"The Bible" is an idol used to control people.

Originally posted by sumydid
The fact that we are even [b]discussing Christianity in this forum (and all over the world) is clear evidence that your claim is totally outrageous. Christianity has been under full, relentless attack for over 2,000 years and it has not weakened, but strengthened in numbers.

You seem to have a regular issue of confusing what you want to d preface your opinions accordingly with "In my opinion," "I believe," or "I think," etc.[/b]

"...you should preface your opinions accordingly with "In my opinion," "I believe," or "I think," etc."

Taken as read, surely. Bit boring to keep saying something inane.

Some people call themselves "Christians", who by their idolatry and abusive nature are not worthy to bear that high name. Christianity in its faithful form, is being replaced and diminished by often rabid irrational fundamentalism of little difference to militant Islamism, save, thankfully, for the violence. So far.

One defends one's views as much by their behavior as by their words. All can stumble there, but none so much on this forum as seen in the constant fundamentalist parody of "discussion". Its a mockery of your 'Christ' - you make him as arrogant and with no kindness or grace.
I only wish more would conduct their discussions in the civil but forthright, reasoned manner that you have. Too often it is childish sticking out of the tongue and walking away, blurting a few bible verses. That is not Christian faith. Sheer numbers (questionable, as their is a difference between nominal and active) don't make behaviors or supposed unquestionable "truth" right.

Originally posted by Taoman
"...you should preface your opinions accordingly with "In my opinion," "I believe," or "I think," etc."

Taken as read, surely. Bit boring to keep saying something inane.

Some people call themselves "Christians", who by their idolatry and abusive nature are not worthy to bear that high name. Christianity in its faithful form, is being replaced and dimin ...[text shortened]... nal and active) don't make behaviors or supposed unquestionable "truth" right.

I agree with most of what you said, but, I was merely pointing out that making a bold statement such as VS's, and presenting it as fact, when history demonstrates quite the opposite, is not something that should be taken seriously.

I can boldly state that Zeus reigns supreme from Mount Olympus, and the sky is green with purple polka-dots. In doing so, should I be taken seriously?

Originally posted by Taoman
"...you should preface your opinions accordingly with "In my opinion," "I believe," or "I think," etc."

Taken as read, surely. Bit boring to keep saying something inane.

Some people call themselves "Christians", who by their idolatry and abusive nature are not worthy to bear that high name. Christianity in its faithful form, is being replaced and dimin ...[text shortened]... nal and active) don't make behaviors or supposed unquestionable "truth" right.

It is my understanding that you claim to be Buddhist, not Christian. So how would that make your opinion of what it means to be Christian any more correct than one who claims to be Christian?

Originally posted by sumydid
I agree with most of what you said, but, I was merely pointing out that making a bold statement such as VS's, and presenting it as fact, when history demonstrates quite the opposite, is not something that should be taken seriously.

I can boldly state that Zeus reigns supreme from Mount Olympus, and the sky is green with purple polka-dots. In doing so, should I be taken seriously?

I'll leave that with you both.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is my understanding that you claim to be Buddhist, not Christian. So how would that make your opinion of what it means to be Christian any more correct than one who claims to be Christian?

I am not a formal Buddhist RJH, I'm 'almost'. I wander around a bit, like a Daoist. I don't feel a need for me to formally join a path to benefit from its insights, and Buddhism has many, particularly its deep philosophical understandings.
I have had misconceptions about certain Christian's viewpoints, and realised they were more dynamic in understanding than I thought. Walk, do not freeze.

I have a solid background in Christian theology and 'walking with' Jesus of Nazareth for a while. We parted warm friends. It was more the church that so often distorts him that I have a gripe with, at least the fundamentalist portrayal.
I honestly have the opinion that excessive "textualism" is a damaging distortion of his message and try to give arguments and reasons to convey that opinion. I also value the role of mythology and symbolism as an expression of spiritual truth. I don't find them threatening at all. Quite the opposite. You may not, but kindness and respect of other's sincere views while stating your own is the most persuasive way of conveying something to others. Or simply disagree to disagree.

I admire your courageous tenacity, even if I feel you are at times too rigid and lacking enough reflection on your own faith, with all due respect. 🙂.

Originally posted by Taoman
I am not a formal Buddhist RJH, I'm 'almost'. I wander around a bit, like a Daoist. I don't feel a need for me to formally join a path to benefit from its insights, and Buddhism has many, particularly its deep philosophical understandings.
I have had misconceptions about certain Christian's viewpoints, and realised they were more dynamic in understanding tha ...[text shortened]... too rigid and lacking enough reflection on your own faith, with all due respect. 🙂.

I have never heard any one say, "disagree to disagree." Do you mean "agree to disagree?"

Yes, I know I don't sugar coat anything I say. I am considered a very obnoxious Christian, or not a Christian at all, by some. But regardless of how I put forward the truth, I do not apolpgize for doing so. It may not be a good way to reach everyone, but it might work for some. Who knows, but God?

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by RJHinds


HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The way you use this phrase turns it into meaningless gibberish, like an incantation by a wizard. Is that really your intention?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have never heard any one say, "disagree to disagree." Do you mean "agree to disagree?"

Yes, I know I don't sugar coat anything I say. I am considered a very obnoxious Christian, or not a Christian at all, by some. But regardless of how I put forward the truth, I do not apolpgize for doing so. It may not be a good way to reach everyone, but it might work for some. Who knows, but God?

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

'disagree to disagree' lol. Yes a typo. Although it does have a certain Spirituality Forum flavour. How does one go about disagreeing to disagree?

Can't really define it, but stick around here long enough and I'm sure the answer to that koan will come. lol!

Originally posted by sumydid
The fact that we are even [b]discussing Christianity in this forum (and all over the world) is clear evidence that your claim is totally outrageous. Christianity has been under full, relentless attack for over 2,000 years and it has not weakened, but strengthened in numbers.

You seem to have a regular issue of confusing what you want to d preface your opinions accordingly with "In my opinion," "I believe," or "I think," etc.[/b]

the points you make are inconsequential. all religions are under constant attack by opposing ideas and some of the dead religions lasted many thousands of years.

history is a certain indicator and it tells us christianity will eventually go bye bye. i don't know when it will go, but it will go and that's for sure.

and everything i or anybody says can be nothing but their opinion. it's redundant to reiterate it with every statement.

Originally posted by Taoman
'disagree to disagree' lol. Yes a typo. Although it does have a certain Spirituality Forum flavour. How does one go about disagreeing to disagree?

Can't really define it, but stick around here long enough and I'm sure the answer to that koan will come. lol!

i disagree to disagree with your statement.

Originally posted by sumydid
VS, I am taken back by your claim that RJHinds is not a Christian. By what grounds do you stake your claim, and--being outside the Christian family--what makes you an expert on what it is to be Christian, thus giving you the apparent right to judge who is and isn't Christian?

Curious and maybe others can answer this: Has VS ever rebuked a Christian for ...[text shortened]... leading questions; they are serious questions that I would very much appreciate an answer to.

i state my claims based on assessments of discussions with him and reading his replies to others over the course of time since i began posting here.

my knowledge of what it is to be a christian is contained in the bible and i judge by the right of my own will and reason.

i may have at some point rebuked a christian for judging, but that is because christians have no right to judge as a condition of their religion (lest they be judged). i, being a non-adherent of the religion have no such boundaries or limitations. i form many judgements and i change those judgements as new information becomes available.

Originally posted by Taoman
'disagree to disagree' lol. Yes a typo. Although it does have a certain Spirituality Forum flavour. How does one go about disagreeing to disagree?

Can't really define it, but stick around here long enough and I'm sure the answer to that koan will come. lol!

Consider this: If one had said, "are you disagreeing only to disagree?" would it make more sense? I submit that maybe this was the original meaning.

Originally posted by Kewpie
The way you use this phrase turns it into meaningless gibberish, like an incantation by a wizard. Is that really your intention?

This is precisely my argument against certain rites in the RCC.

How many "Hail Mary"s and rosaries have to be said before one loses the true meaning of them? This is also why I am against such things as the Book of Common Prayer, even though it is somewhat central to my own faith.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i disagree to disagree with your statement.

🙄🙄

Originally posted by Suzianne
Consider this: If one had said, "are you disagreeing only to disagree?" would it make more sense? I submit that maybe this was the original meaning.

No, it was a typo. I meant to say the common but less interesting "agree to disagree". But your rephrase is also interesting. Sometimes perhaps that is what happens. Disagreeing, just for the sake of disagreeing. Don't give an inch, type of thing.