Explanation?

[mwerner]

Jeez, all this over a relatively simple question....

 

[zenheretic]

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?

Very astute Roughedges. The phenomenon is not just limited to the written word, but the spoken word as well.

A variation of a quote that occasionally floats about the Political Arena is; how you react to others words says more about yourself than about the original poster.

 

[zenheretic]

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.

Ironically, most of the Western concepts of hell do not derive from the Bible but from Milton and Dante, who were not authors in the Bible. The Eastern Orthodox Church's concept of hell is different.

 

[zenheretic]

Jeez, all this over a relatively simple question....

As long as you get your answer, there is no reason the discussion can not spill into other topics.

 

[Gollnick]

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...

You don't have to respond to me per se. You can respond to the original poster and offer some explaination of how you and your faith see the relationship between prayer and smoke. That would educate everyone here much as Mr. Bear Claw Chris Lappe did with his post.

 

[Sword and Shield]

... then how can other faiths be described as false?

*slow clap* :thumbup:

 

[TorzJohnson]

... then how can other faiths be described as false?

*slow clap* :thumbup:

In today's liberal climate of political correctness, I believe the only acceptable answer is that they're all the true religion, and they're all winners. Pick up your trophies by the door on your way out.

 

[Sword and Shield]

In today's liberal climate of political correctness, I believe the only acceptable answer is that they're all the true religion, and they're all winners. Pick up your trophies by the door on your way out.

Care to define what the "One true religion" is, then? Care to explain how one could be chosen thus?

 

[Nordic Viking]

Religious absolutists are the biggest pricks, on the cactus of life, IMHO.

 

[Dinkum]

Religious absolutists are the biggest pricks, on the cactus of life, IMHO.

Ahh Zouties, the least indirect of the species

 

[mkhop]

Smoke was or is used as a cleansing thing with prayers also it does some marvelous things to meat.If smoke all by its self is a religious practice the thousands of arsonist have an apoligy coming IMHO.

 

[Nuke_Spook]

Not to get too deeply into this, but one tenet of Christianity is that we are our brother’s keeper, that we bear a responsibility for his / her welfare. If you see someone heading toward the edge of a cliff, most people would shout for the person to stop. They would try to make them aware of the danger that they are headed toward.

If you fully and truly believe the Bible, then most likely you are going to believe that views and practices that contradict it are harmful and negative to the person with those views. As our brother's keeper, to not try and put forth the Scriptural perspective would be like watching the person headed toward the cliff and not saying a word.

Another tenet is that to teach falsely is wrong, so it is not surprising to me at all that when Gollnick gave his answer to the question that he would adhere to both of these tenets and differentiate his beliefs from the rest of the post and state that he sees potential harm to others who hold non-Scriptural beliefs.

I am aware that many do not see the Scriptures in the same light and I fully acknowledge that they are justified in living their lives and dealing with matters of faith as they choose. That does not remove the concern for them that a Christian should have as their brother's keeper or their perceived obligation to try and point out the presence of the cliff edge. Not in arrogance or pride, but in humility and love.

Oops, looks like I did get too deeply into this.

Hopefully, the truth, not my truth, but God's truth, is shown to us all at the appropriate time and place.

Submitted respectfully,

 

[TorzJohnson]

Care to define what the "One true religion" is, then? Care to explain how one could be chosen thus?

OK, I didn't want to get into a deep theological discussion here, but I'll try to boil it down. You see, in the Christian faith there is the concept of the Trinity, the mutual indwelling of three persons in one God. Now, in the new political climate, PCeologism, every religion the One True Religion. They are all correct. There is no wrong answer, no winner or loser (all are winners), everybody gets a trophy and tag and dodgeball are both banned. Also, God can be two men or two women who somehow have babies together. And the men are preferably an interracial couple with one of them in a wheelchair.

 

[JD Mandrell]

There is no one right way for people to live.

 

[Nordic Viking]

OK, I didn't want to get into a deep theological discussion here, but I'll try to boil it down. You see, in the Christian faith there is the concept of the Trinity, the mutual indwelling of three persons in one God. Now, in the new political climate, PCeologism, every religion the One True Religion. They are all correct. There is no wrong answer, no winner or loser (all are winners), everybody gets a trophy and tag and dodgeball are both banned. Also, God can be two men or two women who somehow have babies together. And the men are preferably an interracial couple with one of them in a wheelchair.

Quite progressive, but still thinking in terms of human exclusivity, I see.

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster teaches us Pastafarians to love all and everything, on a much higher plane than common earth-based religions.

 

[Ken C.]

I let this thread go on long enough. It has strayed dramatically from it's original topic and no longer is productive. Therefore, this topic is now closed. And if you should chose to continue this "discussion" please do not do so in the Community Center Forum.