it not manifest His inifinite Wisdom and Knowledge? All the anmials, plants, insects, atomic elements, molecues, DNA, types of energy etc etc..

If you believe in God, then you must acknowledge that He Loves diversity because it is obvious all around us. Even in us humans, we see colors and shapes and sizes yet we're all the same. It is normal to have religious diversity and it is needed. Each culture has strong points and weak points. We must learn from each other to build a better society...NOT CLASH, OR DOMINATE. Those are the consequences of living under One God.

"O Mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God are the pious of you. And God is the All-Knowing, Fully-Acquainted (with all things)." (Qur'an: 49:13)

Pious, I'm sure we can agree, are those who are God fearing and do good deeds, from any religion.

We know then that God created the diversity of peoples and cultures, for a purpose! That we may know one another, that we explore this Creation of His and all its infinite possibilities. There are well over 4000 different cultures in the world, i'm underestimating. Each with its own unique set of expressions, yet there are always core values of honesty, trust, friendship and sharing within a culture.

We cannot just all blindly be doomed. There is no purpose in that. God is All-Wise, The Pardoner.

 

[radorth]

you may want to revise your estimated cost for rebuilding Iraq... we have no idea how much it will take in the end... we've already asked for another $87 Billion for the task.

You mean it's going to cost this Christian more than $3000???!! How much are Japan and India kicking in BTW?

you do realize that he was claiming that Christianity was the force behind the creation of hospitals... which is the source information that i was requesting...

I never said any such thing. I said the vast majority of PRIVATE hospitals were built by Christians. If you can't read, please don't respond to my posts. I consider it slanderous to misquote people as you have just done.

(Momentum)By the 12th century, the hospital had become a very advanced institution, witness al-Nuri hospital, built in 1156 by Nur al-Din Zangi, a hospital where patients were well fed, and cared for, and where there was a large library for teaching. In Cairo, in 1285, Sultan Qalaun al-Mansur built the largest of all hospitals, described by Durant:

LOL!!! Hardly a private hospital built from tithes. Criminy. Is that all you can come up with?

point 1. Christians spoke out against slavery in 1680 CE. the Buddha spoke out against it in 500 BCE. Clearly Buddhism is a greater advocate for freedom than Christianity.. if we are using date for a criteria

Too bad nobody caught on.

point 2. well.. good for them! there was never any basis for their blind bigotry in the first place.

I guess you couldn't think of a civil response. How's things in Pakistan these days?

point 3. of what country? the US? you will, of course, realize that there are vastly more countries than that in the world... though i would be very interested to read your source for this point.

I think you know what country I'm talking about, but are being inane to make a point. Read the story of Charles Finney, if you're seriously interested in such things.

point 4. England was a Christian nation in the first place... why would Christians inact such draconian laws to begin with? seems this is more of a balance correction than a real reform.

I'm sorry. I should have said "Protestant" instead of Christian. You might have gotten the point.

point 5. a woman was ordained as the first Buddhist Nun in 465 BCE and was empowed to teach in 460 BCE. again, if we are using date as the critera.. Buddhism is a much stronger advocate of womens rights.

And here I thought a lot of Japanese were Buddhists, but that can't be because then they wouldn't have geisha's. We're looking for actual manifestations of liberal works here, not Buddha's good intentions.

point 6. and this is unique to Christianity how?

It actually made a visible difference.

point 7. baseless allegation unless you have some source that you can cite for this information. i'm sure we'd all be pleased to review it.

History is baseless?

if you investigate all the other world cultures, you may actually find that other people besides Christians have standards for love, honesty and justice. to claim otherwise is simply incorrect.

I saw that one coming a mile away.

Standards are nice. Actual works are far more valuable, but to have any worth bragging about "You must be born again" so that you are regenerated internally and your motives are purified.

(Like Finney was)

So anyway Vaj, how much are the Buddhists and Hindus kicking in to rebuild Iraq?

Your friend Rad

 

[radorth]

If you believe in God, then you must acknowledge that He Loves diversity because it is obvious all around us. Even in us humans, we see colors and shapes and sizes yet we're all the same. It is normal to have religious diversity and it is needed. Each culture has strong points and weak points. We must learn from each other to build a better society...NOT CLASH, OR DOMINATE.

Read a history book and get real Momentum. Claiming we can do what no other society before us has done is just arrogant and self-righteous at worst and wishfull thinking at best. You have hope for THIS WORLD when there is none. But tell us, would it be OK if Jesus came back to dominate or not??!!

Sorry to keep asking these questions, but you keep talking as if humans have the solution through "good works." That's complete nonsense, unless you are much more righteous than your ancestors. Is that what you are claiming?

As Luther said, the arrogance of man is so great he demands more laws. "I will do this. I will do that" says he. Blah blah blah. It will never happen until the unjust and the self-righteous are removed from the earth, and the Holy Spirit is recieved by all who are left.

Rad

 

[tcampen]

But if this diversity is an affront to God, why would you want to bring it to a Christian forum where it is an affront to our God? The only thing that would be enhanced by this is judgment from God.

Such diversity is an affront to those who MUST be right in matters of spiritual faith, not to God.

It's not man's opinion that matters, but God's. God would not call these people good Christians.

Ah yes, the "it's not what I believe, but what God says" approach. I do not give such a position any credence whatsoever. You pick and choose what you want to believe as much as the next person, but perhaps will not or cannot admit it. If your position were true, than all other Christians that differed with any of your positions about god, yet make the same claim, must necessarily be incorrect. That would make you a SUPER-Christian, above all others. Sorry, but I have seen no reason to believe that YOUR interpretation of God is THE interpretation of God. Keep in mind, it is YOUR interpretation. Period.

Moreover, I wouldn't be overly concerned with what a person feels when a person tells them their religion is invalid: I'd be far more worried about how they'll feel when they hear it from God.

see the above response.

Hm. This would not be virtuous by God's authority. Productive wouldn't be the word for Christians. We are called to do the Lord's work, which is to give them the truth and give them every opportunity to make peace with the only true, living God.

Suspicion, hate, intolerance, violence, persicution and oppression are not virtuous traits of God or anyone else with a good heart. Unfortunately, history has proven that holding onto the position of having an exclusive right to the Truth about god and his will, at the exclusion of all other who disagree, too often leads to these traits. I'm not saying you necessarily fall into this category, but rather that certainly mentalities create too great a likelihood of destructive behavior - which should be an indication of whether the foundational beliefs and principles are a good idea or not.

I assert that they are not, and therefore unGodly. The need to be right at everyone else's expence in such inherently subjective and personal matters such as spirituality cannot be masked in "love" any longer, for it has nothing to do with real love. At its heart, it has to do with pride. Just my opinion.