How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Peace of Mind After All These Years   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Peace of Mind After All These Years

  Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Baba Michi
Junior Member
since 12-07-2005
Posts 39
Southern Germany


50 posted 12-28-2005 02:10 PM       View Profile for Baba Michi   Email Baba Michi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Baba Michi

Stephanos, as I've implied before, I don't put my faith in scriptures which are not direct accounts of something Jesus Christ said.  Much of your argument stems from the idea that one cannot stay true to Christian orthodox beliefs if they also believe my philosophies, but I am not interested in Orthodox beliefs or in sticking with tradition, nor do I consider dogma to be of great use.  That is not to say that I am anti-dogma; I simply see it as having limited potential for spiritual growth.  If I have "dodged" scripture, it's because it was written by someone other than Jesus, and I take it with a grain of salt.  I don't put my faith in "the doctrines of men" as Ron says.  One of Jesus's huge frustrations was always that people just didn't seem to be "getting it", and I don't think that that changed much after his death.  
   I do think that Jesus is the only way, but that whether or not people want to call him that makes no difference.  Jesus forgives all sins, including semantic ones.  However, the historical figure of Jesus was only one aspect of his many dimensions, and to consider his physical personage more important than all other aspects is, I think, dodging the real spiritual issue.  If a religion addresses this issue directly then I consider it to be very valid.  Please re-consider my post about the trinity, and tell me your reponse.  

Back later for Buddhism...
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


51 posted 12-28-2005 05:35 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

Baba,

It was I who wrote about "... doctrines of men." And I happen to agree with you about men's interpretations of what Jesus did and said. Common sense dictates here... I could tell a story, many stories, and perform many acts that people were absolutely agog about, and I'd bet after a year or two, haven been talked about and written about, even by my own eye-witnesses, much would be changed and meaning would be lost. Proof? I have personally witnessed the changing of meaning as soon as it was written, like here on this site.

... and I am not even taking into account the numerous changes in the meaning of words and in the changes of the meaning of words when translated over eons... especially when those interpreters had in mind their own philosophies and doctrines while interpreting the scriptures - which leads to a whole new area about why only certain scriptures are being used as the Holy Bible and others are not (that is Raph's forte' and he explained it very well, he did).


"If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead."

Baba Michi
Junior Member
since 12-07-2005
Posts 39
Southern Germany


52 posted 12-28-2005 06:25 PM       View Profile for Baba Michi   Email Baba Michi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Baba Michi

In the link to wikipedia you posted, did you scroll down to the part where it talks about Buddha Nature?  I never read a sentence which involved destruction of the Self.  How can you destroy something which doesn't exist?  
  Nothing has permanent form; that which is impermanent is not truly Self, but an illusory concept based on the idea that separation can exist in a universe in which everything is intimately connected with everything else.  Everything in the universe, though it may change form, is always One.  Realizing this essential unity leads to uncovering Buddha Nature, which is the compassion that arises in light of this fundamental truth.  Sounds a lot like the Hindu Atman, and is, I believe, a similar concept to the Christian soul (not in theory, but in the effects it produces), even if a little "esoteric."  
  The Buddha never said that he thought all people should be buddhists, or that everyone "ought" to be enlightened.  In Buddhist thought, there is no "ought."  It is simply a given that most people aren't satisfied with their lives, and if one has identified themselves with pure compassion, it has become part of their individual nature to help alleviate suffering in whatever way they can. That doesn't mean buddhists think everyone should be buddhists.  He even gave a criteria for assessing other valid teachings and teachers, wishing good luck to the "Kalamas", a group of people who were confused by the conflicting claims of the religious systems of their day.  Buddha advises them to examine the systems based on result:

  "Do not be [convinced] by reports, tradition, or hearsay; nor by skill in the scriptural collections, argumentation, or reasoning; nor after examining conditions or considering theories; nor because [a theory] fits appearances, nor because of respect for an ascetic [who holds a particular view].  Rather, Kalamas, when you know for yourselves:  These doctrines are non-virtuous; these doctrines are erroneous; these doctrines are rejected by the wise; these doctrines, when performed and undertaken, lead to loss and suffering*- then you should reject them, Kalamas."

*Remember my previous definition of suffering.

Okay, now karma...
  
  Just because "good" and "evil" are not considered valid concepts in buddhist metaphysical thought, does not mean that all causes and effects are indistinguishable.  That is an enormous leap to have made.  I think that the conflict you perceive between buddhist metaphysical teachings and the idea of karma comes from the fact that your idea of karma is more Hindu than it is Buddhist.  

  In Hindu thought, good actions are encouraged in order to receive their "good" karmic effects.  In Buddhism, however, karmic effects are merely classified as to whether or not they are "pleasant" or "unpleasant" based on whether the individual in question has performed "skillfully".  However, gathering lots of "good" karma is not the aim of buddhism, nor is one's progress towards enlightenment in any way measured by how many pleasant karmic effects one has accumulated.  Karma is an inseperable function of Samsara, and it is exactly this state that buddhists wish to transcend; one cannot escape Samsara just by having more good karma than they know what to do with.  Sure, the buddhist eight-fold path brings good karma with it, because it involves skillful action, but the aim of skillful action is to create the appropriate inner conditions conducive to waking up.  The Buddha never said "Get enough good karma, and you'll be enlightened."  

(A similar idea, though not as popular as within Buddhism, actually exists in Hinduism, and is expressed in the Bhagavad-Gita, when Krishna tells Arjuna that the Vedas were all well and good, but that if one wanted to truly be united with God, it would require the individual to step outside the motivations of spiritual self-preservation and abandon the idea of accumulating good karma.)  

  Your depiction of Kali was very condescending and culturally insensitive.  Death and sickness are universal facts of life, and Hindus do not try to sugarcoat them.  Thus they are incorporated, very logically, into the Hindu cosmological ideas about how the universe works, and your perception of these elements as having the flavor of futility is not a reflection of Hindu sentiment, any more than in Ecclesiastes, where the themes of mortality and impermanence are also explored.  

  Hindus also have more respect for other religions than to simply say "Oh, you mean Hinduism..." in reference to other methodologies.  The only Christian ideas which are downplayed or left out of the Hindu embrace of Christian ideas is the notion that Chrisianity is better than all other religions.  A more accurate way to state the Hindu stance on Christianity would be "Oh, you mean you know the same God?"  

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


53 posted 12-28-2005 06:56 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

"Your depiction of Kali was very condescending and culturally insensitive."

~ Now I can't speak for the Christians participating in this discussion, or for those Christians who are forum members, but practically every single Christian whom I have met in real life (mostly in the south and every one of them protestant) will say either behind the backs of or in front of a Hindu, Muslim or add any other non-Christian group, is that they are wrong and evil and are going to hell upon death... and that makes me sick to my stomach.


"If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead."
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


54 posted 12-29-2005 12:07 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Baba:  
quote:
Stephanos, as I've implied before, I don't put my faith in scriptures which are not direct accounts of something Jesus Christ said.


You do understand that when the New Testament documents were compiled and written, many of those who knew Jesus or his disciples personally, were alive?  These were direct accounts, in the sense that that's how written accounts were typically processed in those days.


Events --->  oral tradition ---> unofficial writings ---> official writings/ compilation.  


Seeing that the New Testament documents have more manuscript attestation (and closer to the events they describe) than any other examples of Ancient literature, and that gnostic documents only appeared much later, how do explain the lack of an alternative story among the early writings?  There is no such manuscript support for a more "real" account of what Jesus said and did.  


So historically, do you really have much to support the idea that these documents are not accurate descriptions of what Jesus really said, other than a "hermeneutic of suspicion"?  

quote:
Much of your argument stems from the idea that one cannot stay true to Christian orthodox beliefs if they also believe my philosophies, but I am not interested in Orthodox beliefs or in sticking with tradition, nor do I consider dogma to be of great use.



That's fine.  You must choose for yourself, and I respect your responsiblity to choose.  But I only wanted to clarify and underscore that your view is indeed heterodox, and not compatible with the Christian scriptures ... and in that sense, it cannot really be called Christian.  It's just better to admit such (if that's really true) than to patronizingly try to absorb the Christian History into another system which denies that very history, in any actual sense, but tends to uphold it, only in a mystical sense that contradicts the texts.


And I believe you have admitted that such is what you are presenting since 1) you have denied your confidence in the New Testament scriptures, rather than directly discuss them in their own context, and 2) have denied the importance of "dogma" based upon your own philosophical views- while Christianity has asserted from the beginning that dogma (though not everything) is essential.


quote:
If I have "dodged" scripture, it's because it was written by someone other than Jesus, and I take it with a grain of salt.  I don't put my faith in "the doctrines of men" as Ron says.  One of Jesus's huge frustrations was always that people just didn't seem to be "getting it", and I don't think that that changed much after his death.



But that's simply one more Christian article of faith that you deny ... that God was able to "inspire" writings that accurately reflect both history and truth.  In that sense, your belief is non-Christian, or perhaps pre-Christian.  I won't call it "unchristian" because of the association of that word with meanness.  And I know you are sincere.    


How are you even sure that Jesus was frustrated that people didn't seemed to be "getting it", if you don't trust the very history that records such episodes?  And what's more how do you even know what "it" was, that Jesus was trying to convey, if you don't have an accurate history out of which you may know it?  What "gospels" are you going to refer me to?  The pseudepigriphal writings?  Those are more doubtful than any of the apostolic Christian texts.  


The only way you can identify what is the body of Jesus' teaching is, by historical texts, or by complete revision ... saying that it was really something more like Hinduism or Buddhism than anything else.  But you've taken your foot out of history, if you do that.  You say you can't believe the history, because it is doubtful ... but how can you believe the one you're making up?            


quote:
I do think that Jesus is the only way, but that whether or not people want to call him that makes no difference.  Jesus forgives all sins, including semantic ones.



You have to at least understand if someone calls you by another name, they could be calling you a nick-name, but it's a greater possibility they may not know you.  You haven't addressed that possiblity with Jesus, historical or supernatural.  The scriptures do not say that his name is unimportant.  Do a word study on the name of God in the Old testament and New.  Then do a word study on the name of Jesus in the New Testament, and note the seeming importance attached to the language used.  When I meet someone, I get introduced to the name at some point, either early or later.  And often with the learning of someone's name, misconceptions are disspelled, and new understanding comes.    

I'm not saying that someone can never know Jesus, without knowing his name first.  But I am saying you're going too far by suggesting that Pantheism is just another way to "know Jesus".  

    
quote:
However, the historical figure of Jesus was only one aspect of his many dimensions, and to consider his physical personage more important than all other aspects is, I think, dodging the real spiritual issue.



I don't consider his physical personage "more important" than other aspects.  I just don't accept the one, at the expense of the other.  A view of Jesus which denies the physical / historical personage is, I think, dodging the unity issue.  History and spirituality need not be at odds.  

I don't deny the "spiritual" aspect of Jesus.  We can talk about the spiritual nature of his words, his deeds, his divinity, ad infinitum.  I can talk about love, grace, peace, universal brotherhood, sacrifice, beauty, cosmic wonder, etc.. etc..  But you have only tended to discuss Christian spirituality, in the context of another system ... not on it's own terms.  
  

quote:
In the link to wikipedia you posted, did you scroll down to the part where it talks about Buddha Nature?  I never read a sentence which involved destruction of the Self.  How can you destroy something which doesn't exist?



That's my point.  I mean that Buddhism destroys the self, in a philosophical sense, by denying that it ever existed.  You just restated what I was saying.  Buddhism denies individuality, while Christianity affirms it.  


quote:
The Buddha never said that he thought all people should be buddhists, or that everyone "ought" to be enlightened.  In Buddhist thought, there is no "ought."



If I may say respectfully, you're going to have a hard time convincing me of the Buddhist view that there is no "ought" in the universe, if you can't convince me that there is no "ought" in Buddhism itself.  


The "oughtness" in Buddhism, is subtle, as Buddhism is a religion of mildness and subtlety.  But it is present nonetheless, through connotation and language.  It really makes no difference whether Buddhists choose to proselytize or not, or even whether it is seen as proper in the Buddhist system.  

Aside from the word "enlightenment" (in which resides the implicit assumption that light is better than darkness), consider the four noble truths.  Nobility is hierarchically better than that which is ignoble.  Consider the eight-fold path, which tells of right speech, action, livelihood, effort, awareness, meditation.  What does "right" mean?  


Subtle or not it's there.  I see it.  How else do you explain these things, without merely reiterating the dogma that there is no "ought"?  I never denied that Buddhism asserts this, only that it does so inconsistently.  


quote:
Karma is an inseperable function of Samsara, and it is exactly this state that buddhists wish to transcend; one cannot escape Samsara just by having more good karma than they know what to do with.  Sure, the buddhist eight-fold path brings good karma with it, because it involves skillful action, but the aim of skillful action is to create the appropriate inner conditions conducive to waking up.  The Buddha never said "Get enough good karma, and you'll be enlightened."



Okay, I'll accept that for now.  I'll read more about Karma in relation to Samsara, Enlightenment, and Nirvana.  Even so, the goal of "nirvana" is incompatible with the prescriptions of the eightfold path.  How can "no self" have right conduct, or be "skilled"?  And if the "oughtness" of these prescriptions are presented merely as an unfortunate part of the illusion of selfhood, then how can they be vehicles of escaping that very illusion?

quote:
Your depiction of Kali was very condescending and culturally insensitive.  Death and sickness are universal facts of life, and Hindus do not try to sugarcoat them.  Thus they are incorporated, very logically, into the Hindu cosmological ideas about how the universe works, and your perception of these elements as having the flavor of futility is not a reflection of Hindu sentiment, any more than in Ecclesiastes, where the themes of mortality and impermanence are also explored.



Not meaning to be insensitive or condescending.  But Ecclesiastes does express futility, quite vividly.  The point of contention for me, and the difference I think between the futility of Ecclesiastes, and that represented in Kali-worship, is that one is presented as the musings and vanity of life on planet earth, while the other is actually elevated as deity.  

If you read Ecclesiastes, the "Meaninglessness" that the teacher expounds upon is set in antithesis to the purpose and power of God.  And though the solution for this "vanity" is given as rays of sun peeking through nature's clouds, rather than all at once, the worship of God as redeemer is given at the end of the book as the solution.  The writer of E. speaks of "evils" he has seen under the sun, and injustices.  And thus the problem (much like that in the book of Job), is how an all-good God could allow such real injustices and evils to exist.  A thorny problem, to which the goodness of God is set in juxtaposition, as a contrast.  Such is the "spirit" and answer of Ecclesiastes, and Job.  


The Hindu worship of Kali, conversely, does not juxtapose the goodness of God against the problem of "evil", rather it denies that evil exists, and places the problem not in juxtaposition with God, but in union, making God himself (herself, itself, noself) the composite mixture and denial of good and evil.  


Whichever way you see it, Ecclesiastes and it's musings, are not placed upon the altar of worship.  The fact that Kali, in all her destruction, is placed upon the altar of worship, is rooted in the perennial inability of Hinduism to distinguish between good and evil, or cruelty and non-cruelty ... Everything that is, becomes divine in such a system.  


The shortest way to put it is that the underlying cosmology of Ecclesiastes and Kali-worship is wholly different, though descriptions of futility and death are going to be similar, in any culture.  It is the meanings ascribed to evil and death, in Judaism and Hinduism, which are at odds.  


quote:
A more accurate way to state the Hindu stance on Christianity would be "Oh, you mean you know the same God?"  


But that would be mistaken.  Their very definition of God is not the same in those systems.  The infinite-personal God of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, is not the impersonal "ALL" of hinduism.  For a hindu to admit to "knowing the same God" is linguistic osmosis, not conformity of knowledge.


And I'm not saying that Hindus blatantly or disrespectfully say that Christianity equates Hinduism.  Nor am I saying that they see nothing true, or refuse to recognize truth in Christianity.  I'm more addressing their total system, and how it leads to that belief.  

The more vocal abductors of the Bible into a Monistic pantheistic system, in my experience, are Westerners who tend toward Eastern views, rather than Hindus themselves.


Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-29-2005 12:43 AM).]

Baba Michi
Junior Member
since 12-07-2005
Posts 39
Southern Germany


55 posted 12-29-2005 12:32 AM       View Profile for Baba Michi   Email Baba Michi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Baba Michi

JCP... whoops, sorry about miscrediting the quote...

Stephen,

  Well, it's been a great debate.  I feel like, in my post where I talked about the trinity, I summed up just about everything I can say on this topic, and past this point I'll only be repeating myself... I fully admit the historical validity of the New Testament, that is to say, that what happened and was said is pretty accurately recorded.  I just don't happen to agree with standard interpretations of Jesus's message, so I think this is where you and I reach our stalemate, and I don't think I could offer any more views without using some kind've jujitsu-esque "just pretend for a sec that everything you've grown up cherishing as sacred is wrong" tactic, which would be disrespectful and futile.  

  As for the buddhism thing... all I can say is that the Buddha offered people a road to what he considered spiritual salvation, and that all questions of value which seem to be present in the language  should be considered in light of that objective, not as inherent values unto themselves, yadda yadda yadda, *a cane pulls me offstage*

Haha, but seriously, this was a killer good debate, and hopefully we'll find a new topic to argue about soon.  Have a great New Year!

Michi
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


56 posted 12-29-2005 12:32 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

JCP:
quote:
mostly in the south and every one of them protestant

Yessirree ... Condescending and culturally insensitive.  And even though they are a bunch of narrow minded bigotted rednecks, I hope you might meet one or two someday who are different than the rest of 'um.  


Stephen.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


57 posted 12-29-2005 12:38 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Michi:
quote:
Haha, but seriously, this was a killer good debate, and hopefully we'll find a new topic to argue about soon.  Have a great New Year!



Likewise, my friend.  It's been very interesting and much fun.  And I think I learned a thing or two from you.  


God bless, and may you prosper in your New Year as well.


Stephen.
Baba Michi
Junior Member
since 12-07-2005
Posts 39
Southern Germany


58 posted 12-29-2005 12:46 AM       View Profile for Baba Michi   Email Baba Michi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Baba Michi

I just wanted to add that I was born and raised in South Carolina, JCP.  It's better not to let a debate sink to the level of geographical intelligence generalizations.  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


59 posted 12-29-2005 12:51 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Michi,

I was born and raised (and reside) in Georgia ... in your basement.   .  Want to do lunch sometime?  We don't have to eat Coon and rice, less'un ya want to.  


Stephen
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


60 posted 12-29-2005 08:24 AM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

"I just wanted to add that I was born and raised in South Carolina, JCP.  It's better not to let a debate sink to the level of geographical intelligence generalizations."

~ Never was that my intent. Amazing, isn't it? Stephanos replied to my southern Christian comment with a sarcastic barb and you joined right in... it amazes me that that misunderstanding of what was written happened in a matter of less than 24 hours, and the debate is about what was said and written almost 2000 years ago.

~ Did I ever say "all" southern Christians think that way?" No.

~ Did I ever say that it was "ONLY" southern christians with whom told me those things? The answer again is no.

~ Stephanos, I hope you put more objectiveness in your studies than you do reading my replies.

~ My comment had nothing to do with a geographical slur against southern Christians, but I was only relating to those reading this thread that that was the area of the country where I was taught that if one is not a Christian one goes to hell.

... so Stephanos, let me ask you this question, do you believe that any of the Hindus or "other than Christianity believers," like those participating in this discussion, can be saved without accepting Christ as their saviour?

When I asked this question to any protestant preacher or "true believer" the answer was always, no. And I mean, always.


    


"If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead."

[This message has been edited by JesusChristPose (12-29-2005 10:56 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


61 posted 12-29-2005 12:50 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I don't think there is any other answer in the bible.  If you believe everything the bible says then what else may your answer be?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


62 posted 12-29-2005 05:53 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

JCP,

Don't take what I said so seriously.  I just found it funny that you were talking about cultural insensitivity, and made a comment that could easily be taken that way.  If you didn't mean it that way, then maybe you can imagine that my comments about Hinduism aren't intended to be culturally insensitive either.  


quote:
... so Stephanos, let me ask you this question, do you believe that any of the Hindus or "other than Christianity believers," like those participating in this discussion, can be saved without accepting Christ as their saviour?


I am of the opinion that God gives many common and uncommon opportunities, to come to him, and to know him.  I'm even of the opinion that he is wooing people to his truth, even in the noble aspects of other belief systems.  But are you asking whether or not someone can be saved without EVER accepting Christ as Savior?  


If Christ is (as the scriptures say) the only Savior, then how could they be saved?  


I guess the closest way I can answer your question is this:  I believe Jesus Christ to be the Savior of humanity, both corporately and individually.  And apart from him there is no hope, no right relationship with God, no forgiveness of sins, and no resurrection from the dead.  


The intricacy and variation that may be involved in the "how" of indiviudal salvation, or the extent of God's mercy at work in those who aren't yet Christians, I don't know.  I only know that he is merciful.  


Stephen.    
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


63 posted 12-29-2005 06:01 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

Stephanos,

~ You should become a politician.  

~ A simple,  "Yes, they can be saved" or No, they can't be saved" would of sufficed.

~ It is apparent in your answer that you believe that Christianity is the only true religion.  Knowing that, you that is, why even debate others about religion, unless you are doing so to convert, only? Certainly, you are not debating with an open-mind. You can't be, because unless God comes down from heaven and says to you, "Stephanos, who are you to say how one can come to truly know me?" You will never change from your belief that Christianity is the only way, and our fine "non-Christian" friends who are participating in this debate, such as myself, have no chance for salvation and will suffer forever, unless you or other Christians can convert us.



"If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead."

[This message has been edited by JesusChristPose (12-29-2005 06:34 PM).]

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


64 posted 12-29-2005 06:06 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

I missed this...

"Don't take what I said so serious.  I just found it funny that you were talking about cultural insensitivity, and made a comment that could easily be taken that way.  If you didn't mean it that way, then maybe you can imagine that my comments about Hinduism aren't intended to be culturally insensitive either."


~ How should I know when you are serious or not? It seemed to me your words were quite intentional, and that only now, you can buttress your condenscending remarks about Hinduism with a "mirror, mirror" type reply.  However, Stephanos... it doesn't matter does it? Your belief that Christianity is the only true way to know God and reach salvation automatically makes you culturally insensitive, but we been down this road before, and I believe I don't need to say anthing else about it... as they say, the proof is in the pudding.
  
I wish you no ill will. In fact, I enjoyed reading this debate between mainly yourself and our fine "non-Christian" friends, even if they are headed towards the lake of fire unless you can convince them otherwise.

"If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


65 posted 12-29-2005 06:10 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
~ A simple,  "Yes, they can be saved" or No, they can't be saved" would of sufficed.



The question is not exactly a simple one ... There are subtleties and complexities about such a question that warrant some explanation.  I'm not ready to consign anyone to hell.  God's mercy is great.  I'm just insisting that it is his to give.  


If we must disagree, then let us disagree peacefully.


Stephen.
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


66 posted 12-29-2005 06:25 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose


"The question is not exactly a simple one ... There are subtleties and complexities about such a question that warrant some explanation.  I'm not ready to consign anyone to hell.  God's mercy is great.  I'm just insisting that it is his to give."


~ I still don't know what you believe by this answer. So, you are saying that you believe that one does not have to accept Christ as his or her personal saviour in order to become saved and avoid the Lake of Fire?  

"If we must disagree, then let us disagree peacefully."


~ I thought we were. I am just curious about your answer and what you believe in. You don't have to answer if you don't want to.  

I missed this, you must of edited or I just plain missed this reply...

"But are you asking whether or not someone can be saved without EVER accepting Christ as Savior?"


~ Yes  

"If Christ is (as the scriptures say) the only Savior, then how could they be saved?"


~ So, you are saying they cannot?  

"I guess the closest way I can answer your question is this:  I believe Jesus Christ to be the Savior of humanity, both corporately and individually.  And apart from him there is no hope, no right relationship with God, no forgiveness of sins, and no resurrection from the dead."


~ Okay then, you answered it. You believe that Baba and any other non-christian participating in this thread, and any others all around the world, cannot be saved and are doomed to an eternal hellfire.  

~ Why debate these people then, unless you are only trying to convert them?  


"If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead."
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


67 posted 12-29-2005 06:34 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
I thought we were. I am just curious about your answer and what you believe in. You don't have to answer if you don't want to.

I have answered.  You don't have to try and understand if you don't want to.  

Seriously, the mood of this present exchange has become unfruitful.  Baba and I did fine, so I don't think it's just me.  Maybe it's the dynamic between us.  Whatever the cause,  Let's stop for now.

Stephen.
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


68 posted 12-29-2005 06:41 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

~ I do understand, I just don't understand why what one truly believes in, they cannot just admit to, but "sugarcoat" it instead. If I believed Baba or any other non-christian person was doomed to the Lake of Fire for their beliefs, I'd flat-out tell them. That is called, honesty... especially when debating, because isn't the point of a debate that either side is open to change his or her views?




"If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


69 posted 12-29-2005 07:11 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

We weren't debating about hell, or the lake of fire.  There are other threads where we have discussed those things.  You know I've never hidden my orthodox beliefs concerning them.  But the discussion that Baba and I were having was about whether or not Hinduism, or Buddhism, represented a "way" to Christ.


Stephen.  
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


70 posted 12-29-2005 09:17 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

"We weren't debating about hell, or the lake of fire.  There are other threads where we have discussed those things.  You know I've never hidden my orthodox beliefs concerning them.  But the discussion that Baba and I were having was about whether or not Hinduism, or Buddhism, represented a "way" to Christ."

~ Not exactly, that was one aspect. However, it was also being discussed if Christianity and believing in Christ as the Saviour is the only way to obtain salvation, or if God makes Himself known in the hearts of people from all walks of faith by the methods He chooses. Afterall, that is what the origin of this thread was all about before different "sidebars" came into existence and were being discussed.

"If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead."

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


71 posted 12-29-2005 11:42 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

We should probably be grateful, I suppose, that this very interesting thread had already run its course before being ruined.

I'm sure a lot has changed since December 13, 2001. I'm equally sure that nothing has changed.

Sigh.
 
  Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Peace of Mind After All These Years   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors