Phoenix,
I love that word serendipity. So lighthearted!
Momma Angel,
There was nothing unfair at all about the question IMO. Foxfyre made a statement, "
No Christian that I know advocates war.". To me it was fairly obvious that concerning Iraq, George Bush was Hell bent on a war that IMO again had no immediacy. many also felt that it had little likelyhood of an improved outcome re. terrorism.
foxfyre wrote:The non-religious hold up this person or that person who is identified with a religious group as definitive proof that this is what a Christian is. Well, Lenin and Stalin were professed athiests and millions of innocents died at their order. Do the athiests here identify with those two? I would guess they do not.
Once again foxfyre attempts to associate athiests with Lenin and Stalin. Usually she also throws in a few others such as Idi Amin or Pol Pot. Since foxfyre had already offered up some suggestions about Christians and war, I thought it reasonable to try and see where the benchmarks were at. I didn't really expect to get an answer.
Mesquite,
I cannot speak for Foxfyre. But, it seems that George Bush is being used like a baseball bat with the Christians on this thread and other threads.
I feel like if we say, no we don't agree with the war because.....then we are going to hear about well, see, proves the point that some feel about Christians....
If we say yes, we agree with the war, then we will be told that we are not practicing Christianity the way it seems that those (some, not all) non-believers think we should.
I just really feel like this is a catch 22 here. Danged if you do, danged if you don't. Between a rock and a hard place, etc.
mesquite wrote:Momma Angel,
There was nothing unfair at all about the question IMO. Foxfyre made a statement, "
No Christian that I know advocates war.". To me it was fairly obvious that concerning Iraq, George Bush was Hell bent on a war that IMO again had no immediacy. many also felt that it had little likelyhood of an improved outcome re. terrorism.
foxfyre wrote:The non-religious hold up this person or that person who is identified with a religious group as definitive proof that this is what a Christian is. Well, Lenin and Stalin were professed athiests and millions of innocents died at their order. Do the athiests here identify with those two? I would guess they do not.
Once again foxfyre attempts to associate athiests with Lenin and Stalin. Usually she also throws in a few others such as Idi Amin or Pol Pot. Since foxfyre had already offered up some suggestions about Christians and war, I thought it reasonable to try and see where the benchmarks were at. I didn't really expect to get an answer.
If you were a halfway honest person, Mesquite, you would not need to distort what people say. To the best of my knowledge I have not mentioned Idi Amin or Pol Pot at any time on a message board. I am positive I have not used them as evidence of athiests or in any religious context.
You are a master at deflecting a discussion to focus on your own obvious anti-religious prejudices however.
This discussion has been on what Christians do and do not advocate. MommaAngel was not certain if a Christian could go to war. I am 100% certain that a Christian can absolutely go to war and, in fact, probably most of our fighting forces are people of faith. Does any Christian relish war or exalt war or hope for war or violence of any kind? I do not believe that any Christian does. But I think any Christian is capable of violence if necessary to defend higher principles. Would you not use violence as necessary to protect your children or other innocents? I certainly think most Christians would commit violence in such a case.
So your unveiled attempts to slur me or the President or Christians or anybody else on this count as well as several other counts is simply hot air born of your own prejudices. And they become quite tiresome frankly. I prefer to spend my time discussing opposing points of views on the merits of the views. If you wish to spend your time condemning this person or that person, please do it with somebody else.
Thanks for the link, Phoenix. I have a new folder in my favorites menu for quotes.
As for the marks of a true Christian: The protestants in Germany supported the 'outing' of members of the flock who had jewish ancestry, exposing them to the same treatment as those in the synagogues. The clergy as a whole agreed to this.
However:
the apostle John wrote:By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves. (JOhn 13:35)
A quality painfully missing amongst nominal christians today.
In truth Neologist, it is my belief that many who call themselves Christian do not know what it is to be Christian, and it has been this way for more than 2000 years. I also believe it is not my prerogative as a Christian to point out who is and who is not a Christian.
It was Jesus who said:
Quote:The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much.
Now it may be difficult for us to ascertain faithfulness in what is least - some hidden sins - adultery, perhaps; or idolatry. But it is painfully obvious that many calling themselves christians use the bible (or tradition) as an ambidexter justification for expedient sin.
Of course, christians are not alone in their guilt.
neologist wrote:It was Jesus who said:
Quote:The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much.
Now it may be difficult for us to ascertain faithfulness in what is least - some hidden sins - adultery, perhaps; or idolatry. But it is painfully obvious that many calling themselves christians use the bible (or tradition) as an ambidexter justification for expedient sin.
Of course, christians are not alone in their guilt.
I met one lady once years ago who did profess being a Christian and who as far as I know demonstrated her faith in the way she lived her life. In a discussion of sin, however, she honestly believed she did not. She could think of not one thing that pertained to her that she considered a sin. She was pretty unique.
Most of us don't make it to that standard even in our own minds. Most of us at some time or another know we are capable of cowardice, pettiness, selfishness, intellectual dishonesty, or lots of other unattractive traits and know that even when we do our very best, we have feet of clay. The best we can hope for is that the blessings of God will continue to diminish those areas in which we are unfaithful and will increase those areas in which we are faithful.
We all, however, are capable of seeing the sins that have been committed in the name of God since history has been recorded, and the fact that we call ourself Christian or some other people of faith does not extrapolate to acceptance or condoning what some people do in the name of God. It is as foolish to throw all who call themselves Christian intot he same pot as it is to throw all who call themselves Athiest into the same pot.
Foxfyre wrote:mesquite wrote:Momma Angel,
There was nothing unfair at all about the question IMO. Foxfyre made a statement, "
No Christian that I know advocates war.". To me it was fairly obvious that concerning Iraq, George Bush was Hell bent on a war that IMO again had no immediacy. Many also felt that it had little likelyhood of an improved outcome re. terrorism.
foxfyre wrote:The non-religious hold up this person or that person who is identified with a religious group as definitive proof that this is what a Christian is. Well, Lenin and Stalin were professed athiests and millions of innocents died at their order. Do the athiests here identify with those two? I would guess they do not.
Once again foxfyre attempts to associate athiests with Lenin and Stalin. Usually she also throws in a few others such as Idi Amin or Pol Pot. Since foxfyre had already offered up some suggestions about Christians and war, I thought it reasonable to try and see where the benchmarks were at. I didn't really expect to get an answer.
If you were a halfway honest person, Mesquite, you would not need to distort what people say. To the best of my knowledge I have not mentioned Idi Amin or Pol Pot at any time on a message board. I am positive I have not used them as evidence of athiests or in any religious context.
I was wrong about Pol Pot, but he could easily have fit into the "et al".
Foxfyre wrote:Well, I'm not throwing all realists and rationalists into this pot, but thinking back over the realists and rationalists of this century who have headed countries: Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, V Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, et al, who among these would you choose as the ideal leader for the United States? Athiests every one; opposed to religious belief every one; and realists and rationalists to a fault every one.
There really are worse things than a President who believes in God.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=697765#697765
Foxfyre wrote:This discussion has been on what Christians do and do not advocate. MommaAngel was not certain if a Christian could go to war. I am 100% certain that a Christian can absolutely go to war and, in fact, probably most of our fighting forces are people of faith. Does any Christian relish war or exalt war or hope for war or violence of any kind? I do not believe that any Christian does. But I think any Christian is capable of violence if necessary to defend higher principles. Would you not use violence as necessary to protect your children or other innocents? I certainly think most Christians would commit violence in such a case.
So tell me why my question was not on topic.
Foxfyre wrote:So your unveiled attempts to slur me or the President or Christians or anybody else on this count as well as several other counts is simply hot air born of your own prejudices. And they become quite tiresome frankly. I prefer to spend my time discussing opposing points of views on the merits of the views. If you wish to spend your time condemning this person or that person, please do it with somebody else.
Nowhere in that rant do I see a yea or nay to the question,"Is George W. Bush a Christian by your definition of a real Christian?". Your characterization of that question as a slur against Christians in general is totally of the mark, and quite frankly one of your debating methods that is tiresome to me.
There are many Christians that do not care for GB any more than I do. The fact remains however, that one of his main attractions was the Christian packaging, and that packaging is what makes my question both fair and pertinent.
I concede that I did use Idi Amin as an example of an athiest. Mia culpa. I was in error in using him as I have no clue what his religion, if any way.
Your comment was off topic because it was in no related to the topic.
I have answered your question re George Bush being a Christian. Could I recommend a nice remedial reading course
FYI - Idi Amin was a Muslin who converted to Islam. Given his record, I doubt that he held any true religious beliefs.
Foxfyre wrote:I concede that I did use Idi Amin as an example of an athiest. Mia culpa. I was in error in using him as I have no clue what his religion, if any way.
Well in that case you should maybe amend one of your standard put downs. :wink:
Foxfyre wrote:I think anyone who doesn't adhere to fundamentalist rapture Christian beliefs has Satan's social security number tattoed on his/her butt. At the very least you are all the spawn of Mao Tse Tung, Lenin, Stalin, Idi Amin, and all the other great athiests who have wrecked havoc on the world. Ridiculous?
Well, that makes about as much sense as those of you who think anybody espousing any kind of faith in God or, God forbid!, any kind of Christian belief is the epitome of the very worst that Christianity can produce.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=700762#700762
Foxfyre wrote:Your comment was off topic because it was in no related to the topic.
Yes it was.
Foxfyre wrote:I have answered your question re George Bush being a Christian. Could I recommend a nice remedial reading course
Your non answer here..
foxfyre wrote:As to whether George W. Bush is a Christian, that is not for me or anybody else other than GWB to say. Nor is it for me or anybody else other than GWB to say that he is not. All I have is his testimony and his actions to go by as being what I think a Christian would or would not do when acting from his/her Christian faith. And I don't claim to be the last word on that subject either.
I wasn't asking you to control the gates to heaven. I was merely asking your opinion given his actions and your standards. Why is that so hard? You have been consistently pro Iraq and pro tax cuts and anti gay marriage.
mesquite wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I concede that I did use Idi Amin as an example of an athiest. Mia culpa. I was in error in using him as I have no clue what his religion, if any way.
Well in that case you should maybe amend one of your standard put downs. :wink:
Foxfyre wrote:I think anyone who doesn't adhere to fundamentalist rapture Christian beliefs has Satan's social security number tattoed on his/her butt. At the very least you are all the spawn of Mao Tse Tung, Lenin, Stalin, Idi Amin, and all the other great athiests who have wrecked havoc on the world. Ridiculous?
Well, that makes about as much sense as those of you who think anybody espousing any kind of faith in God or, God forbid!, any kind of Christian belief is the epitome of the very worst that Christianity can produce.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=700762#700762
Standard put down? I thought this one was completely unique and not at all standard. And maybe you don't understand what I am saying here? I won't retract a word of it. Except to say I don't know if Idi Amin belongs in the tyrannical athiest group.
Foxfyre wrote:Your comment was off topic because it was in no related to the topic.
Yes it was.
I'm happy that you agree that it was off topic.
Foxfyre wrote:I have answered your question re George Bush being a Christian. Could I recommend a nice remedial reading course
Your non answer here..
foxfyre wrote:As to whether George W. Bush is a Christian, that is not for me or anybody else other than GWB to say. Nor is it for me or anybody else other than GWB to say that he is not. All I have is his testimony and his actions to go by as being what I think a Christian would or would not do when acting from his/her Christian faith. And I don't claim to be the last word on that subject either.
I wasn't asking you to control the gates to heaven. I was merely asking your opinion given his actions and your standards. Why is that so hard? You have been consistently pro Iraq and pro tax cuts and anti gay marriage.
My faith includes an admonition from Jesus to "Judge not lest you be judged also." That, in layman's terms, does not mean that we are not to judge what is good or evil, right or wrong, profitable or unprofitable, edifying or not edifying and the issues of Iraq, taxes, gay marriage, abortion, etc. etc. etc. are all value judgments that any two Christians might disagree on. In other words, these are not "Christian" issues though any given Christian's personal faith might influence which side he or she comes down on.
While there are plenty of marching orders that require us to make value judgements about many things we are responsible for in the world, we are not to judge the condition of another's soul. That is the prerogative of God alone. I have no reason to disbelieve President Bush who professes a Christian faith. I didn't question Bill Clinton or Al Gore when they professed a Christian faith. But it is not my prerogative to judge whether or not they are "good or bad Christians". I can judge what they do as been good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable, but their behavior may or may not have anything to do with their Christian beliefs.
You have made it crystal clear that you blame God and the Christian faith for policy decisions by George Bush that you disagree with. You are unable to see or at least refuse to acknowledge how the next Christian might take the opposite point of view.
In other words, I'm not taking the bait sir. You'll have to condemn God and Christianity on some other front instead of through me. You're making a correlation that simply does not exist.
What is victory? (in relation to Frank's question, the title of this thread)
Well it is to overcome some opposing force. We call ourselves Christians but being Christian should display some kind of heart. So ones who claims to be Christian who become foul hearted and those who claim to be of non Christian origin can be hero's and act in charity toward others when unexpected.
So is the act of charity only obtainable through the Christian Christ to the Christian God?
What is a "true" Hero?
Let's dissect Jesus Christ...
What is Christ?
First of all Christ is innocence who is inflicted by injustice.
Some of you people have on your worldly eyes and you do not all "see" the "spiritual" realm that is also in conflict.
So, back to victory..
To be Christian is to be innocence triumphing over injustice.
The scenario then becomes hinged on an old testament time versus a new testament time.
The new testament time beginning after the four gospels...
In the old testament times the world was all conceived in sin so there was no innocence possible.
So there could be no "true" heroes... A hero does not need to wear a mask and does not have two sides to their persona. They do not need to hide anything...
Jesus Christ had a normal body as other humans (until after his resurrection)... Mary supplied the egg (body) for his conception but it was this mysterious "NEW" LIFE (soul) that gave this egg life.
It was in this old soul life of Adam passed down that the sin resided in, in humanity. It was not in the body but it was in the life part that held the sin...
When God breathed into Adam he gave Adam life and this life was what became sinful. This life was in the blood and the blood was carried from generation to generation.
It was this sinless blood part of Christ that changed the heavens and the earth. That we can all be "heroes"... We can all find the spirit of Christ. It is there for the heart to find. In finding justice we "see" things.
We are supplied "images" and audible "revelations" from the source of this justice. So we can either follow what we are being taught by the spirit or we can not acknowledge what we have been taught and use one of the many rationalizations for not acting upon truth.
This that this spirit tells us is that "only in a last resort" should war be considered. What makes a last resort? Well we look at all of the information before us and with everything possibly given it's own reasonable weight, the cost of not acting and we are shown the answer.
Now this answer is not always right... because our minds "can" influence and there is always some inevitable interference. If we persevere in our course to honor God then over time the correct answers will outweigh the wrong answers. It is called "nature". That when one decides to become a hero that the life and spirit that once filled the body was only a pale comparison the the metamorphose that has transformed a being into light. To keep terms clear... Spirit is not soul and soul is not spirit...
I will define...
body = physical body
the soul = A living body as opposed to a dead one
the sprit = The gift from God (spiritual seed)
...as there is seed involved in physical life also...
So if one does not receive this "spiritual seed" they do not receive the "new nature". (Nature is defined as when things get better and better or worse and worse...) It is the spiritual seed that impacts (through nature) the "physical life"... It is the spirit that guides the mind, and the mind that guides the soul.
Christianity is a spiritual thing... We do not take the physical model and apply it to the spiritual but we take the spiritual "image" and apply it to the physical...
Notice how this next scripture is talking about an inner person in all of us.... The "new" person, a person inside that has all of these skills to compete against "spiritual" competitions IN OUR MINDS. We will never win our physical battles until our spiritual demons are defeated...
Ephesians 6:10-18
10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
11 Put on the whole armour of God [INSIDE], that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood [BODY AND SOUL], but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual [SPIRIT] wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God [AGAIN INSIDE], that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
Comment: This is not loins girt with chain-maul but girt with "truth". It is not a breastplate made of pure gold... it is made of "righteousness" It is not a brass shield or helmet but a shield of "faith" and a helmet of "salvation"... Feet shod with PEACE...
Comment:
There is an inner person... this is the spirit realm... this is knowing the inner person. This is not being controlled by only our physical emotions but by perceiving and being "strong in the lord", righteousness, truth, faith, salvation, "holy" spirit, the "pertinent parts" of the written word of God, prayer and care for others.. This is the formula for a true "hero", this is living victoriously...
Intrepid wrote:FYI - Idi Amin was a Muslin who converted to Islam. Given his record, I doubt that he held any true religious beliefs.
What the heck is a Muslin?
neologist wrote:Intrepid wrote:FYI - Idi Amin was a Muslin who converted to Islam. Given his record, I doubt that he held any true religious beliefs.
What the heck is a Muslin?
I thought that everybody knew that a muslin was a closely woven unbleached or white cloth. Given the fact that Idi Amin was a dark black man, I can see where muslin would not be appropriate. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that he was Muslim.
Thank you for pointing out my typing error. Most would probably have missed it.
Intrepid wrote:neologist wrote:Intrepid wrote:FYI - Idi Amin was a Muslin who converted to Islam. Given his record, I doubt that he held any true religious beliefs.
What the heck is a Muslin?
I thought that everybody knew that a muslin was a closely woven unbleached or white cloth. Given the fact that Idi Amin was a dark black man, I can see where muslin would not be appropriate. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that he was Muslim.
Thank you for pointing out my typing error. Most would probably have missed it.
But aren't all Muslims followers of Islam?
No, but all followers of Islam are Muslims.
So by what process does one convert from Muslim to Islam?
