• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Christianity summed up beautifully[W:28]

MarineTpartier said:
Forgive me, I live in the south lol. Plus, you're a Libertarian. This lends to your being a little more accepting and understanding than most.
Click to expand...

Lol- I live in the south as well, but most of the Christians I know, and am friends with, or work with, feel perfectly comfortable around gays and Muslims. Must just be a difference in who we know. :lol:
 
lizzie said:
Lol- I live in the south as well, but most of the Christians I know, and am friends with, or work with, feel perfectly comfortable around gays and Muslims. Must just be a difference in who we know. :lol:
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, the ones I hang out with are like me. I'm speaking of others that I choose not to associate with. I'm not over here hanging out with fascists or anything lol.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Oh yeah, the ones I hang out with are like me. I'm speaking of others that I choose not to associate with. I'm not over here hanging out with fascists or anything lol.
Click to expand...

Or maybe I just need to get out more. :mrgreen:
 
contactlenses said:
As nice as your post sounds lizzie, this doesn't always work out practically.

I wonder if you do accept every person you meet, just as they, especially when they are probably only portraying to you their best possible image.

Why leave the judgement "up to something bigger than yourself"? What if there is nothing? We are individuals that should makes these decisions ourselves.

I don't feel comfortable holding an idealist belief of the world when I'm ignorant of the terrible lives that billions have around the globe.
Click to expand...

Why judge at all? Why take on this role?
 
lizzie said:
Lol- I live in the south as well, but most of the Christians I know, and am friends with, or work with, feel perfectly comfortable around gays and Muslims. Must just be a difference in who we know. :lol:
Click to expand...

It must be because my experience mirrors yours.
 
My faith in God is not dependent upon the person in the pew beside me, the words of the guy up front, the song of a choir, or what was or was not in God's name by anyone other than me. It is a personal relationship and path that I pursue. No more and no less.
 
contactlenses said:
I understand what you were saying up until this sentence. What sort of judgements do you mean?

If to truly love there's a requirement for "very painful judgements...of ourselves" (whatever they are), then does this mean that God is incapable of ever truly loving?

CL
Click to expand...

Ask yourself this question how is it possible for a person to become a better person? He/She must confront their weaknesses, admit them and then set a new standard all three require difficult and often painful judgements.

And the more flawed we are, the more painful that process becomes. "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried"


This is a subject I have some personal experience with since I am about as flawed a person as there can be. A person of control, intimidation and self centered satisfaction. Not a down on his luck, victim but a victimizer taking what I wanted and hurting whomever was in my way, enjoying every vice known to man and never thinking about anyone else.

To go from that person to the person I am trying to become took some painful judgments indeed.

To answer your question, it means that for the Christian all love, all good has a single source, God.

The inability to love and accept love can only emanate from human flaws, like reason love is a uniquely human capability, a reflection of God's love.

So we blame God for His inability to love us enough for example, when it is our own inability to understand the essence of love which permits us to reject God's love while promoting the acceptance of everyone and everything, which of course is nonsense.

I have never met anyone who is "non-judgmental" and frankly don't want to, if they pretend to exist.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Agreed, however, how did Christ influence people during his lifetime? He did so by teaching and miracles. Did he cage people up and make them listen to his message? No he did not. If a person heard Jesus speak, it was of their own free will. In addition, Jesus demonstrated NUMEROUS times but no better than with the Woman at the Well, that he was not above speaking to people that were seen as dirty and unclean by society. The Woman at the Well would be the equivalent to speaking to a lesbian Muslim nowadays. Yet he spoke to there with no qualms, no shame. Christians these days are so afraid of what others will say that they would never speak to a homosexual. They would never be seen in public speaking to a Muslim with a head scarf on. I think that is what Ikari was getting at.
Click to expand...

If that is what Ikari was saying then he should have said that, but that is not what he said. No doubt I expanded his implication.

Christian love is not acceptance, simply because acceptance and tolerance, require no action, no commitment. They are buzz words that promote and permit apathy.

Love requires my participation, my involvement, my commitment. The person who doesn't want to be seen as "dirty" makes himself dirtier still. There is shame, but that shame is mine for not being a better Christian a more loving person, for not serving God by serving the most needy even more.

And here you provide the best example of the "non judgmental" judge.

Christians these days are so afraid of what others will say that they would never speak to a homosexual. They would never be seen in public speaking to a Muslim with a head scarf on. I think that is what Ikari was getting at.
Click to expand...

I fail to see what about Christianity would make one afraid about what others think of them? In fact the opposite is true. So your use of "Christians these days" is anecdotal and specific to some tiny group of individuals you observe and can in no way be applied to Christianity.

My judgment was not about Ikari, but about his assertion regarding acceptance with which I take issue as a point of theology and Catholic teaching. Again I see acceptance and tolerance as insufficient and say that love is the Christian standard.
 
Ikari said:
I think the main message of Christianity is "Don't be a dick". It's supposed to be a religion based on love and acceptance of people for who they are, forgoing judgement (leaving it to god) and accepting all humans with open arms.
Click to expand...

A nice succinct way of stating it. Though I would suggest that I'd replace "acceptance" with "tolerance" or at best "understanding". I never really got the vibe from either my own readings or through talking with multiple different denominations of people that the ideas expressed through Christianity meant one should "accept" sinful actions or "accept" that people will commit sinful actions, which would be implied by "acceptance of people for who they are". Rather, we should recognize that we all Sin and try to encourage those who wantonly do it to not do so, but that we should not sin ourselves in order to do such.

I do think that's where the message gets lost sometimes. People believe others are sinning and they will show they're "love" by stopping them from sinning/teaching them not to sin...yet often ignoring that their methods of doing so are involving sinful actions themselves.
 
gilbertc1908 said:
If that is what Ikari was saying then he should have said that, but that is not what he said. No doubt I expanded his implication.

Christian love is not acceptance, simply because acceptance and tolerance, require no action, no commitment. They are buzz words that promote and permit apathy.
Click to expand...
Christian love, in the cases we are speaking of, begins with acceptance and tolerance. If a Christian is not accepting of the person in front of them and tolerant of their sins, then they know nothing of love. Christ is accepting and tolerant of us despite our many imperfections, we should do the same. After all, we are touting the title "Christian". If Christ were unaccepting and intolerant, none of us would have a chance.
gilbertc1908 said:
And here you provide the best example of the "non judgmental" judge.
Click to expand...
How am I being a judge by stating the obvious that most Christians these days are so uncomfortable around a fellow human being who may happen to be gay or Muslim? If you call me judgemental simply because I identify the aforementioned people as what they are, gay or Muslim, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.
gilbertc1908 said:
I fail to see what about Christianity would make one afraid about what others think of them? In fact the opposite is true. So your use of "Christians these days" is anecdotal and specific to some tiny group of individuals you observe and can in no way be applied to Christianity.
Click to expand...
Your message earlier that love has nothing to do with acceptance and tolerance is one of the reasons. Christians don't view these things as pertinent when dealing with people that may not fit their mold of what the ideal person should be. So they avoid them. What if Paul had done the same? Religion, especially the Catholic religion, is all about what you look like. Its all about ceremony and pomp. People that may be a little different don't fit into that mold so they are pushed to the side. These are some of the reasons why Christianity has turned into what you look like doing things just as much as what you are actually doing.
 
Zyphlin said:
A nice succinct way of stating it. Though I would suggest that I'd replace "acceptance" with "tolerance" or at best "understanding". I never really got the vibe from either my own readings or through talking with multiple different denominations of people that the ideas expressed through Christianity meant one should "accept" sinful actions or "accept" that people will commit sinful actions, which would be implied by "acceptance of people for who they are". Rather, we should recognize that we all Sin and try to encourage those who wantonly do it to not do so, but that we should not sin ourselves in order to do such.

I do think that's where the message gets lost sometimes. People believe others are sinning and they will show they're "love" by stopping them from sinning/teaching them not to sin...yet often ignoring that their methods of doing so are involving sinful actions themselves.
Click to expand...

Paul teaches otherwise. He says not to judge sinners. That's God's job. Ironically, for rightwing christians, he says we must judge those who purport to be Christians, but don't live a Christian life (i.e., 100% of the religious rightwing with their greed, arrogance and lack of love).

He couldn't be clearer about this, which is why the evangelicals and fundies ignore it:

1 Cor 5:

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men;

10 not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.

11 But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber--not even to eat with such a one.

12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?

13 God judges those outside. "Drive out the wicked person from among you."

Imagine how the ranks of the evangelical churches would be thinned if the pasters did the right thing and kicked out greedy rich people.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Christian love, in the cases we are speaking of, begins with acceptance and tolerance. If a Christian is not accepting of the person in front of them and tolerant of their sins, then they know nothing of love. Christ is accepting and tolerant of us despite our many imperfections, we should do the same. After all, we are touting the title "Christian". If Christ were unaccepting and intolerant, none of us would have a chance.

How am I being a judge by stating the obvious that most Christians these days are so uncomfortable around a fellow human being who may happen to be gay or Muslim? If you call me judgemental simply because I identify the aforementioned people as what they are, gay or Muslim, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

Your message earlier that love has nothing to do with acceptance and tolerance is one of the reasons. Christians don't view these things as pertinent when dealing with people that may not fit their mold of what the ideal person should be. So they avoid them. What if Paul had done the same? Religion, especially the Catholic religion, is all about what you look like. Its all about ceremony and pomp. People that may be a little different don't fit into that mold so they are pushed to the side. These are some of the reasons why Christianity has turned into what you look like doing things just as much as what you are actually doing.
Click to expand...

My message is that acceptance and tolerance are insufficient, Christ did not say tolerate you neighbor, He did not say accept your enemy he told is to love them. This is a far greater challenge to us as human beings.

We do not accept the drug addict's stealing, his manipulation of others, his self destruction, do you really want to tolerate that, tolerance of some behavior hurts more than it helps.

So if I love someone I am going to do all I can to help them change that type of destructive behavior, that is my point.
 
spanky said:
Very nice, but hard to square those words against the violent history of the Hebrews, Yahweh and Christianity.
Click to expand...

What ethnic group, religion, country, etc does not have a violent history. Tell us, what group was ushered in with open arms and committed no foul.
 
ecofarm said:
What ethnic group, religion, country, etc does not have a violent history. Tell us, what group was ushered in with open arms and committed no foul.
Click to expand...

So you're excuse is "Everybody was doing it, why should you expect christians to act any better then the legions of satan?"
 
spanky said:
So you're excuse is "Everybody was doing it, why should you expect christians to act any better then the legions of satan?"
Click to expand...

No, my point is, "what's the diff"?
 
ecofarm said:
A point. You're demonizing.
Click to expand...

Well, if you were making a point by asking a question then the question becomes rhetorical and no answer is expected nor required.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Christian love, in the cases we are speaking of, begins with acceptance and tolerance. If a Christian is not accepting of the person in front of them and tolerant of their sins, then they know nothing of love. Christ is accepting and tolerant of us despite our many imperfections, we should do the same. After all, we are touting the title "Christian". If Christ were unaccepting and intolerant, none of us would have a chance.

How am I being a judge by stating the obvious that most Christians these days are so uncomfortable around a fellow human being who may happen to be gay or Muslim? If you call me judgemental simply because I identify the aforementioned people as what they are, gay or Muslim, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

Your message earlier that love has nothing to do with acceptance and tolerance is one of the reasons. Christians don't view these things as pertinent when dealing with people that may not fit their mold of what the ideal person should be. So they avoid them. What if Paul had done the same? Religion, especially the Catholic religion, is all about what you look like. Its all about ceremony and pomp. People that may be a little different don't fit into that mold so they are pushed to the side. These are some of the reasons why Christianity has turned into what you look like doing things just as much as what you are actually doing.
Click to expand...


You can love your children, yet not accept everything they do. For example, if you catch your teenager smoking crack, you might not accept that. The loving thing would be to do whatever you can to get them to stop smoking crack.

It's a question of intent. If your intention is to do what is best for your child, then you are correcting them out of love.

However, it is also possible to be intolerant out of a sense of ego and pomp.

It's difficult to judge someone else's intentions. For this reason, it's better left up to God.
 
So the definition of demonizing is citing historical facts?
 
Hi Brother,

Well quoted. There are Four types of loves; love of flesh is called eros and that is among the natural persons of flesh, then you have divine love called Agape, which you acquire on knowing that when a person is born in India, Africa, Brazil, USA, etc, it was not him who took the birth but our Father God gave him Birth in a certain family whether male, female or even animal. After experiencing Agape Love that you become a seeker of His Word and enjoy the company of Apostles. Philosophical discussions or logical reasoning leads to another love called Philia. This love seals you into the service of our Father and if God be willing, you possess the very Spirit of God as the Labourers of Jesus employed in the Vineyard of our Father did receive as their Wage at Pentecost, and that Love is called Storge, in which there is neither giving nor taking as you become the Son of Most High, a Member of the Royal Family. Slave Disciples are not allowed into the Vineyard of our Father but only the Labouring Sons, the Fishers of men.

Disciples and their Priests with Dog-Collars being not solitary, they cannot find this Narrow Gate of the New Covenant but tread the wide road with wide Gates leading to the sectarian riots or hell.

For details, please visit my website or watch my Youtube Videos.

Peter Grimm said:
From the book of Corinthians:

"If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
Click to expand...
 
spanky said:
So the definition of demonizing is citing historical facts?
Click to expand...
No, I think he was simply referring to your tendency to subjectively cite only those historical facts which seem to support your assertions while blatantly avoiding the contextual associations of said "facts" as well as the many other historical facts which, when presented, may only weaken your position.:shrug:
 
FluffyNinja said:
No, I think he was simply referring to your tendency to subjectively cite only those historical facts which seem to support your assertions while blatantly avoiding the contextual associations of said "facts" as well as the many other historical facts which, when presented, may only weaken your position.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Wow, shame on me. It's called discussion, argumentation and debate. It's not my job to build my opponent's case for him. As for contextual associations and other historical facts, present them if you got them.
 
spanky said:
Wow, shame on me. It's called discussion, argumentation and debate. It's not my job to build my opponent's case for him. As for contextual associations and other historical facts, present them if you got them.
Click to expand...

Ecofarm already did......you blatantly ignored him and went the strawman route instead. When eco asked the question..."Which ethnic group, religion, culture, etc...does not have a violent past?"...... you conveniently threw in the strawman by misdirecting the discussion to ask "so does this excuse Christians......?"

Ecofarm points out, yet again, that there was basically "no diff" in the violence perpetrated by Christians and any other group throughout history.......and again......you take the low road through ad hominem.........attacking his wording ( asking "was that a question or a point" ) and subsequently avoiding the content, and thus the context, of his statement. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom