I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul

Relative to most Christians you seem too be a sympathic individual becouse you has raised your version of "Goodness" at least little bit above the weakness of others "goodess".

If what you have written is true and well expressed then you have formed a personal intelligent idea of your religion and stayed dedicated to it.

So I believe you may actually manage to use the optimism and mental energy that faith brings for something constructive, something few manage too.

Even though perhaps obviously I am antipathic to Christianity,
I think credit and admiration should be given for ones merits.
 
Satanist said:
Relative to most Christians you seem too be a sympathic individual becouse you has raised your version of "Goodness" at least little bit above the weakness of others "goodess".

If what you have written is true and well expressed then you have formed a personal intelligent idea of your religion and stayed dedicated to it.

So I believe you may actually manage to use the optimism and mental energy that faith brings for something constructive, something few manage too.

Even though perhaps obviously I am antipathic to Christianity,
I think credit and admiration should be given for ones merits.

I think care is in order here. This is the Christianity forum. Though your opinion is valid, where you express it might not be so appreciated, particularly when it counters what the particular forum stands for. ;)


v/r

Q

moderator-Christian Forum
 
That was a fine post Juan!

Sometimes we must deal with people who wish to force their views upon us. What do we do with them? My answer lay in the realization that we all must answer to God for ourselves, we cannot answer for any other, and no other can answer for us. I am not held accountable for the sins of my fathers, any more than my fathers are held accountable for my sins. If one wishes to force his views upon me, he will meet with stiff resistance. So it is, that tolerance is not acceptance. I must tolerate, I am not required to accept. Likewise, all of this works in reverse as well, I cannot force my views on anybody. Yet Christians are called to evangelize, to witness, to spread the Word. Yes, we are, but we are to do so in a loving, gentle manner, convincing and persuading, not forcing. When we find our words falling on deaf ears, there is no sense in further wasting our breath. Once we have planted a seed, we cannot make it grow, that is up to God and the individual. The greatest witness a Christian could possibly present to anybody, is the example of his life. People do watch, looking for the first little slip up, to justify to themselves how frivolous and senseless Christianity can sometimes be. Christianity is a way of life, 24 / 7 / 365. Most Christians I have ever known, are only Christian when it is convenient. At other times, they do as they damn well please, figuring they can say a prayer of repentance and stick a couple of bucks in an offering plate and are absolved of the matter, at least until the next time. Non-Christians watch in disbelieving amazement, and shake their heads in dismay. And Christians wonder why there is such animosity against their faith…

Just a couple of observations from my own experience:

First, you really can't ever know at the time what you might say to someone that will stick, be meaningful, and make a difference in a person's life.

Second, a lot of Christians put a lot of effort into cultivating a persecution complex. The "world" is after them. Nobody outside the box watching Christians and making a list of all the times they screw up. We're all human. But if you're up on a soap box haranguing people and you get caught...yeah, everybody's gonna notice.

And third, a lot of people who aren't religious go out of their way to accomodate the folks who are. But the religious folks don't even seem to notice. When my parents come to my house we turn the T.V. off so they can have their Sabbath, and we cook vegetarian for them, and we listen politely to whatever they're ranting on about and never argue with them...and all the while they're trying to proselytize us and frothing on and on about the "world" and how it's coming to get them. They're oblivious to the idea that maybe they should respect us and our way of doing things, and they don't even realize the hoops we jump through so they can be comfortable. It's all just taken for granted.

I work with a couple of JW's. We don't have a company Christmas party because we don't want them to feel unappreciated and left out. They don't care. It would never occur to them to reciprocate and accomodate the rest of us sometimes.

I don't know that I'm the total master of my fate, since fate is such an elastic subjective thing. Plenty of stuff happens that I don't see coming.

Chris
 
Kindest Regards, China Cat!
China Cat Sunflower said:
That was a fine post Juan!
[blush]Aww, shucks...coming from you that really means a lot...[/blush]

you really can't ever know at the time what you might say to someone that will stick, be meaningful, and make a difference in a person's life.
True. The source escapes me at the moment, but I seem to recall a quote something about the tragedy is not in having tried and failed, but in not having tried at all. The difference I think is timing and manner. The soapbox standers believe a bullhorn on a rooftop is going to win converts to Christ. Funny, I have yet to meet anyone who was brought to Christ through volume. Guilt trip, maybe. Raw volume, nah. And a guilt trip only lasts just so long before it wears off, probably why that particular sermon gets a frequent repeat in some circles.

No, these are not effective ways of displaying the teachings of Christ. Living one's life in a noble, courageous manner with the guidance of Christ's teachings is the most effective advertisement for Christianity that there is. One needn't be a saint (although that can't hurt), but quietly doing for others goes a long way. A kind word at the appropriate moment, encouragement when a friend is down, a shoulder to cry on; it is things like these that go far in spreading the Good News.

a lot of Christians put a lot of effort into cultivating a persecution complex. The "world" is after them. Nobody outside the box watching Christians and making a list of all the times they screw up. We're all human. But if you're up on a soap box haranguing people and you get caught...yeah, everybody's gonna notice.
Yes, I believe this "complex" is partly a denominational thing (it seems to me some sects encourage this POV) and partly the conclusions of an immature believer (read that: "newbie") who hasn't looked deeply into Christian teachings. In my experience, there are a number of sects that focus their emphasis on what I call "the pablum" of the Word, who don't ever quite get around to being weaned and begin chewing on the meat of the Word. Still gotta luv 'em.

a lot of people who aren't religious go out of their way to accomodate the folks who are. But the religious folks don't even seem to notice. When my parents come to my house we turn the T.V. off so they can have their Sabbath, and we cook vegetarian for them, and we listen politely to whatever they're ranting on about and never argue with them...and all the while they're trying to proselytize us and frothing on and on about the "world" and how it's coming to get them. They're oblivious to the idea that maybe they should respect us and our way of doing things, and they don't even realize the hoops we jump through so they can be comfortable. It's all just taken for granted.

I work with a couple of JW's. We don't have a company Christmas party because we don't want them to feel unappreciated and left out. They don't care. It would never occur to them to reciprocate and accomodate the rest of us sometimes.
Inconsideration is not a religious thing...it is a matter of etiquette, manners and upbringing.

There is an element I cannot name, I don't know to call it arrogance or superiority or ignorance or what, that goes with religion when tied with power. In the case of your parents, they have that "parent" card to play (and it is well that you do what you do). With the "specific" JW's you mention, I suspect they are in a postion of power, otherwise they would not get to call the shots on something like Christmas.

In a perfect world, at least as I see it, if "you" want to celebrate Christmas and I do not, then I will not interfere with your celebration. In return, I would expect you to allow me to celebrate those Holy Days that I desire to celebrate, like maybe Passover, without interference. Frankly, I could care less who celebrates Christmas and who doesn't. Where I have issues is with people telling me, at the top of their lungs, that I am wrong to celebrate Passover and I should be celebrating Christmas instead. Might does not make right, volume doesn't infer right either. This has analogies across far more than celebrating holidays. For instance, a gay pride parade. If you're gonna participate, more power to ya! But don't use it as a platform to get in my face. I still disagree, politely, and I respectfully keep my opinion *mostly* to myself. Don't expect me to participate, or encourage, or watch. Or sympathize or empathize. In return, I will live and let live, and I expect the same courtesy in return. Don't extend that courtesy...and watch the sparks fly. Do unto others works both ways...:D

I will answer to G-d for my actions, just as everyone else will answer to G-d for each of their actions. I can't get you to heaven, you can't get me there. So I guess we both gotta find our way, and the path isn't really well marked; there's a lot of road construction, missing signs, detours, tempting off-ramps and other obstacles and distractions. All we can realistically hope is to stay the course and hope we get where we are aiming to end up.

I don't know that I'm the total master of my fate, since fate is such an elastic subjective thing. Plenty of stuff happens that I don't see coming.
I agree. That is why I said I am master of my fate, although I answer to a Higher Master, and captain of my soul although I answer to a Superior Officer. Perhaps a subtle difference, but a significant one. G-d wants "us" to do for Him. My actions show Him I am willing (or not) to abide His request. Life is full of miracles, of undeserved mercy and grace granted. And life can have its moments of seemingly undeserved perils and pitfalls. I can't help but think life is about lessons...can we abide in G-d's graces through the good and the bad?

Thank you very much for your critique, Chris. It is appreciated. :)
 
Juan,

Thank you for your kind reply. You wrote a splendid piece. You thought deeply and then communicated your thoughts. You took the time to offer an expansive reply to my small post. You have my respect and admiration.

I just want to say something about empathy: Empathy isn't the same thing as sympathy. I can empathise with people I disagree with. It's a matter of trying to see things from their perspective. It doesn't require my agreement or participation. I can heartily oppose your position and still understand where you're coming from. I think this is a very important skill to acquire considering the polarization of political rhetoric that's occurring with a vengeance right now.

But back to the topic: I am the master of my fate in every important respect. What counts is what I do or don't do, not the plausibility of the excuse I can construct for not doing what I should, or said I would. I don't care how "saved" you think you are, it doesn't compensate for a lack of personal responsibility. The Bible hammers this point. God helps those who help themselves.

Chris
 
This thread seems misplaced, belonging in the philosophy or politics section. That a person can learn from the mistakes or crime of others as a moral compass I suppose is relevant in the world, but I submit it is not Christianity. Why is this sticky here?

Tim McVeigh was ex-army who fought in Kuwait and then felt the need to attack the US government. It was not claimed as a religiously inspired act. He was not a regular church goer. He was not inspired to force people to a religion. He did not quote from Revelations. The former decorated soldier for killing people in Kuwait expressed issues with the government actions at Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidians, and he attacked a government building and the people inside it. Not to condone the crime and the act of condemning anyone, but it is one crime out of many, many crimes in the USA. Why is one crime getting a spotlight here as an example of intolerance? There are many examples of crimes against a person, people, or the US government... and it is democratic in fact to be intolerant of actions and decisions of the government, as judged by each individual taxpayer. It is democratic to stand up and struggle opposed against the government... to vote the criminals out... to demand more rights... to demand new laws... to recall Gray Davis and put the Terminator in. So why teach tolerance with Tim McVeigh? Should we teach democracy with Hitler? Tim McVeigh took the intolerance to condemnation. Rather than JUDGE, stage a protest and communicate himself or otherwise struggle with the government, he planted a bomb and CONDEMNED a small unrelated part of it. He wanted to hit the big government bully in the nose to teach it a lesson in the same way that he was taught by the military to do in Kuwait. I suggest that those who knew Tim McVeigh are also guilty for not having identified it in him and JUDGED it first. Who taught the man to CONDEMN?

I find that religious tolerance is promoted in the USA by law with the individual freedom of religion. There are noted exceptions with polygamy and the use of illicit drugs. That is not to say that some adherents of one religion are not driven to want to physically remove someone else from the face of the Earth... it means that each individual gets to choose their beliefs and find God or meaning to life in their way. Master of fate, captain of soul.
 
Kindest Regards, Cyberpi!

While your points regarding McVeigh, etc., are quite valid, it misses the point. I was relating an incident in my life. This is my "testamony," although I am loath to use that particular term. At no point in my post do I recall saying McVeigh acted as or on behalf of Christians (although, as you pointed to, he did act in part on behalf of Christians at Waco).

The lesson was the end result of intolerance, and extreme prejudice. It was aimed at a particular person who was behaving quite prejudicial and intolerant on the Christianity boards.

So, while your points of McVeigh being ex-army and his actions aimed at the government, the point and the reasoning still stands...it was me who quoted Revelations, I did not suggest McVeigh quoted Revelations. I did quote McVeigh quoting Henley.

Since it seems a rather frequently asked question, this thread and the other similar are stickied in part because Brian initially thought it well to do so, and in part because I tire of writing new threads to chastise the intolerant bigots among us.

While this may well be appropo in other sections like philosophy or even politics, it was written specifically from the vantage of my Christian faith walk, and how I in combination with a militia-mindset was headed in the exact same direction McVeigh was. Oklahoma City was my personal wake up call to the danger inherent in intolerance.

In my mind, that lesson is further borne out by the actions of September 11, 2001. And you are quite correct, also borne out by a host of other actions perpetrated with extreme prejudice by intolerant bigots of various stripes, not solely Christian.
 
Juantoo3,
Ok thanks for explaining the intent. I think where I differ, and I am surely drawing from a former exchange, is on the polar difference between a word and a stone. If you still believe the two are sometimes the same then you are in good company, but I'm not in it. It seemed to me in your intellectual or enlightening post, throwing a stone (a bomb) was being supplanted or compared to words that might reveal intolerance, disrespect, or bigotry within a person. If you think about it, if someone's goal is to use a forum to help people to see something or learn something, then words counter to the lesson are to be expected. Sort of like mistakes on homework are to be expected. Like the Jane Elliot experiment, being in the situation helps to get even a person who denies it, to see and understand it.

I ascribe to the words_can_not_hurt club, and as an example I noticed soon after 9/11 that terrorist web pages were removed for 'inciting hatred' by the government, or by vigilantes. They were censored. CONDEMNED. No free speech. I find that was a BIG MISTAKE. People need to see it and to judge it. It favors the cause. Without the examples we live in ignorance of the people we live with. Imagine if any words from Tim McVeigh and the news of the bombing were censored from the news entirely for fear that others might feel the hatred and also bomb the US government?! In some countries that would be the case. I do not mean to diminish the counter-lesson provided by Mr. McVeigh of what not to do, only that I do not see the application of what Jesus taught in it. Timothy McVeigh threw real stones, he was rebuked, I don't know if he repented, but he was certainly not forgiven. He too was condemned. Lesson learned?

I should note, that nowhere do you call for censorship. I'm there with you to rebuke intolerance or bigotry, but I belong to the 'words_can_only_do_good' club. I have been mislead by lies, but I recognize that those lies also served a purpose. They revealed something.

I think where confusion in Christianity can arise is that Jesus made 'generalizations' about Pharisees, Jews, or tax collectors. Taken into context of those who were there at that moment to hear the words, the generalizations serve as a means to communicate. Taken to mean that a Pharisee is definitively not righteous and is not going to heaven then it becomes an example of racism or ethnocentrism. In my view, seeing a person by the genes or ethnicity instead of by the willful actions is simply anti-Christian. Similar to seeing the father instead of the Father in a person. On that I think we agree.
 
Hey juantoo3 —

For some reason I've never read your post until now. I wish I'd read it sooner.

Wise, wise words ...

Pax tecum, and a heartfelt thanks,

Thomas
 
Hey juantoo3 —

For some reason I've never read your post until now. I wish I'd read it sooner.

Wise, wise words ...

Pax tecum, and a heartfelt thanks,

Thomas

Like the Bible, we don't see until it is time to see...

you agree?
 
So banning or censoring an alleged bigot is considered... tolerance? Intolerance of intolerance? Not in my religion.
 
Good thing I don't follow your religion.
Love a bigot as you love yourself? Do unto a bigot as you would that the bigots do unto you?

Or is it: Ban a bigot and make him someone else's neighbor instead?! Love your neighbor... unless he is an uncivil bigot?!

I wonder what religion Christ approves of.
 
Love a bigot as you love yourself? Do unto a bigot as you would that the bigots do unto you?

Or is it: Ban a bigot and make him someone else's neighbor instead?! Love your neighbor... unless he is an uncivil bigot?!

I wonder what religion Christ approves of.

I think that is "neighbor", not qualifier as bigot...that is a "judgment" call...
 
Love a sinner differently than you love yourself? Do unto a sinner differently than you would that others do unto you? Ban a sinner and make him someone else's neighbor?
 
Back
Top