citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
My God has one face for all people.
Some see it from a different angle, but it is the same face.
The love He feels for one, is the love He feels for all.
One Way: the reason why Christian ecumenicalism is impossible
- Thread starter holysmoke
- Start date
My God has one face for all people.
Some see it from a different angle, but it is the same face.
The love He feels for one, is the love He feels for all.
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Prajna Paramita, dude.
"A formless field of benefaction."
Boundless compassion and wisdom.
If that's not God, what is?
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I've been struggling with this. My sense is/has been that the Atonement means we are acceptable to G-d despite our failings and that there is no reason to think that our attempts at virtue will influence G-d's love in any way. It's a "done deal,"so to speak.
In fact, I believe the Bible tells us that faith is the only necessary condition for salvation. Attempts as virtue can be seen as expressions of faith, but they would not be essential to salvation. This makes sense because our attempts at virtue or good works are often misguided.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Paramita is a human attaiment of virtue, isn't it?
You want me to pull the post where you said "buhdist"? I can do that.
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
What? I misspelled something?
Finally!!!
Someone gets it!!! God want's dialogue with the individual, every day (every minute if possible). He doesn't care about sin...He wants your attention, your time, and your respect. That is all there is. Kudos to you Netti!!!!
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
When deeds are born of intent and ambition they are misguided.
In Buddhism, there are no enlightened persons, only people expressing an enlightenment that has always existed. Their deeds are not misguided.
Um, I thought you just tried to play the (null) buhdist card...
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Indeed.
"Prajna Paramita, dude.
"A formless field of benefaction."
Boundless compassion and wisdom.
If that's not God, what is?"
This is what part of Buhdism?
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Indeed.
"Prajna Paramita, dude.
"A formless field of benefaction."
Boundless compassion and wisdom.
If that's not God, what is?"
This is what part of Buhdism?
A very vital part. Have you not been exposed to much Buddhism?
BTW... that's how it's spelled... Buddhism, Buddhist, etc.
N
Nick_A
Guest
According to Christianity, you don't realize your limitations here. Consider the following idea regardless that it is politically incorrect.
It isn't fashionable to distinguish quality in this way yet it explains a lot. It is through re-birth that one can make the transition between man born of woman and being born of the Spirit and water.
Water means a quality of knowledge and the Spirit provides the emotional quality necessary to acquire the perspective that can make the transition between the highest born of woman and the lowest in heaven.
No one is rejected but rather people reject this awareness. It is the human condition. It may seem unfair yet how many seeds become the plant that dropped them? If we are like a seed with the potential to make this transition, I think you would agree that it is better that the potential is now there for those willing to go for it rather then worrying about fairness.
The wheel of samsara isn't politically correct either since people are unequal but I don't see the sense of calling it unfair. The question is how to deal with it.
That was a deception (read that as an untruth). See you can't try to break Christianity's back. It doesn't do you or anyone else good.
v/r
Q
I don't think most are ready for that...
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
What was a deception? I have lost the ability to read your mind or make sense of your posts.
Why would I try to break Christianity's back? As I've said many times, it is a perfectly fine pathway to God.
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Wil,
your definition of ecumenicalism is that Christ understood I and the father are one? It seems that you and I have quite a different definition.
Will and path_of_one,
This is beginning to become a valuable discussion. I am beginning to think that some people have very different definitions of the word ecumenicalism. I was particularly surprised by the partial definition that path_of_one found:
[Ecumenicalism is] "…promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation." This gives me the feeling that ecumenicalism can only exist between Christian churches and Christians. Do some people use this as their definition? Do some people think that Buddhists, Hindus, etc., are automatically not a part of ecumenicalism?
But let’s press on. Let’s consider some various ideas that may or may not be included in one’s definition of ecumenicalism:
1. We need to get the various religions together, to improve interfaith dialogue, and improve communication between the various faiths.
2. We need to increase everyone’s respect of everyone else’s religion.
3. Everyone has the right to choose which religion they believe in, and I respect that right.
4. I encourage a person to have a different religion than mine, if that is what they really want.
5. Ecumenicalism is only for Christians, or should mainly be a way to spread the Christian message.
~~~
Which of these ideas do people put into their definitions of ecumenicalism? What other ideas should we add to the list?
This is a valuable discussion, in that we are learning that there are large differences in our definitions of ecumenicalism. At least we can all start working towards a definition that everyone agrees on. (Then, we can start working towards ecumenicalism itself, which is the purpose of this Form in the first place.)
your definition of ecumenicalism is that Christ understood I and the father are one? It seems that you and I have quite a different definition.
Will and path_of_one,
This is beginning to become a valuable discussion. I am beginning to think that some people have very different definitions of the word ecumenicalism. I was particularly surprised by the partial definition that path_of_one found:
[Ecumenicalism is] "…promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation." This gives me the feeling that ecumenicalism can only exist between Christian churches and Christians. Do some people use this as their definition? Do some people think that Buddhists, Hindus, etc., are automatically not a part of ecumenicalism?
But let’s press on. Let’s consider some various ideas that may or may not be included in one’s definition of ecumenicalism:
1. We need to get the various religions together, to improve interfaith dialogue, and improve communication between the various faiths.
2. We need to increase everyone’s respect of everyone else’s religion.
3. Everyone has the right to choose which religion they believe in, and I respect that right.
4. I encourage a person to have a different religion than mine, if that is what they really want.
5. Ecumenicalism is only for Christians, or should mainly be a way to spread the Christian message.
~~~
Which of these ideas do people put into their definitions of ecumenicalism? What other ideas should we add to the list?
This is a valuable discussion, in that we are learning that there are large differences in our definitions of ecumenicalism. At least we can all start working towards a definition that everyone agrees on. (Then, we can start working towards ecumenicalism itself, which is the purpose of this Form in the first place.)