Explanation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
markksr said:
Why would you insist that only the "unknowing" would assume commonality,
Click to expand...

I don't "insist" on it; I said, "there can be..."



Is it not possible that these ceremonial and dogmatic differences are nothing more than variations caused by cultural interpretations of the same primal interaction with God?
Click to expand...

The Bible tells of other peoples who follow other ceremonial practices. God Himself makes very clear that He does not consider these to be "cultural interpretations."



do you find it so intolerable to accept the possibility that those Buddhists might be praying to the same God as you, after all, there is only one God, and your faith is certainly no greater than theirs?
Click to expand...


There is only one God, true. But, in the Bible, He makes it very clear that He does not consider all prayer and all worship to be directed to Him.

Keep in mind that I am answering your questions from a Christian perspective. Persons of other faiths may have other perspectives and give other answers to the same questions.
 
I regret that I didn't make it clear to you that I meant to suggest the Bible is but another of the " cultural interpretations" of which I spoke, and that you, then, based all your responses on this error of ommision on my part...

Except for your first response, which was semantics...

Please keep in mind that I, also, am asking these questions from a Christian point of view...
 
markksr said:
I regret that I didn't make it clear to you that I meant to suggest the Bible is but another of the " cultural interpretations" of which I spoke...
Click to expand...

I don't, myself, consider the Bible to be a mere "cultural interpretation" but to the the inspired word of God.
 
markksr said:
As do I, but clearly your interpretation of this "inspired Word" and mine differ...
Click to expand...

Perhap, then, you should do as I have and explain your "interpretation" so that we can add it to this comparison and contrast exercise.
 
Gollnick said:
Perhap, then, you should do as I have and explain your "interpretation" so that we can add it to this comparison and contrast exercise.
Click to expand...

No, thank you.
I suspect that nothing good will come from further deviceveness...
 
markksr said:
No, thank you.
I suspect that nothing good will come from further deviceveness...
Click to expand...

Instead, you'll fight deviceveness by attacking me? Hmmm...

Religion is about beliefs. This idea that, in the interest of avoiding deviceveness, such beliefs -- while it is ok to hold them as long as you keep them to yourself -- should never be expressed, is contrary to and an attack upon religion. A city on a hill can not be hidden.
 
Gollnick if you could go on about your points of view about your favorite religion without the insults and ignorance towards other faiths as you implied on your first and second posts alot of hurt could be avoided. We could avoid alot of arguing and have a more constructive converstation going on. Your first post could be concidered spam.
 
I think that Gollnick was trying to explain that man likes to make outward what God wants internal. In Exodus 13:9 God wants us to live his Word not necessarily put phylacteries on our bodies.
 
Bufford said:
Gollnick if you could go on about your points of view about your favorite religion without the insults and ignorance towards other faiths as you implied on your first and second posts alot of hurt could be avoided. We could avoid alot of arguing and have a more constructive converstation going on. Your first post could be concidered spam.
Click to expand...

As I have repeatedly stated, my posts were clearly marked as my humble opinion. I mentioned no names either of religions or of persons. Anyone who elected to view them as personal insults did so at his own choosing.

Religion is about difference. This idea that a person can not state as opinion his religious beliefs about a subject without someone else deciding that it is a person insult -- one which must be met by violence either verbal or physical -- not the original expression, is the problem.

This idea that, because it involves difference, we should not and can not talk about religion is a suppression of religion itself. "Tolerance" is not achieved by suppression or by the assumption of insult.

Were some American Indian or Buddhist, Hindu to enter this thread and explain and clarify his faith's beliefs and practices about the relationship between smoke and prayer and to contrast those beliefs and practices with mine, I would not assume insult but would welcome the education.
 
The only thing more laughable than the usage of a self-described opinion as "humble" while describing other religions other than one's own as "false" in the same sentence would be trying to explain it away on the internet. :p
 
SilverFoxKnows said:
I think he means we're a bunch of pagans and we're going to Hell for worshipping false gods. At least those of us who don't identify as Christian, or his brand of Christian.

Frank
Click to expand...

But will you go to Christian Hell or Pagan Hell? Is there a Southern Methodist Hell and a United Methodist Hell? Catholic Hell (the original Christian Hell?) I guess we won't know 'til we get there.
 
Gollnick said:
...
The Bible tells of other peoples who follow other ceremonial practices. God Himself makes very clear that He does not consider these to be "cultural interpretations."

There is only one God, true. But, in the Bible, He makes it very clear that He does not consider all prayer and all worship to be directed to Him.
Click to expand...

Being that the Bible is truly the Word of God there are scholars who take into account the fact that God's words were heard by a human being and related verbally for hundreds of years before being written and even then the 'Church' (that being the Roman Catholic Church) got to pick and choose which accounts were included in the Christian bible some of us believe that, there being only one true God therefore we are all talking about the same God.

As for the 'smoke' I send my prayers and smoke in the Native American fashion because I communicate better that way.
 
ADD said:
... then how can other faiths be described as false? :D
Click to expand...

They can not be described as factually false, but they can be described as being false in my opinion which is exactly what I did. You are hopelessly confusing fact and opinion. My statements were clearly tagged as opinion. It was others who elected to view them as fact.
 
mhawg said:
As for the 'smoke' I send my prayers and smoke in the Native American fashion because I communicate better that way.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could explain the "Native American fashion" regarding smoke and prayer for all of us here so that we can be educated in it too. This would contribute to understanding.
 
Gollnick said:
Were some American Indian or Buddhist, Hindu to enter this thread and explain and clarify his faith's beliefs and practices about the relationship between smoke and prayer and to contrast those beliefs and practices with mine, I would not assume insult but would welcome the education.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for every Buddhist, but I'll try to give my own thoughts on it from my perspective. One of, if not the founding core of Buddhism, is "Annicca", or "Impermanence". In my personal practice, that's what incense is a reminder and symbol of. As the smoke dissipates and becomes nothing, it reminds me that so will everything else, whatever current trials and sufferings a person is going through are temporary and will pass.
 
Shortly after I first joined here, I perceived a similar sort of tone in a post that Gollnick made in the political forum. I was rude to him, privately, and even subtracted my meager amount of points from his reputation point thingamawho.


I was in error and told him so later, long enough so that he probably had no earthly clue what I was talking about. :) There is this weird phenomenon that is readily apparent on the internet wherein we tend to ascribe tone to the written word; we perceive a certain intent or condescension or, in this case, arrogance and falsely assume that it must be so. I don't know if it speaks to the human condition but I have noticed that these assumptions are almost unconditionally negative.


I have done it myself, automatically, without thinking about it. And I would be surprised if at least some of the words that I have written at this site have not been subject to the same sort of assumption. It is universal. So, I try to always read the words on the internet and take them at face value. If a man says, "in my opinion...", as Gollnick has done so here (intentionally I am sure), I take him at his word that he means exactly that. In the same vein, "might" doesn't mean "will" and disagreeing with a particular point of view isn't necessarily the same as condemnation.


Can't we all just get along? :D
 
Gollnick said:
Instead, you'll fight deviceveness by attacking me? Hmmm...
Click to expand...

At no time did I attack you.
I really did ask my initial questions with the sincere desire to understand your statements...

Gollnick said:
Religion is about beliefs. This idea that, in the interest of avoiding deviceveness, such beliefs -- while it is ok to hold them as long as you keep them to yourself -- should never be expressed, is contrary to and an attack upon religion. A city on a hill can not be hidden.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly, however, you have failed to differentiate between expressing my beliefs, which I gladly do on occasion, and expressing them to you, which, based on (IMHO) you're antagonistic attitude in this thread, would be a waste of my time...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top