Must a Christian always "play nicely" with others?

[Saltmeister]

Personally? Everyone here knows what I believe because Im pretty blunt that Jesus is the only way to heaven.If you reject him and die you will not go to heaven.

The question is, what does Jesus mean to you? Jesus can't obviously mean the same thing to someone else as he does to you if he were to have value to another person.

It's become quite a habit by fundamentalists to say "Jesus is the way . . . Jesus is the way . . .," but what does it mean? Jesus didn't go around saying, "I am the way, I am the way, I am the way." He probably only said it once. Maybe Jesus and his disciples were sitting under a tree, and because of some deep soul-searching that his disciples needed to do where they weren't doing it right, Jesus needed to guide and correct them. He needed to guide and correct them about what they were doing in their search for God.

Jesus didn't go around saying, "I am the way, I am the way, I am the way" because the situation didn't call for it. The statement he made about being the "way-shower" had so much value because of the timing of his words.

Jesus wasn't rude or obnoxious about the so-called "Way," and nor do I think his number one purpose in life, from the moment he was born, was to leap out of the blue and blurt out "I am the way."

He probably didn't even plan on saying it. Ever. He said it because out of the random, transient comings and goings of life, his disciples needed to be set straight, and somehow, Jesus decided that speaking of "the Way" was the way to go. If that is the way, then frequently saying "he is the way, he is the way" isn't the way to go, because it's not how Jesus did it. You wouldn't be following the Way Jesus followed.

Not only can statements like "Jesus is the only way" be rude and obnoxious, but I don't even think Jesus did it that way. When Jesus made that statement, it would have happened so naturally, like it was a call of nature, like a flower opening up in the spring. Jesus probably didn't say it on purpose. It's not that it was an accident, I just think it happened in the space of about ten minutes, where Jesus thought, "I'll call myself the way-shower as a way of demonstrating a concept, and hopefully they'll understand."

This was probably what made the experience of Jesus so soothing, uplifting and pacifying. The concepts he projected out into people's minds were not forced. He let it happen naturally.

To get to the point I want to make, there is something about saying "Jesus is the only way" where you can almost be somewhat inconsiderate of the person who is receiving your message.

I don't believe that Christianity got out in the start from being inconsiderate, rude or obnoxious. Jesus and his followers would not only have been considerate of the people receiving their respective, individual messages, but they didn't deliberately form friendships for the sole purpose of blurting out the line, "I am the way" or "he is the way."

The communal faith of Christianity didn't rest on saying "he is the Way, he is the way" because it couldn't all be summed up in one single statement. It was both an individual and communal experience. Each individual found their place in the community, and therefore, the kingdom of God.

Saying "he is the way" isn't a very personal statement and people can't always find personal value in that statement. Moreover, I think even other Christians would be offended because it's like you're saying you know Christianity better than they do, and when you do that, you detract from the communal experience where everybody has a place, everybody makes their contribution and people share a life where they seek a common goal: finding and connecting with God, which is what I think the "Way" is all about.

But it's not just about saying "he is the way" all the time. I think it goes with just about everything else in Christianity, especially with slogans adapted from passages in the New Testament. The trouble with slogans adapted from the written tradition is that you'd be forgetting that the early Christians didn't have a New Testament. The New Testament didn't exist.

Christianity was new. There was no New Testament so you had to sort of "make it up" as you went. But without a New Testament, a written tradition, how could the early Christians have known what to do?

Well, there were several things. There was the individual one-to-one experience of Jesus through a direct encounter, the speeches he made, the Jewish traditions, the communal experience of being a part of the newly forming religion of Christianity, which was never really set in stone, and the Spirit which led the early Christians individually and collectively.

The chief difference between today's Christians and the early Christians is lack of imagination and creativity. Early Christianity was a religion that emerged from scratch, from little more than the experience of having one man in your life as symbolic of what God would do in your life. Today's Christianity is more of a rip off of early Christianity )) derived and adapted as slogans from passages found in the New Testament.

Early Christianity was like a flower opening in spring. Today's Christianity is more like a dead autumn leaf getting blown off the branches of a tree that is drying up and losing its leaves.

Early Christianity was a truly spiritual experience. Today's Christianity is more of a religion that exists mostly on paper.

 

[GlorytoGod]

Today's Christianity is more of a religion that exists mostly on paper.

LOL thats so not true, not in my experience anyway and not in my church either

 

[Faithfulservant]

? That wasn't in reply to my post was it?

I wasn't twisting nothing just stating,(from the "indentified sinner's" pov) which I feel is obvious, that they will be irritated and and become defensive/aggressive when a helpful person lets them know their actions are accountable to your god.

No Alex that was strictly for wils benefit.

 

[Faithfulservant]

The question is, what does Jesus mean to you? Jesus can't obviously mean the same thing to someone else as he does to you if he were to have value to another person.

It's become quite a habit by fundamentalists to say "Jesus is the way . . . Jesus is the way . . .," but what does it mean? Jesus didn't go around saying, "I am the way, I am the way, I am the way." He probably only said it once. Maybe Jesus and his disciples were sitting under a tree, and because of some deep soul-searching that his disciples needed to do where they weren't doing it right, Jesus needed to guide and correct them. He needed to guide and correct them about what they were doing in their search for God.

Jesus didn't go around saying, "I am the way, I am the way, I am the way" because the situation didn't call for it. The statement he made about being the "way-shower" had so much value because of the timing of his words.

Jesus wasn't rude or obnoxious about the so-called "Way," and nor do I think his number one purpose in life, from the moment he was born, was to leap out of the blue and blurt out "I am the way."

He probably didn't even plan on saying it. Ever. He said it because out of the random, transient comings and goings of life, his disciples needed to be set straight, and somehow, Jesus decided that speaking of "the Way" was the way to go. If that is the way, then frequently saying "he is the way, he is the way" isn't the way to go, because it's not how Jesus did it. You wouldn't be following the Way Jesus followed.

Not only can statements like "Jesus is the only way" be rude and obnoxious, but I don't even think Jesus did it that way. When Jesus made that statement, it would have happened so naturally, like it was a call of nature, like a flower opening up in the spring. Jesus probably didn't say it on purpose. It's not that it was an accident, I just think it happened in the space of about ten minutes, where Jesus thought, "I'll call myself the way-shower as a way of demonstrating a concept, and hopefully they'll understand."

This was probably what made the experience of Jesus so soothing, uplifting and pacifying. The concepts he projected out into people's minds were not forced. He let it happen naturally.

To get to the point I want to make, there is something about saying "Jesus is the only way" where you can almost be somewhat inconsiderate of the person who is receiving your message.

I don't believe that Christianity got out in the start from being inconsiderate, rude or obnoxious. Jesus and his followers would not only have been considerate of the people receiving their respective, individual messages, but they didn't deliberately form friendships for the sole purpose of blurting out the line, "I am the way" or "he is the way."

The communal faith of Christianity didn't rest on saying "he is the Way, he is the way" because it couldn't all be summed up in one single statement. It was both an individual and communal experience. Each individual found their place in the community, and therefore, the kingdom of God.

Saying "he is the way" isn't a very personal statement and people can't always find personal value in that statement. Moreover, I think even other Christians would be offended because it's like you're saying you know Christianity better than they do, and when you do that, you detract from the communal experience where everybody has a place, everybody makes their contribution and people share a life where they seek a common goal: finding and connecting with God, which is what I think the "Way" is all about.

But it's not just about saying "he is the way" all the time. I think it goes with just about everything else in Christianity, especially with slogans adapted from passages in the New Testament. The trouble with slogans adapted from the written tradition is that you'd be forgetting that the early Christians didn't have a New Testament. The New Testament didn't exist.

Christianity was new. There was no New Testament so you had to sort of "make it up" as you went. But without a New Testament, a written tradition, how could the early Christians have known what to do?

Well, there were several things. There was the individual one-to-one experience of Jesus through a direct encounter, the speeches he made, the Jewish traditions, the communal experience of being a part of the newly forming religion of Christianity, which was never really set in stone, and the Spirit which led the early Christians individually and collectively.

The chief difference between today's Christians and the early Christians is lack of imagination and creativity. Early Christianity was a religion that emerged from scratch, from little more than the experience of having one man in your life as symbolic of what God would do in your life. Today's Christianity is more of a rip off of early Christianity )) derived and adapted as slogans from passages found in the New Testament.

Early Christianity was like a flower opening in spring. Today's Christianity is more like a dead autumn leaf getting blown off the branches of a tree that is drying up and losing its leaves.

Early Christianity was a truly spiritual experience. Today's Christianity is more of a religion that exists mostly on paper.

Jesus did go around saying "Im the way Im the way" lol

He said I wam the way the truth and the life noone comes to the father but by me..

He also said for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever beleiveth in me shall not perish but have everlasting life..

Im also very plainspeaking that I believe in the bible.... LITERALLY. I dont treat it like a buffet and take bits and pieces and throw the rest in the trash.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Jesus also asked Paul why was Paul persecuting HIM and not the Christians he was killing... think about that.

something else you said salty that I just realized I needed to address.. you believe that the Christianity of today is a paper thing.. Im thinking you are referencing the fact that people like me actually believe the bible... well since the Christians didnt become Christians until after the death of the apostles.. It was a paper thing then... AND before because they all believed and studied the scriptures. They believed everything that was written by their forefathers just as much as I believe what was written by MY forefathers of my faith..

So thats really kind of a lame comment and based on what everyone today thinks Christianity should be

 

[Saltmeister]

LOL thats so not true, not in my experience anyway and not in my church either

My question is, how can Christianity be brought back to life? How can we live, think and breathe like the "little Christs" of the first century?

There were many facets to Jesus. There was the defender of the persecuted and oppressed. There was the great politician who knew how to reprimand people as well as talking his way out of trouble. There was the great teacher who knew how to speak wisdom into the hearts and minds of people individually and collectively, knowing their greatest need at the time.

Jesus was a guy who knew there was a time and place to say and do what he did. He knew when to say something and what to say. He was a wise guy but not a mischievous, amoral wise guy but a benign wise guy. His words and actions were constructive.

He dabbled in politics not to gain political power, but to stand up for what he believed was right. He didn't seek to really change the world, but he did touch and unite large numbers of people. He was a soft power guy who didn't believe in changing the existing socio-political framework, but in finding ways to make himself independent of it.

Self-sufficient, he sacrificed his own life as a martyr. He was willing to let go of his own life. He had no political power nor material possessions that were so important that he couldn't let go of them to pursue what he thought was the right, honourable, noble and dignified way of living and dying.

To hold on to them was to contribute to socio-political persecution and oppression of people in and from society, from the rich and wealthy and from political and religious leaders and from society's judgmentalism. Instead of holding on, he let go.

His followers in the first century were more or less like him, knowing what to say and do. They didn't get their ideas of what to say and do from a book or sacred text. It came straight from the heart, as it did with Jesus.

What I am saying is that many Christians today (or in the past, but after the first century), particularly the fundamentalists, put too much emphasis on the written tradition. I'm not saying we should discard the written tradition, but that the full meaning of Christianity comes from knowing how to think, act and behave without, as well as with the written tradition. Part of it should be thinking outside the box, with the other part inside the box. It's the recognition that the early Christians didn't have a written tradition. What we have is what they gave us.

What contemporary Christianity could lack is the energy and vitality of early Christianity that came from "thinking outside the box." It can often be too confined, attached or limited to the words of the first century in slogans and verses chanted as derived from Scripture. I see the early Christians not as people intensely attached to Scripture, but full of the detached energy and vitality of knowing what to say and do without thinking inside the box of Scripture, despite whatever intimate knowledge they may have had of it.

That is what I say Christianity needs today to be of the same kind of experience as in the first century.

It would be like what God says in Jeremiah 31:34, that "all will know me from the least to the greatest. Nobody will have to teach his neighbour to know the Lord." (paraphrased)

 

[Faithfulservant]

Please read my post before yours.. I addressed the "written tradition" Remember that Jesus observed all the "written traditions" and created a few more...

We believe we are reviving by being the church of philedelphia the church of brotherly love... something that this world is lacking very much.

You would never say any of these things if you spend a few sundays in my church.. our church motto is Love Never Fails which is practiced and not just preached.

 

[17th Angel]

Ah righty oh, I have been getting confused latley sorry.

 

[Marsh]

Love your neighbor and ye without sin cast the first stone.

We're taught to forgive, so that we may be forgiven. What that implies is that some things are wrong, Wil. Where I live, there's a HUGE push for Christians to accept things that God forbade us to do as being normal, because society has moved on from those times. In other words, to take things that are wrong and say that they are no longer wrong because saying that they are wrong may hurt someone's feelings. Then, when someone like Faithfulservant stands up and says that something is wrong, he gets branded as an insensitive Bible thumper (in my estimation you haven't done this, by the way; you just disagreed. I'm just saying that this is the growing tendency).

I think abortion is wrong, because life is a gift, and aborting it is like throwing the gift back in God's face.

I think that having sex with anyone who is not your wife or husband is wrong, because it makes a mockery of intimacy.

I think that marriage involves a woman and a man, and so I don't agree with gay marriage.

I think that a homosexual lifestyle is not the lifestyle that God intended for people when he created them. I can't say that I'm "against gay people," because that doesn't make sense to me, but I don't find homosexuality to be normal.

I think that Jesus is the son of God, and that he was sent to us as our messiah, and any religion that denies these things is, in my estimation, a false religion.

I think that people who get divorced for any reason other than spousal abuse or unfaithfulness have failed. If you loved each other enough to get married and can't figure out a way to make things work, you didn't try hard enough.

Though I don't believe in stoning, I wouldn't feel sorry for any adulterer who got the snot beat out of them. Serves them right for breaking up a marriage.

Pornography warps the human mind and makes a mockery of the relationship between men and women. People who watch porn are poisoning themselves.

I think that a mother who would rather put her children into daycare so that she can go out and pursue her career is completely selfish. Any father who would not immediately quit his job to stand in the gap has let his child down.



These are all things that I believe, and I'll leave it at that for now. Can't wait for the feedback; anybody got a helmet I can borrow?

 

[Saltmeister]

Jesus did go around saying "Im the way Im the way" lol. He said I wam the way the truth and the life noone comes to the father but by me..

If he was the Way, there was also a right way and wrong way to say it. He would have been following the Way himself when he said it. That's what I'm saying. He didn't say it without decency, consideration and due respect for the people listening.

Such a statement is very political. For anyone to make such a claim, they have to justify why their statement is so important to the world. I am just saying that Jesus would have made sure he did that. He wouldn't have done so recklessly. I don't think we should either. After all, Christians are "little Christs."

Im also very plainspeaking that I believe in the bible.... LITERALLY. I dont treat it like a buffet and take bits and pieces and throw the rest in the trash.

I don't either, but I try to see things in context. The matter of discovering the full meaning of Christianity is not a matter of shoehorning a past culture into the present, nor of pushing it aside because one thinks today's culture is superior and therefore yesterday's is inferior and irrelevant, but of thinking what the issues of the past mean for us today. It's a process called exegesis.

What did Jesus/Christianity mean then and what do they mean now?

Jesus also asked Paul why was Paul persecuting HIM and not the Christians he was killing... think about that.

Paul became a "little Christ." Aren't Christians supposed to be an embodiment of Jesus? Doesn't Jesus live in the Christians of the generations that came after? Didn't he say he'd live with us in the Spirit? Paul was said by Jesus to be persecuting him because Jesus lived in the early Christians. Moreover, as I said, Christians are "little Christs."

Paul was, in many ways, like Jesus. He opposed legalism, judgmentalism and attachment to dogma. His views were controversial, as were Jesus' own views when he was around. That was, actually, how Paul saw the crucifixion. He saw Jesus as a liberator from legalism, judgmentalism and attachment to dogma, because it was legalism, judgmentalism and attachment to dogma that led to his execution. Paul was a "little Christ."

Maybe my own views are controversial to the religious establishment, but so were those of Jesus and Paul. One must realise that Christianity itself is now a full-blown religion, so it now has the same problems of just about any religion in terms of ideological loyalty to a "religious establishment." It's not that I'm trying to shoehorn myself into that revered place of Jesus and Paul in this 2,000-year old religion. I'm just saying that this is what Jesus and Paul mean to me. I don't have to accept the demands of the religious establishment because Christianity to me isn't defined by the religious establishment. I'm not saying you or anyone is part of it. I am just saying that we have to beware of what the religious establishment does.

The religious establishment does today what it did 2,000 years ago. It turns us into robots and makes us slaves of dogma and ideology. It tells people what to believe. It's like Big Brother 1984. It is watching you, seeking to control what you think and believe. Jesus and Paul, however, were anarchists and individualists, and I see myself the same way.

One must understand that this is a another facet of Jesus and Christianity and is partly what Christianity is about. Yes, traditionally, we are taught that Christianity is about Jesus dying for our sins, but if you miss this facet of Christianity, I think you'd be seeing less of the full meaning of Christianity. You may have been conditioned or have learnt to think of Christianity some other way, and I don't dispute its validity because I acknowledge it as another facet of Jesus/Christianity, but this way of thinking of Christianity that I am describing is also valid because it was about what Jesus fought and opposed socially and politically.

Christianity has developed its own "religious establishment" in the 2,000 years from then to now. It took its form in the Middle Ages in the Roman Catholic Church and now in the Protestant Churches that broke away from it with their various creeds, pastors, presbyters and priests.

Local churches have their own "religious establishments," and it is often tempting for them to enslave their members. Power corrupts. They enslave their members by encouraging them to chant slogans and that if they don't, they aren't "Christian."

Devotion to Jesus is great, but one must be careful not to become slaves of the religious establishment through the chanting of slogans and waving of bumper stickers. This is what Jesus and Paul were against. One must keep one's individuality.

Keep your dignity and self-respect as Jesus and Paul did. They didn't give in to the religious establishment (as Paul described in Galatians).

We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. Galatians 2:5

 

[Saltmeister]

Marsh, aren't you being a bit judgmental here? Is there no room for human weakness, for understanding?

I think abortion is wrong, because life is a gift, and aborting it is like throwing the gift back in God's face.

There are a number of things I dislike about this abortion issue. Firstly, men don't have to bear the burdens of childbirth. I don't like the idea that a woman must be condemned, demonised and vilified as a murderer just because she has to make a decision about her body. It can just be unfair.

I think you have to weigh killing what some people consider to be a "living soul." against doing emotional damage to a woman.

Moreover, the child hasn't even been born yet. It has not entered this world. It has not experienced life. It has never tasted ice creams, watched television or experienced laughter, sadness and humour. It doesn't have a career and emotional needs. It has never heard a story or listened to music.

The emotional needs of the woman carrying the baby are more significant than that of the unborn child. To put a woman through the condemnation and judgmentalism that accompanies the act of abortion to me can be just as cruel to her, and maybe even more, than what the unborn child suffers. The unborn child doesn't even know what this all means, and very often, emotional pain is worse than physical pain.

Would should we put a woman through all that?

What would you say about me stepping on insects and killing moths?

I think that a homosexual lifestyle is not the lifestyle that God intended for people when he created them. I can't say that I'm "against gay people," because that doesn't make sense to me, but I don't find homosexuality to be normal.

I think if you were to actually ask homosexuals how they felt, they'd tell you it wasn't a lifestyle. It's not a matter of how they live, but what they are and how they feel.

I think that Jesus is the son of God, and that he was sent to us as our messiah, and any religion that denies these things is, in my estimation, a false religion.

Judaism denies these things, but it can't be a false religion because if it were, Christianity would be false too, but Christianity is derived from Judaism.

I think that people who get divorced for any reason other than spousal abuse or unfaithfulness have failed. If you loved each other enough to get married and can't figure out a way to make things work, you didn't try hard enough.

But why do things have to be so perfect? Aren't you putting pressure on people?

Methinks this is why a lot of people have affairs. They are under pressure. It's an escape. Someone has emotional needs and needs appreciation. He/she isn't getting it. To not have an affair is to ask for persecution and oppression. It would be insane to subject yourself to constant emotional abuse and allow the other person to get what they want at your own expense. Can you live life that way?

Though I don't believe in stoning, I wouldn't feel sorry for any adulterer who got the snot beat out of them. Serves them right for breaking up a marriage.

I think it happens because people aren't whole or complete. That shouldn't be a reason to hate or condemn someone. What if you did that? Would you beat yourself to a pulp? One should never make standards to which they cannot conform. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled. Whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

I think that a mother who would rather put her children into daycare so that she can go out and pursue her career is completely selfish. Any father who would not immediately quit his job to stand in the gap has let his child down.

Oh come on. I understand you're trying to be practical here, but someone could just as well accuse you of misogyny. On the other hand, you may also be asking too much of men. It disturbs me when people can't tolerate weakness in men. Sometimes I think that the standards that society sets for men and women borders on being a kind of persecution and oppression.

When that happens, I hope God will send Jesus to rescue me, as Jesus' name in Greek means, "God rescues."

These are all things that I believe, and I'll leave it at that for now. Can't wait for the feedback; anybody got a helmet I can borrow?

I think I need the helmet more than you do. Just like Jesus and Paul 2,000 years ago, I'll probably get stoned by a bunch of Bible Thumpers. I could assert that I was a "little Christ" but I don't think they'd care. They didn't care when Jesus called God his Father, so I wonder what will happen . . .

 

[GlorytoGod]

My question is, how can Christianity be brought back to life?

for a start its not dead.

How can we live, think and breathe like the "little Christs" of the first century?

thats for us to discover I think.

 

[wil]

These are all things that I believe, and I'll leave it at that for now. Can't wait for the feedback; anybody got a helmet I can borrow?

lol, you need no helmet for personal moral beliefs. My question is name the scripture that speak against abortion and homosexuality....and why folks are so vehement about that and ignore the texts around it.

 

[GlorytoGod]

abortion is murder

 

[Quahom1]

This comes from one of the other threads, on which the idea was raised that certain Biblical views that are unpopular due to their political-incorrectness are subject to censorship on web post forums, while other moderate, apologetic, sugar-coated beliefs are promoted over them.

Here's my question: Must Christians keep any Biblically-inspired yet politically-incorrect beliefs that they might have to themselves for the sake of "playing nicely" with others, or may/should Christians speak their minds freely on issues of faith, even if it means offending people with whom our beliefs clash?


Is watered-down faith any faith at all? Does the truth not set people free, and thus by hiding that truth or by sugar-coating it, are we being faithful?

At the same time, since nobody wants to be offended are we loving others when we say things that we know come across as offending, even if we truly believe them?

Fisrt off, give to ceasar what is ceasar's , and to God what is God's.

Second is the description of oh to play:

"If I speak with the languages of men and of angels, but don't have love, I have become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but don't have love, I am nothing. 3 If I dole out all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but don't have love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love is patient and is kind; love doesn't envy. Love doesn't brag, is not proud, 5 doesn't behave itself inappropriately, doesn't seek its own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil; 6 doesn't rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will be done away with. Where there are various languages, they will cease. Where there is knowledge, it will be done away with. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; 10 but when that which is complete has come, then that which is partial will be done away with. 11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I was also fully known. 13 But now faith, hope, and love remain--these three. The greatest of these is love.

In short, we don't have to agree. And there are ways in making that clear without actually insulting or yelling about it. Nor do we have to give in to political correctness over our beliefs.

As my mother points out, the sound of a silent look can be deafening...

 

[Gatekeeper]

What's the point?

This comes from one of the other threads, on which the idea was raised that certain Biblical views that are unpopular due to their political-incorrectness are subject to censorship on web post forums, while other moderate, apologetic, sugar-coated beliefs are promoted over them.

Here's my question: Must Christians keep any Biblically-inspired yet politically-incorrect beliefs that they might have to themselves for the sake of "playing nicely" with others, or may/should Christians speak their minds freely on issues of faith, even if it means offending people with whom our beliefs clash?


Is watered-down faith any faith at all? Does the truth not set people free, and thus by hiding that truth or by sugar-coating it, are we being faithful?

At the same time, since nobody wants to be offended are we loving others when we say things that we know come across as offending, even if we truly believe them?

Seriously, we all have different views of what truth is, yet none of us know with certainty that our views are in fact truth. We simply take on faith that either scripture describes G-d accurately, or that we have somehow been lead into truth by some other means. Is it all worth getting worked up over and defensive, or even nasty in response to others whom seem to be against our personal convictions? What are we trying to prove? Are we attempting to change minds, or are we simply attempting to justify what we ourselves believe?

I’m done arguing for, and trying to convince others to adhere to what I myself view to be true. I will admit that I don’t have all the answers, and allow everyone the freedom of personal interpretation without interfering with ridicule of their beliefs. "Getting nowhere fast." That is exactly what we all do when we argue, and bicker over religion. (We get nowhere fast). If you know you got it all right, then you are more than likely a fool.

I myself believe in Love, unity, and living in peace with my fellow man. I need to stay true to this, and cease from being a stumbling block to those who view things differently than myself. You will not see me ridiculing, or trying to expose in others what I personally believe to be shortcomings. I choose to be me, and I’m choosing now to let you be you. No matter the consequences you, or I might face in the end.

I no longer call myself a Christian, though. I follow Christ, but my dogma differs greatly from the orthodox definition of a Christian. I will simply worry about me, and about being a light to those around me. (Labels serve no real purpose other than to identify with certain groups ~ some of which I want no part of anymore) I’m ditching the baggage called religion, and I’m staying true to what I myself believe about G-d. (That He is love, and that He expects me to live in peace and love my neighbor as myself).

So, what's the point? What exactly are we fighting for? What's the purpose behind our disputes. What does it all serve? I myself favor civil discussions where both parties are open to reason. I get disgusted at the bitter rivalries, and the "I'm right, and you're wrong" attitudes. Seems to me to be a waste of time, that could be better spent trying to understand where others are coming from. I think we all have something to offer after all. Why not admit that we truly know very little, and allow ourselves further insight from those who might be more aware of reality than ourselves?

James

 

[17th Angel]

abortion is murder

I wonder how far some are willing to take the "murder card".... Oh my abortion is murder you terrible barstewards!!! But I'll happily eat an animal.... I'll happily stand on a bug, I'll use germ killers and flea killers and pesticides and not even flinch... HECK I'll even eat a yoghurt!!!... But you baby killers are murderers!!E!£!"£$ AARGH lol....

 

[Saltmeister]

I wonder how far some are willing to take the "murder card".... Oh my abortion is murder you terrible barstewards!!! But I'll happily eat an animal.... I'll happily stand on a bug, I'll use germ killers and flea killers and pesticides and not even flinch... HECK I'll even eat a yoghurt!!!... But you baby killers are murderers!!E!£!"£$ AARGH lol....

Well, that's the thing. I routinely kill bugs in my house. Bugs are a pest. Anybody who says I don't have a right to kill bugs that invade my home I will personally strike on the head with a baseball bat. People who say that are a pest and shouldn't have a right to live in this world. (Perhaps I should go further and say they should all burn in hell!)

I shall, therefore, present an alternative counter-argument.

My house is a vessel. A woman's body is also a vessel. The owner of a vessel has a right to kill pests that invade that vessel. I have a right to kill bugs that invade my home. A woman, therefore, should have a right to kill babies that invade their body.

Babies are a pest.

Abortion isn't murder. It's just the routine domestic maintenance job of keeping a vessel clean of bugs, insects and pests. When a baby doesn't belong in the vessel the baby's got to go. Bye bye baby! Shoo! Go back where you came from! Get out of my vessel, you insect!

 

[iBrian]

Well, that's the thing. I routinely kill bugs in my house. Bugs are a pest. Anybody who says I don't have a right to kill bugs that invade my home I will personally strike on the head with a baseball bat. People who say that are a pest and shouldn't have a right to live in this world. (Perhaps I should go further and say they should all burn in hell!)

I shall, therefore, present an alternative counter-argument.

My house is a vessel. A woman's body is also a vessel. The owner of a vessel has a right to kill pests that invade that vessel. I have a right to kill bugs that invade my home. A woman, therefore, should have a right to kill babies that invade their body.

Babies are a pest.

Abortion isn't murder. It's just the routine domestic maintenance job of keeping a vessel clean of bugs, insects and pests. When a baby doesn't belong in the vessel the baby's got to go. Bye bye baby! Shoo! Go back where you came from! Get out of my vessel, you insect!

Then along comes some bloke with a funny moustache who argues that the world is their vessel to protect, and it's full of pests called Jews...

I think a point a lot of people seem to overlook with abortion in this thread is that it is the taking of human life. The ethical question is how developed - if at all that life is - but it would be remarkable to call babies "pests"!

 

[Quahom1]

Then along comes some bloke with a funny moustache who argues that the world is their vessel to protect, and it's full of pests called Jews...

I think a point a lot of people seem to overlook with abortion in this thread is that it is the taking of human life. The ethical question is how developed - if at all that life is - but it would be remarkable to call babies "pests"!

Spoken like a father...