So, my belief that the teachings of Jesus are universal and largely secular, and are often followed by atheists and other non-Christians, who will thus be embraced by the Lord come Judgement, makes me some kind of asshole?
Do you really prefer “You’re wrong and going to hell!” to “Jesus love you!”?
“I pass judgment on no one.” — Jesus (John 8:15)
You can’t be speaking for yourself when you say “No one is including you or anyone else who wishes to be excluded”. 99% of religion is out there recruiting or telling people that like it or not, they’re being saved, going to hell, being judged. It’s a fucking sickness. And our little crystal-spinning friend Jefferson is among the most irritating of the lot.
The fact that rwjefferson is convinced “there’s something out there” doesn’t mean diddly squat to me (or HIM, as far as I’m concerned). Look, dude. You’re more than welcome to play the game, but enough with the “I know better than you” attitude. My spirit is telling you to lay off the crack pipe, my friend.
I didn’t. I said that the truth that arises from them points to one and the same entity. You read words like my nephew eats sloppy Joe sandwiches.
Vines. Roses. Fountain. Garden. If someone wants a different garden, I have no problem with that.
Then the supernatural realm is something we all agree on. I’m sure you’re already composing your response to the other post. In fact, I wager that you clicked the quote button and started posting before scarcely reading a word, so I reckon you miss this too, but: I have made no proposal to make varying religions equal.
You just contradicted yourself. If I am in opposition to 99% of people, then I am speaking for myself.
You’re pretty irritating yourself right now, jumping into this pile and assigning me things I didn’t say.
I know better than you? Were you aware that I wrote: “I can understand why people who often hear the condescension of 'I know you don’t believe, but that’s just because you don’t yet understand” might see it in the most innocent of places."? Why don’t you process what people actually say rather than make up your own paraphrases of what they say, like Finn.
Lying through you teeth Lib? Poor form. It’s generally somewhat less than honorable to call your opponent a liar while, to be charitable, your pants are on fire.
Boldy deceitful on my part, eh? :rolleyes:
Naw, here’s a parphrase:
“You’re being a Janus-faced jackass and rather than admit you’ve made mistakes you’re backing away from your own text.”
Hey, Kreskin! Cite?
And, no, belief is quite well applied in that situation. In order to believe in universe I must believe that my senses are accurate, that there is an external world, that there are physical laws, etc…
Perhaps you are referring to the oft claimed “fact” that atheism is in and of itself a belief? If so, atheism is simply a lack of belief, an “I’m not convinced”. It is not a belief.
Your persecution complex is really none of my affair to be quite honest.
And my parahprase was dead on, despite your dishonesty and two faced argumentation.
Oh, and, by the way. You’re the one who has gone on record as playing devil’s advocate without letting people know you’re doing so. Please do not ascribe your behavior to me. I know that liars think everybody else lies, and thieves think everybody else steals, etc… But just because you’ll enter an argument simply so you can take up a contrary position, doesn’t mean I will.
Nope Lib, you’re just being two faced and lying, again.
You claim that everybody who is religious reaches ‘the garden’ and that the garden ‘is Christ.’
And yet you deny that everybody who is religious reaches your religion?
Quit lying.
Funny, you just also said that you don’t want to claim all religions are equivelent to yours and I’m making it up. But now they’re not on opposite teams? Can you please stay consistent and not lie one sentence to the other? I mean, it’s funny and all, but…
Liar.
Because you say he’ll still come to ‘the garden’ which ‘is Christ’. Honestly, this is not rocket science here.
In other words, the ultimate reality of ‘the garden’ is your Christ, and if anybody can’t wrap their mind around that, don’t worry, just get rid of that stumbling block on go on. But, still, " the garden’s " ultimate ontology is Christ.
No, schmuck, pantheists believe in many Gods. Are you honestly going to argue that the ancient Greeks thought that Universe was God?
Right, becaue knowlege has to be something that’s true, and not something that Lib made up becuase he’s losing an argument.
“The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.”- Psalms 6:17
"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
Acts 4 10:12
Liberal, you’ve just had a 4 page thread on how you find the term “Fundie” objectionable because people you love dearly are Fundamentalist Christians. Please grant me this one. I don’t Pit anyone lightly or in jest. I’m only doing it now because of my frustration at being able to get my point through to rwjefferson. Frankly, I suspect I’m just banging my head against a brick wall, but then again, I seem to recall doing that regularly with another poster a few years ago, so with any luck I’ll still remember the proper technique.
I have no doubt that the Wiccan friend I referred to in the GD thread which started this ultimately worships the same Entity I do. I’ve been in a circle with him and I stood by his side while he took down the protections which kept his property safe when he left his house for the last time following his divorce. In terms of spirit, soul, and character, he is one of the finest and best souls I have had privilege of meeting. He is a brother-in-spirit to Polycarp and one of the truest friends I have. Nevertheless, if you ask him what his religion is, he would say he is a Wiccan, not a Christian. I’ve discussed the GD thread with him and, if you tried to tell him he was really a Christian, he would gently correct you. If you tried to tell him that repeatedly, as rwjefferson did, he would quietly come to the conclusion that you were an idiot and avoid your company. To his credit, he would not be offended; he doesn’t take offense easily.
This isn’t about what becomes of people in the next world or the ultimate nature of Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, and the God and Goddess. It’s about a person repeatedly insisting on defining a word to mean what he chooses it to mean and calling people something which they have chosen not to be. To me, saying my Wiccan friend is Christian is like saying I’m Swedish. It’s simply untrue, no matter how wonderful Swedish people are.
Please, Liberal, at least consider my point of view?
CJ
Sorry, your attempts at being two faced are not a lack of reading comp on my part.
You want to play semantics? The truth that arises from them is still the basic ontology behind the belief structure, and you claim they arrive at the same point, this means that the basic ontological structure of all religion reaches the same point, which just so happens to be your conceptoin of Christ. There, your semantic obfuscation has been dealt with. Wanna play straight now?
your claims: All paths lead to ‘the garden’, ‘the garden’ is Christ.
In case you’ve missed (or are being two faced about) what you yourself are saying, this implies that there is no path which does not lead to ‘the garden’, and that the only truth of ‘the garden’ is that it is Christ.
But that nature of this ‘supernatural’ realm is different from belief to belief. Which you are trying to obfuscate.
Awwwww, you’re so cute when you’re an ignorant little shit eater.
I read the other post, and responded to it. But sure Kreskin, you know what I was thinking when I did it.
Liar.
By the way, it seems that in just a few short hours, Liberal has managed to completely hijack this thread. I’ve seen him do it before, and I’m tired of it. Liberal, you know I agree with you on universal salvation and you know I once had a great deal of respect for you. Still, if you want to continue this hijack, please do it elsewhere. Otherwise, this evening, I will ask our moderators to close this thread. I’ve said what my intention was. It may not be the most noble or, if you’ll pardon the term, “Christian”, but it was sincere. If you want to make it into something that’s all about you, that’s your privilege, just as it’s mine to ask the thread be closed.
Finn Again and the rest of you, please, don’t encourage him.
CJ
I’m absolutely boggled that people are pissed at what Liberal’s been saying in this thread. He believes in Jesus. He believes that Jesus loves everyone, even people who don’t believe in Jesus. He believes that everyone gets to go to heaven if they’re good people, even if they believe in someone besides Jesus, or even if they don’t believe in anyone at all. How is this any more objectionable than Czarcasm’s belief (which happens to be mine, as well) that when we die, we just end, no matter what we believe in or who we worship? Neither of them require any of us to act any differently in this world, so who gives a shit what they think happens to us in the next world?
Not that it necessarily improves things when all parties consider themselves Christians. How many wars were fought in Christian Europe from medieval times forward?
I admit to not having read many Lib threads so I’ve only got a loose sense of what Lib’s politik really is. I have to say that it doesn’t fly in my face and my IRF (intollerant religious fanatic ) meter is still intact and functional. In fact, it’s well in the green.
The problem I’m seeing is that much of the responsibility for fly by witnessing and religious zealot threads by others is being unfairly placed on **Lib’s ** shoulders.
The garden thing is being taken entirely too literally as well. One garden, a million gardens, no garden at all. What does it matter?
When Lib says,
I’m inclined to take him at his word - until I have hard evidence to make me think otherwise. Any projecting or reading between the lines I’m tempted to do, are entirely my responsibility. It’s not easy for me to suspend my natural cynisism in these kinds of discussions but I would want someone to take me at my word so I have learned to extend the same curtesy until circumstances or events dictate otherwise.
I find your lack of Christian faith disturbing.
Is this the part where Liberal force-chokes Clothahump?
Dude, I’m just quoting you.
It just makes me curious as to why you think I’m an asshole because of the response I gave.
Even though you can prove it for yourself, if you are willing to do the work? I did. That’s how I found out it was all a lie. If you’re willing to do it, let me know; I’ll post you a simple question that it took me years just to get to the point where I had learned enough to ask it. Big headstart for you.
And BTW, you don’t know from assholes. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have called me one.
Okay, now I’m really curious. How does anything on that page make me an asshole?
Oh, silly me. You don’t agree with it. Therefore, I’m an asshole.
Rriiiggghhtttt…