kevvvo247
New member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 3
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Why a Hindu accepts Christ and rejects Christianity: Churchianity vs the true Rel
i will respectfully decline to engage this convo. not because of any disagreements, because i welcome those; but i realize that we don't have the same intent. when dealing with issues such as religion, politics, race its important to be diplomatic as possible. i fully understand your skeptiscm, what i have a hard time understanding about ones like yourself is the defiant tone that is usually over-the-top sarcasm and condescending messages are only used in your on-line interactions but rarely in your face to face dealings with people. i don't know you or claim to, just making an observation. i humbly invite ANYONE ELSE who'd like to engage in a MATURE, PRODUCTIVE, and RESPECTFUL conversation on the topic at hand. best wishes.
What part of "yes" did you not understand?
Because we are not Christ. Christ also never lied. So this is a good example of the "pot calling the kettle black."
You have failed miserably so far.
"RELIGION, n.f. is a borrowed word (Nca 1085) to latin religio, whose etymology has been controversial since Antiquity. After Lactance, from Tertullien, the christian authors liked to link religio to the verb religare "to link, to unite", from re- (>re-) with an intensive value, and ligare, (>to link).
Religion having as object relationships with Divinity, the word would mean properly "link, tie" or "dependance", the meaning's variations being similar to "tied up, tied" [rattachement et attachement]; showing simultaneously the affective tie and the effective tie. Another origin was given by Ciceron and is sustained by his authority: religio would came from either legere (to pick, to gather) (> to read) with addition of the prefix re- (>re-) disclosing intensity or the look-back, flash-back; either from religere, "to gather, collect", verb attested only from a participle. From Emile Benveniste, it meant, abstractly, "to come back on what one did, re-understand by thought or reflection, redouble one's attention and application", a development similar to the recolligere' development (>to gather, to 'recolliger' - [in o.f., recolliger])." - sectes, scientologie, cults, scientology, THE HISTORY OF THE WORD RELIGION.
I love how you added "to hold back" and "to keep down." :spin:
Probably around 20 years ago. That was the last time I went to any kind of church.
It looks to me like you are being vague because you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your outlandish claims. :2wave:
The only thing at stake here is your credibility. And it is dropping fast.
OK that is a huge jump. Who said anything about an enemy?
You are making claims that are lies. It makes you untrustworthy, not an enemy.
This is an Internet forum, it's not that serious.
Not really, but I doubt God cares all that much in the grand scheme of things.
The paragraph is your friend.
i will respectfully decline to engage this convo. not because of any disagreements, because i welcome those; but i realize that we don't have the same intent. when dealing with issues such as religion, politics, race its important to be diplomatic as possible. i fully understand your skeptiscm, what i have a hard time understanding about ones like yourself is the defiant tone that is usually over-the-top sarcasm and condescending messages are only used in your on-line interactions but rarely in your face to face dealings with people. i don't know you or claim to, just making an observation. i humbly invite ANYONE ELSE who'd like to engage in a MATURE, PRODUCTIVE, and RESPECTFUL conversation on the topic at hand. best wishes.