Spirituality VS Religion

[cosmosdan]

@eustachian≠fallopian

[hijack] So, Lekatt, by your logic, there should be no evil on Earth whatsoever, since God’s perfect, we’re perfect, and surely if we were perfect we could just effortlessly reject all evil. Or is evil created by society? As in, the one that we constructed ourselves? [/hijack]

Your statement was that we have inherent evil in us. I also disagree. We are seperated from God by what we choose not what we are. The concept of finding out who we are is correct. We are the children of God yet many people don’t see it that way. Discovering who we are is learning that we are children of God and finding out the totallity of what that means is what spirituality is about.

Cummon, the disciples didn’t really get that he was the only begotten son of God until after his resurrection.

Then you might explain what you meant by thousands of followers. Even if 2 out of 5 of the thousands saw him as a holy man or prophet, that doesn’t make them a follower. I think of Gandhi as a holy man and enjoy reading his words. I’m not a follower.

Lemmesee… first, you need to cite the second and third sentences. Modern Christian thought, like it or not, comes largely from quotes of, that’s right, Jesus. Actually, mostly from quotes, and from his actions.

No, Modern chirstian thought comes from man’s interpertation of what he beleives to be the words of Jesus. We have no way to verify how accurate these quotes are and how much of what is attributed to Jesus was what he actually said.
Even if we credit what is in the gospels as the words of Christ we still have to deal with the question of interepertation. Why is any man’s interpertation of what the words of Jesus any better than my own. As I read the words of Christ he tells me not to believe any man. He tells me that the spirit of truth can guide me and reveal all truth. He also tells me not to cling to the traditions of men.
I have a lot of revernce for the bible and the words of christ in particular. I tend to emphisize different quotes than modern christianity.

But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. John 4:23-24

If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.John 10:37-38

And every one who speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Luke 12:10

This is just an observation/side note, but we need a better term than “organized religion.” It’s biggest problem is that generally the only people who use the term are the people who dislike “organized religion”. Also, it’s misleading. Worship is often anything but organized. How does “quantified religion” strike you?

By organized religion I mean an official organization with some kind of structure.
Possibly an affiliation with other like minded congregations or a world wide organization. It works for me. Is that different than quantified religion?

Naturally… but the Holy Spirit is more than the imaginary description I gave that you quoted. Note the “if”. It’s not supposed to be a real illustration. I’m saying that I do follow the Holy Spirit. I think this is just a misunderstanding.

Apparently. In that case I have no idea what I said that prompted your imaginary description as if I had somehow implied that was what I believed.

You’ll pardon my lack of response to this, purely because so much here should be debated. We could turn this thread into a talk about the Bible, who wrote it, whether it was divinely inspired, etc.,… but it has zilch to do with the OP. Fair enough?

I suppose. I do think it relates but agree that it is too large an issue to fully delve into. The traditions of organized religions and the tendency to confuse these traditions with the truth is a large part of why I prefer spirituality. If your committment is to finding the truth then you can examine and consider many things, trusting the spirit to help you discern the truth. Religion defends traditions as if they were as sacred as Christ. Certain beliefs about the bible it’s origin and purpose are prime examples.

Hence the fragment, “Or both.” I’m not saying that when two religions are in disagreement, one must be right.

My Mistake. In that case it is unclear to me what you were commenting on. It may be realistic for one group to have it’s own ideas declared the official doctrine of the christian church {although that hardly applies today} and other ideas officially declared heresy. That says nothing at all about any of these doctrines being God’s will for mankind. The acts of persecution and murder certainly do comment on the spirit behind these actions.

His death and defilement on the cross, peut-être?

It occurs to me that if Christ is an eternal being who was with God in the beginng {which I believe btw} and he knew that the death of his physical body would result in his return to heavenly bliss with God, then you can hardly call that death a sacrifice.

[straight_man]

@cosmosdan

Then you might explain what you meant by thousands of followers. Even if 2 out of 5 of the thousands saw him as a holy man or prophet, that doesn’t make them a follower. I think of Gandhi as a holy man and enjoy reading his words. I’m not a follower.

Let’s start w/ this one. Considering that they physically followed him and offered him food and shelter, just to see his miracles and hear him speak, I’d say that they were followers. Wouldn’t you?

@cosmosdan

No, Modern chirstian thought comes from man’s interpertation of what he beleives to be the words of Jesus. We have no way to verify how accurate these quotes are and how much of what is attributed to Jesus was what he actually said.
Even if we credit what is in the gospels as the words of Christ we still have to deal with the question of interepertation. Why is any man’s interpertation of what the words of Jesus any better than my own. As I read the words of Christ he tells me not to believe any man. He tells me that the spirit of truth can guide me and reveal all truth. He also tells me not to cling to the traditions of men.
I have a lot of revernce for the bible and the words of christ in particular. I tend to emphisize different quotes than modern christianity.

Look, there has to be some level at which you say, “This is what I have (the Bible), with thought I can find some directives in it, and if Jesus is misquoted in the Bible, where am I supposed to find a better quote?” So, we now have choices for our interpretation. We can listen to the ideas of others, who perhaps have a better understanding than us or had a greater capacity to understand, or we can follow our own interpretation. More often, we do some of both. Great! Don’t cling to the traditions! That doesn’t necessarily mean don’t follow them, merely don’t consider them higher than all else. Ultimately, unless you have the faith and conviction of Paul or Peter (not to mention stubbornness and utter righteousness), you’re not likely to be able to follow the spirit on your own. This is why people like me are interested in what CS Lewis or our pastor or our parents have to say on moral matters; we just can’t do it alone.

The term “quantified religion” would refer to any set of firmly-defined beliefs (this implies that they are shared by a group, as well). The imaginary scenario involving the Holy Spirit was not intended to assume your beliefs; I merely used it to show that there is relevance and substance to the Holy Spirit beyond what it can do for me. That’s all. The illustration would have worked better, had I posted “God” in the place of “Holy Spirit”. So it goes.

Incidentally, I can’t tell whether you were accusing me of committing blasphemy or claiming that I accused you of what is blasphemy. Since neither is the case, I think we should drop this matter. Thank you.

@cosmosdan

The traditions of organized religions and the tendency to confuse these traditions with the truth is a large part of why I prefer spirituality.

Okay, trying to avoid inciting a major hijack. Nonetheless, let us both be clear that the Bible is not “tradition”. It is our only way of knowing our history, the words of Jesus, the words of the prophets and disciples, and the words of the Father. Whether you’re convinced of the book’s truth or not is irrelevant; God chose this book as an important prerequisite for the spread of Christianity (in the early years, of course, there were only individual letters going to various places). Also, the Bible keeps us anchored down effectively, in that regardless of what we want to conclude, an early Franciscan monk and I both have to base our belief off of what is essentially the same document (dif. translation, same content). Of course, the last statement is true of tradition, as well. It’s just more important, here.

@cosmosdan

It occurs to me that if Christ is an eternal being who was with God in the beginng {which I believe btw} and he knew that the death of his physical body would result in his return to heavenly bliss with God, then you can hardly call that death a sacrifice.

Well, perhaps a modern might think that this is the case. However, I suspect that this is a way of thinking, rather than a real argument. So, reasons that death on the cross was a sacrifice:
(a) THE PAIN. The Romans used the cross as the most painful way of killing people. The centre of the hand is one of the most painful spots on the body when pierced. The crown of thorns would have pierced Christ’s head at the temple, where nerves are especially sensitive. The way that death on the cross actually kills you is through very slow suffocation. Ick.
(b) THE INDIGNITY. Christ’s own people mocked him; the Romans mocked him, too. A sarcastic sign saying “King of the Jews” was put above his head. His followers were scared and abandoned him. And above all, he, the Son of God, was killed by people, the people who he could save.
(c) THE DEATH. No, Christ did not go up to Heaven. He descended into Hades (I use this term to avoid the debate over whether it was Hell, or just a place of the Dead). The scriptural evidence would be that Jesus “has risen”. He didn’t come back down.

I count a macabre 9 offenses against the Son of God mentioned here, and I skipped being beaten and taking a spear to the side, to name but two. Yeah, that’s sacrifice. The temporary nature of the pain, indignity, and death, does not change that one bit.

[cosmosdan]

@eustachian≠fallopian

Let’s start w/ this one. Considering that they physically followed him and offered him food and shelter, just to see his miracles and hear him speak, I’d say that they were followers. Wouldn’t you?

NO, I wouldn’t. Expressing interest , extending kindness, wanting to listen to his words, is not being a follower. My definition would be someone who had made a conscious choice to base their spiritual life around the teachings of Jesus. Temporary interest doesn’t qualify. Showing him respect and consideration as a rabbi or teacher doesn’t qualify.
A lot of the differences in this thread seem to be a matter of interpertation. Perhaps thats the case here as well. I don’t see that you have the evidence to support your original statement. We can disagree.

Look, there has to be some level at which you say, “This is what I have (the Bible), with thought I can find some directives in it, and if Jesus is misquoted in the Bible, where am I supposed to find a better quote?” So, we now have choices for our interpretation. We can listen to the ideas of others, who perhaps have a better understanding than us or had a greater capacity to understand, or we can follow our own interpretation. More often, we do some of both. Great! Don’t cling to the traditions! That doesn’t necessarily mean don’t follow them, merely don’t consider them higher than all else. Ultimately, unless you have the faith and conviction of Paul or Peter (not to mention stubbornness and utter righteousness), you’re not likely to be able to follow the spirit on your own. This is why people like me are interested in what CS Lewis or our pastor or our parents have to say on moral matters; we just can’t do it alone.

How about the gospel of Thomas? I’m kidding,… sorta. Seeing the bible accurately, what it is and what it isn’t, is part of the truth which is what Jesus told us would set us free. I completely understand the need for external support, and guidence , and just plain ole’ input. Nothing wrong with that. The important thing is to realize that that input is not God or God’s word. When we put the bible , or our pastor, or our doctrine, or the traditions of our parents or friends in front of our commitment to the truth then we muffle the voice of the Holy Spirit. The spiritual rather than religious folks struggle with the same issues as we try to figure things out. What disturbs me about quantified religion is that in many cases the spiritual novice is taught to put those things ahead of the internal voice of God. “No need to ask questions, we already figured things out. If it doesn’t seem to make sense, then just accept it” I agree we don’t do it alone, I am grateful for input, but ultimatly we must choose for ourselves what the voice of God calls us to do and how much we allow outside influences to deter us from that calling.

Incidentally, I can’t tell whether you were accusing me of committing blasphemy or claiming that I accused you of what is blasphemy. Since neither is the case, I think we should drop this matter. Thank you.

I’m not sure what gave you that impression. When you don’t snip the portion of my post you’re responding to it’s hard to follow. To be clear, I wasn’t accusing you of blasphemy and didn’t suppose you were accusing me.

[QUOTE]

Okay, trying to avoid inciting a major hijack. Nonetheless, let us both be clear that the Bible is not “tradition”

What I said was that certain beliefs about the bible are tradition. It was not written by God. It is not the word of God. It was never intended by God to be used as the final authoratative guide into what God’s will is for us. There is no historical or even scriptural evidence to support those wide spread beliefs. Those type of fallacies have been to blame for a lot of the crimes committed by “chiristians” including a lot of bigotry in our modern society. The bible is not a tradition, it is a very good book. I realize we’re not getting into this in this thread.

. It is our only way of knowing our history, the words of Jesus, the words of the prophets and disciples, and the words of the Father.

Hardly. There are plenty of historical documents other than the bible. Ignoring them and placing the bible on an unrealistic pedestal is naive at best.

Whether you’re convinced of the book’s truth or not is irrelevant; God chose this book as an important prerequisite for the spread of Christianity (in the early years, of course, there were only individual letters going to various places).

And here it is, a prime example of what I’m talking about. While I respect your right to choose your own beliefs, this is just false. God did not choose the bible or any other so called holy book {there are many} We find it difficult to trust our connection to God and his voice {the Holy Spirit} within us, so we look for some external source to place that trust in. Jesus taught us to seek and trust that inner voice. It alone is the source of truth and our insight to God’s will for us. God can use the bible to teach me. He can use the book of mormon , the Koran, the writings of Gandhi, a novel by Louis Lamour, or a good movie.
The truth that I discern from the bible is no more or less valuble than any other truth.

Well, perhaps a modern might think that this is the case. However, I suspect that this is a way of thinking, rather than a real argument.

No it is a thoelogical and metaphysical arguement. I don’t think the traditional christian beliefs about the purpose of the death of Christ, atonement, and the path to salvation are accurate. Since that also far off the OP I’ll leave it at that.

I count a macabre 9 offenses against the Son of God mentioned here, and I skipped being beaten and taking a spear to the side, to name but two. Yeah, that’s sacrifice. The temporary nature of the pain, indignity, and death, does not change that one bit.

I in no way seek to minimize the physical suffering of Jesus. It is my belief that since God is spirit and we are asked to worship in spirit and since this physical world, including our bodies is only temporary, the key to salvation is not found in any physical event.

Much of our disagreement is based on personnal beliefs which ultimately cannot be proven or disproven within the context of this thread {if at all} I respect and even revere your right to choose your own spiritual path. When you make the casual comment that spirituality is meaningless {twice} I don’t feel the mutual respect I would hope for. Perhaps I misunderstood.
I don’t assume I’m 100% right on these issues. I recognize that I am still learning.
I don’t present these thoughts as any absolute truth but merely an expression of my own experiences and understanding. I leave it for each individual to find their relationship with God in their own way. We need seek God’s approval only, not any person’s or organizations.

[straight_man]

@cosmosdan

I’m not sure what gave you that impression. When you don’t snip the portion of my post you’re responding to it’s hard to follow. To be clear, I wasn’t accusing you of blasphemy and didn’t suppose you were accusing me.
<megasupersnip>
When you make the casual comment that spirituality is meaningless {twice} I don’t feel the mutual respect I would hope for. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Our semi-hijack debate seems to be slowing down. (I also don’t have time at the moment for a full response to what you were saying).

I will, however, address the issues above. (1) Your choice of Biblical quotes (that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable) while under the misconception that my hypothetical statement about the Holy Spirit was actually my belief (it wasn’t) appeared to be an accusation of blasphemy. Since I couldn’t tell whether you thought it was my belief or my impression of your belief, it was unclear which you meant, and saying I had accused you of blasphemy was another possibility. That’s all.

I believe that both my comments were, in essence, that spirituality alone is meaningless, hence the role of religion in making it worthwhile by adding substance. Before the two of us went off on our major hijack, that was one of my major points. No disrespect was intended in any of the statements I have made. As a newbie, I would hardly be advised to try to make an enemy out of an established poster; nor am I interested in flaming other posters, regardless of how it could affect me.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=eustachian≠fallopian]
Our semi-hijack debate seems to be slowing down. (I also don’t have time at the moment for a full response to what you were saying).

I will, however, address the issues above. (1) Your choice of Biblical quotes (that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable) while under the misconception that my hypothetical statement about the Holy Spirit was actually my belief (it wasn’t) appeared to be an accusation of blasphemy. Since I couldn’t tell whether you thought it was my belief or my impression of your belief, it was unclear which you meant, and saying I had accused you of blasphemy was another possibility. That’s all.

I see.
It was only a random selection of bible quotes that I find significant. I’ve had many discussions with christians and they usually refer to the same handful of scriptures as the basis of their beliefs. My point is that that particular puzzle has a lot more pieces than the standard selction.

I believe that both my comments were, in essence, that spirituality alone is meaningless, hence the role of religion in making it worthwhile by adding substance.

I think I understand your meaning but still object. Many folks like myself are very spiritual and it is an importent part of out daily lives. I don’t require religion to give it substance or meaning. I’ll add that I have no objection or criticism for those who prefer the structure of religion. If it isn’t meanful for me that doesn’t make it meaningless. btw, I still don’t agree with your definition of substance vs. structure but thats just semantics.

Before the two of us went off on our major hijack, that was one of my major points. No disrespect was intended in any of the statements I have made. As a newbie, I would hardly be advised to try to make an enemy out of an established poster; nor am I interested in flaming other posters, regardless of how it could affect me.

I never took it as intentional disresepct or any kind of attack. More along the lines of careless wording. peace
I’m not sure this qualifies as a hijack. We’ve made an effort to stay on subject and anyone is welcome to participate. Then again, I still consider myself a realtive newbie so I may be wrong

[straight_man]

@cosmosdan

I never took it as intentional disresepct or any kind of attack. More along the lines of careless wording.

No, I said what I meant and meant what I said. This being Great Debates, you should not take what is said as a personal attack. FWIW, I do not consider any of the things that you have said about the Bible or the Council of Nicea as a personal attack, even while I strongly disagree with the sentiments.

[cosmosdan]

@eustachian≠fallopian

No, I said what I meant and meant what I said. This being Great Debates, you should not take what is said as a personal attack. FWIW, I do not consider any of the things that you have said about the Bible or the Council of Nicea as a personal attack, even while I strongly disagree with the sentiments.

fair enough. You did however describe my lack of respect for the Nicene creed as spitting on it in some way. In rereading your first post I see that you did qualify it by saying “for me” I consider that an accurate statement. You get to choose what is meaningful for you, not anyone else.

[straight_man]

@cosmosdan

You get to choose what is meaningful for you, not anyone else.

That’s completely unjustifiable. I cannot choose what is meaningful for me any more than I can for anyone else; meaning exists outside of our understanding, just as God reigns whether anyone believes in him or not. This seems to be a fundamental divide in many conversations that I have on religious topics; among most of the people I talk to, their reigns an attitude of “Well, it’s true for me, maybe it’s not true for you, the world is whatever you think it is”. This has always occured to me as bizzare; no-one has said in any of debates over Guantanamo Bay, “Well, it’s torture if you think it is, and it’s not if you don’t.” There is a Truth beyond me or you or our cumulative IQ. Similarly, there is also meaning beyond me or you or our cumulative life experience. Applying this to the OP, spirituality must have something beyond just our experience; there must be something true/real that we have a special relationship with. To say otherwise assumes one of the following: (a) None of it’s true, so all that matters is how it makes you feel — a deeply unspiritual and unreligious thought, indeed; or (b) Whatever you think is true, is true — which cannot work, when I think that all other philosophies are false.
BTW…
Your line about the Nicene Creed was spitting on all the work that the Council did to understand what the Good News meant. It wasn’t spitting on me. I know that, you know that, we all know that. I didn’t like the line, and I said so, but I didn’t take it personally, either.

[GomiBoy]

@eustachian≠fallopian

Great. We’re back to spirituality for it’s own sake. I just can’t be reconciled with the idea that being spiritual is better than actually believing something. And if we believe something, we believe that a view contrary to that belief is wrong. See, God was pretty specific that there was no-one else like him; all other spirits are insignificant at best. It’s a part of the complete claim of the Big Three. So yeah, I’m willing to say that the Bible is right whenever it conflicts with the Quran. I would expect a Muslim to say the exact opposite.

See, if you don’t believe the Good News, you’re missing Christianity completely. (As I explained above, the spreading of the Good News is the basic purpose of Christianity). That good news includes Jesus saying that he’s the only way, rather than just the best way. Judaism has the Old Testament, saying that Yahweh is the only way. “They’re all gonna pay someday” is completely irrelevant. And I would never expect someone to say, “Jesus is our Lord and Savior” if they have never heard of Jesus.

Religion is a group occurrence. I don’t think that makes it any less valid than spirituality. In fact, I would say it makes it more valid, for the same reason that it’s more valid when a panel of experts reaches a conclusion than when a pundit reaches a conclusion. Certainly, it’s worth listening to more carefully.

Spirituality without substance is “meaningless, a chasing after the wind”.

(Ecclesiastes quote, repeated about various activities throughout the book.)

Sorry about the delayed response to this, but I was away for the weekend.

Anyways, I don’t think I once said religion is invalid. I said I disliked ***some ** * portions of religions that seem to damn unbelievers without choice.

So why do Christians (or at the least why do you) seem to discount spirituality as invalid? What is it about being part of an organized religion that makes you look down your nose at those who are not? Isn’t Christ’s love supposed to be universal? Does universal mean only so long as you believe in him?

I don’t mean this to be confrontational, but you’ve just shot every single persons beliefs who doesn’t agree with you down the pan with one post, and I just have to ask if this is the tolerance that Christ preached?

[cosmosdan]

@eustachian≠fallopian

That’s completely unjustifiable. I cannot choose what is meaningful for me any more than I can for anyone else; meaning exists outside of our understanding, just as God reigns whether anyone believes in him or not. This seems to be a fundamental divide in many conversations that I have on religious topics; among most of the people I talk to, their reigns an attitude of “Well, it’s true for me, maybe it’s not true for you, the world is whatever you think it is”. This has always occured to me as bizzare; no-one has said in any of debates over Guantanamo Bay, “Well, it’s torture if you think it is, and it’s not if you don’t.” There is a Truth beyond me or you or our cumulative IQ. Similarly, there is also meaning beyond me or you or our cumulative life experience. Applying this to the OP, spirituality must have something beyond just our experience; there must be something true/real that we have a special relationship with. To say otherwise assumes one of the following: (a) None of it’s true, so all that matters is how it makes you feel — a deeply unspiritual and unreligious thought, indeed; or (b) Whatever you think is true, is true — which cannot work, when I think that all other philosophies are false.

Calm down.
You’re taking my comment out of context. I was speaking specifically of how people worship and what they find meaningful in their relationship with God.
Some find singing old hymns fills their heart with joy and gratitude, while others find them boring and would rather feel that awe at the song of a bird. I believe I follow the teachings of Christ as I understand them right now with the conviction that there is more for me to learn. I’m sure you don’t agree. Since it is my soul on the line I choose what is meaningful for myself in my relationship with God rather than let a 1700 year old council or anyone else decide for me. We differ on how we use certain words but lets try to focus on the meat of the discussion not semantics.
I agree that there is truth that remains the truth regardless of opinion or feelings.
The path that leads each individual to that truth is unique for them born from their personnal communion with God. I might describe spirituality as someone finding how God speaks to them.
Certainly the “that may be true for you but not for me” is sometimes used as an escape clause to avoid the calling off the spirit. People often resist the changes that following the voice of the spirit can bring. Clinging to tradition as truth is one way of doing that.

BTW…
Your line about the Nicene Creed was spitting on all the work that the Council did to understand what the Good News meant. It wasn’t spitting on me. I know that, you know that, we all know that. I didn’t like the line, and I said so, but I didn’t take it personally, either.

I knew that. I don’t consider giving my honest assessment of something as spitting on it.
The truth isn’t decided by concensus of opinion. It is revealed by the Holy Spirit. That is what Christ taught. Looking at the creed line by line there are things I agree with and things I don’t. It’s the concept that everyone who doesn’t accpet our creed is a heretic that I find offensive. It is the persecution that followed I find to be devoid of the Holy Spirit. The line about one holy catholic church reveals much about their purpose.
On a related subject, which books were to be included in the NT and canonized were selected after the council had declared what “real christians” were allowed to believe. It is reasonable to assume that they selected writings that supported the beliefs they had already laid down as official. In a similar fashion denominations used selected bible passages to support their doctrine while explaining away any that seem to conflict.

[straight_man]

@GomiBoy

I don’t mean this to be confrontational, but you’ve just shot every single persons beliefs who doesn’t agree with you down the pan with one post, and I just have to ask if this is the tolerance that Christ preached?

To answer your question in one word: yes.

WWJD? Jesus called himself the Way. He said he was the Way. He did not, however, say that non-believers (in God, not him quite yet) should be fined, imprisoned, massacred, or treated as outcasts. THAT is the tolerance. Find me a quote where Christ says, “Believe as thou wilt,” and we can talk.

You also might want to logically shoot down my argument for why not everyone can be right before you accuse me of intolerance.

And honestly, I don’t care if I’m right. I care that the Nicene Creed is right, the Bible is true, and that the thousands of years of Judaism to Christianity have never been in vain.

Incidentally, cosmosdan, there are simply too many people I know who are taking paths in the opposite direction as me for both to be to the Truth.

BTW, your comments on the Nicene Creed were, if nothing else, ad hominem; instead of going through the statement and saying what parts you could call false, you decided to talk about the motivation of those who wrote it. Spitting, ad hominem, what’s the difference? I wish you could have been more accurate; your claims aside, our current New Testament was already being used by many, even most, churches, with only minor variations, before the Council of Nicea convened. Sadly, my site is sitting in another country right now, so I apologize for that. :mad:

[cosmosdan]

@eustachian≠fallopian

WWJD? Jesus called himself the Way. He said he was the Way. He did not, however, say that non-believers (in God, not him quite yet) should be fined, imprisoned, massacred, or treated as outcasts. THAT is the tolerance. Find me a quote where Christ says, “Believe as thou wilt,” and we can talk.

It’s true that Jesus advocated the truth and only the truth. There was no compromise in that.

You also might want to logically shoot down my argument for why not everyone can be right before you accuse me of intolerance.

Not everyone can be right. Few beings in the flesh {if any} would have the total comminion with God that Jesus had. For those of us still working on that kind of commuion an awareness of our own limitations can be a part of tolerance.

And honestly, I don’t care if I’m right. I care that the Nicene Creed is right, the Bible is true, and that the thousands of years of Judaism to Christianity have never been in vain.

I’m curious. Do you accept the line in the creed about one holy catholic church as right? Do you think Buddism, and other religions have been and are in vain? Is Judaism now in vain?

Incidentally, cosmosdan, there are simply too many people I know who are taking paths in the opposite direction as me for both to be to the Truth.

Since you didn’t quote me I’m not sure what you’re refering to. As I said, there is truth that doesn’t vary. The perception of that truth from person to person certainly does. I take responsibility for my own choices and my own relationship with God and recognize that my path to that truth may not be the path for someone else. I will understand some things they may not. I will be hindered and backslide in a different way than they will. I know I am in need of forgiveness so I try my best to forgive others. When beliefs collide I hope to learn something in the exchange rather than just prove I’m right.
There are things I find hard to tolerate. Atheists who charecterize all believers as gullible fools. Believers who use their beliefs as an excuse to oppress others.

BTW, your comments on the Nicene Creed were, if nothing else, ad hominem; instead of going through the statement and saying what parts you could call false, you decided to talk about the motivation of those who wrote it. Spitting, ad hominem, what’s the difference? I wish you could have been more accurate; your claims aside, our current New Testament was already being used by many, even most, churches, with only minor variations, before the Council of Nicea convened. Sadly, my site is sitting in another country right now, so I apologize for that. :mad:

I made a general statement based on my reading of a historic event that I still stand by. It was neither baseless nor without thoughtful consideration of the evidence available, so ad hominem is inaccurate as well. You’re welcome to disagree but you’ve offered no evidence to change my mind. To clarify, I was speaking to the motivations of the leaders that oraganized it. I don’t judge all of the 300 or so bishops that attended to be insincere, evil, or in favor of persecution. That would be irrational and naive. I think it’s naive to think that the council was somehow sanctioned and approved by God. Being a scholar or declared an authority by men says nothing of that persons spiritual insight or how close they are to God. The fact that Arius feld in fear of his life after the council says something about the nature of the emerging beast.

     I'd be interested in your information on the use of NT books before their official declaration. I am aware that many of the NT writings were already widely accepted prior to their compilation. I am also aware that there were other standards and guidelines used in their selection, such as authorship. I observe that supporting the existing creed was almost cetrtainly one of the influences. In fact, hundreds of years later there is still no solid agreement on who wrote them or what they mean. As I said before, my understanding of the teaching of Jesus is to seek commuion with God through the Holy Spirit and to rely on that as the only source of spiritual truth. The bible is a wonderful tool to aide that process but not the only one. There is no evidence that it was ever the will of God or Christ that man elevate these writings to the point many have.

[GomiBoy]

@eustachian≠fallopian

WWJD? Jesus called himself the Way. He said he was the Way. He did not, however, say that non-believers (in God, not him quite yet) should be fined, imprisoned, massacred, or treated as outcasts. THAT is the tolerance. Find me a quote where Christ says, “Believe as thou wilt,” and we can talk.

Wow. That’s good enough for you? That non-believers are not killed for not believing? Such is the religion of love, right?

@eustachian≠fallopian

You also might want to logically shoot down my argument for why not everyone can be right before you accuse me of intolerance.

I don’t think I need to do any such thing. I can accuse you of being intolerant by defining intolerant and seeing if you match up:
From dictionary.com

INTOLERANT: Not tolerant, especially:[ul]
[li]Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs[/li][li]Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background. [/li][li]unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime[/li][/ul]
You’ve said that the only true Way is to believe that Christ is Lord and to spread the Good News. If anyone believes differently, you do not tolerate that their beliefs might be correct. Therefore, you are intolerant.

@eustachian≠fallopian

And honestly, I don’t care if I’m right. I care that the Nicene Creed is right, the Bible is true, and that the thousands of years of Judaism to Christianity have never been in vain.

I care if I am right, and don’t take the decisions of a bunch of old men from ancient times to tell me if I am right.

As to your point about thousands of years of Judaism and Christianity in vain, you’ve just stated definitively that according to your belief system, all other religions, who might have been around for even longer, are in vain

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@GomiBoy

I care if I am right, and don’t take the decisions of a bunch of old men from ancient times to tell me if I am right.

As to your point about thousands of years of Judaism and Christianity in vain, you’ve just stated definitively that according to your belief system, all other religions, who might have been around for even longer, are in vain

Here we go. So much for spirituality. The minute one shares their spirituality it becomes a religion.

[GomiBoy]

@grienspace

Here we go. So much for spirituality. The minute one shares their spirituality it becomes a religion.

I don’t really understand this comment. Were you taking exception to my comments?

[cosmosdan]

@GomiBoy

Wow. That’s good enough for you? That non-believers are not killed for not believing? Such is the religion of love, right?

I tend to expect more of people who invoke God and Christ to easily but lets be reasonable. Her discription of tolerance is a perfectly valid and her point is as well.
No one claims or expects that Christians are going to be continually Christ like. That is what they are striveing for, not what they have achieved.

You’ve said that the only true Way is to believe that Christ is Lord and to spread the Good News. If anyone believes differently, you do not tolerate that their beliefs might be correct. Therefore, you are intolerant.

That appears to be an incorrect use of the word tolerate. A more appropriate word might be “consider” Intolerant in a religious sense would be some sort of prejudicial behavior towards those who believed differently. If people who believe something different are shunned or not afforded the same rights and privialages as those who share your beliefs then thats intolerant. If they are treated with the same courtesy and respect then that is indeed tolerance.

By your definitions you offered intolerant isn’t always a bad thing.

[cosmosdan]

@grienspace

Here we go. So much for spirituality. The minute one shares their spirituality it becomes a religion.

Really? How so?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@GomiBoy

I don’t really understand this comment. Were you taking exception to my comments?

No. I believe spirituality is a personal thing, but if you share it it is bound to conflict with someone elses spirituality. Your comments merely indicate that you had to take exception to eustachian≠fallopian"s spirituality. It conflicted with yours didn’t it? To me this inevitable conflict is the root of religion, particularly organized religion which seeks strength in numbers and a format for cohesion.

[cosmosdan]

@grienspace

No. I believe spirituality is a personal thing, but if you share it it is bound to conflict with someone elses spirituality. Your comments merely indicate that you had to take exception to eustachian≠fallopian"s spirituality. It conflicted with yours didn’t it? To me this inevitable conflict is the root of religion, particularly organized religion which seeks strength in numbers and a format for cohesion.

Good point. Don’t you think that the conflict can be the source of growth if people can share their ideas with respect and consideration?

I used to think that respect for others beliefs meant not challenging them. I want mine to be challenged. It helps me grow. Now when others feel the need to enlighten me instead of politely saying no thank you it’s more like. “Wheeee here we go”

[Liberal]

@grienspace

No. I believe spirituality is a personal thing, but if you share it it is bound to conflict with someone elses spirituality. Your comments merely indicate that you had to take exception to eustachian≠fallopian"s spirituality. It conflicted with yours didn’t it? To me this inevitable conflict is the root of religion, particularly organized religion which seeks strength in numbers and a format for cohesion.

Amen. God doesn’t hate fags, but He surely hates religion.