In religion the Latin form "elect" is preferred over the French form "elite" in discussing Cathar or Calvinist theology, for examples, and the social structure that is theologically driven. Other religious groups may use expressions like "the saints" to describe the elect.
Perhaps the most globally recognized of all religious elite reside in Rome: the Pope and the Vatican Assembly. While it is true that the Pope is elected by the college of Cardinals, the cardinals who vote for him are appointed by prior papal decrees. The Pope is himself chosen from among the college of Cardinals. Once elected, the Pope is in "office" for the remainder of his life.
so what your saying is we are all the same in our judgements of one another? i agree with that, but I also believe we have the bible which sets a general standard of what God judges as good or bad for those who are followers of Christ, those who chose not to believe etc. and they are different judgements indeed.
and we do judge All people judge what is good and worthy for our own self unless under some form of tryant.
I read what you said Patrick and Sarah how you have become a mixture of many labels and how you pond preach the bible is your only source for truth more or less from what I got out of you two
I am going to be bold here WHEN ARE WE AS CHILDREN OF GOD GOING TO PUT ASIDE BOOKS OF OLD AND REACH FOR TRUTH FROM WITHIN that little use Christ in us
the holy spirit, holt ghost, the holt breath, or what ever label we use Christ die for all we all have Christ in us but only a few feed the Christ in us
some only eat milk while a few eat milk and meat
the milk being written words that were wrote down by holy men who wrote or spoke as the spirit gave them the words some from outside in but today inside out
God overshower in days before Christ came but today Christ is in us all
Do not feed the child in the womb and when birth comes it might not be alive birth
I am not pointing fingers I just had to say that to get us to think together were written words go
whether my written words of ones in the bible or apostate books there just milk
if I did not understnd I am sorry but I believe these words can help us
I read what you said Patrick and Sarah how you have become a mixture of many labels and how you pond preach the bible is your only source for truth more or less from what I got out of you two
whether my written words of ones in the bible or apostate books there just milk
if I did not understnd I am sorry but I believe these words can help us
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Hi Roy,
Thanks for your heart. I was really impressed with ponds aswer, which is the reason I did not answer. It seems that anytime we put our particular religious piety in the lime light, we are showing this elitist tendency, that it is so easy to fall into.
The milk is sour anyway................There is a deeper truth of "Christ is in us all" that all our banter can never touch......the true Holiest of all is Emanuel, God with us, God in us........every one.
Well, if starting a new thread calling me - or at least insinuating - that I am an Elitist is not an "attack" - I don't know what it.
All I am saying is, you are not preaching "Christianity." I am sorry if that offends you. But it has nothing to do with "Elitism." Nor am I an "elite" person in life, deed or thought.
You say mankind has progressed.
Yes, you are correct, technology wise, he has - amazingly. Knowledge has increased.
But, as far as "mankind" in general progressing, the 20th century was the bloodiest, with more people killed in that century than almost all of history put together.
We have not "evolved" spiritually.
We've made up stuff, started a whole bunch of new religions/cults/beliefs, etc. That doesn't mean we've evolved.
You can look at mankind your way, I will look at mankind my way.
We need to agree to disagree.
I am sorry you did not like my opinion on your constitution.
I also suggested you may be interested in studying "apostasy" - it was an eyeopener for me and may possibly be for you. It has nothing to do with an "elite" mindset.
May I also suggest that the finger you are pointing at me, you have several pointing back at yourself.
sorry I spoke to fast dear friend and I am glad "the bible is not my ONLY source of truth" for you but for me its a place to begin only
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Beloved Sunesis
God loves you my dear friend
I do not think Patrick is pointing a finger at you but what I saw is he used the differ you two have to set up a new tread to help him understand better both sides
May I also suggest that the finger you are pointing at me, you have several pointing back at yourself.
Is that in the bible anywhere, or is it one of those folk sayings or aphorisms that become part of culture? I have found it as part of the Wiccan/Pagan "rule of three" where you reap 3x what you sow.
As Patrick Henry might say, if posting here at GSC:
If this [i.e. a recognition of mankind’s fallen-ness and a distinction between true and false religious worldviews] be trea -- er, "elitism" -- make the most of it.
Is that in the bible anywhere, or is it one of those folk sayings or aphorisms that become part of culture? I have found it as part of the Wiccan/Pagan "rule of three" where you reap 3x what you sow.
That is interesting................I had not thought of it as 3x back at you in some carmatic way.
If you take your hand and put it in a fist and point your index finger at anthing you have three fingers left and they are all pointing back at you.
Jesus Christ said "Why look at the speck in your brother's eye, and not think about the beam in your own eye." Mt 7:3
When it comes to certain things I can only think and talk in Biblical terms, but like the wiccan saying I have to acknowledge the truth in it even though I'm quite certain I'll never be wiccan.
Elitism and seperation seem inevitable for the time being. The best that I know to do is to stay meek and yet not budge one bit when it comes to certain things.
Even if I manage not to offend I'm certain that the fact that I won't budge on certain things is enough for others to separate themselves from me.
Often I've looked down on somebody only to regret it later.
Hmmm.An opinion...There is the thought that humans are evolving spiritually--the hundreth monkey, the millionth circle beliefs are tied into that. While some see these as the dark end times, others see this period in time as one of change for the better...the age of Aquarius, the water bearer pouring out joyful spiritual knowledge. I find that thought hopeful and more comforting than my past beliefs.
Since pagan/wiccan/neopagans that tend to think the above type thing are not revealed religions--no holy book--it is more a groundswell attitude than doctrine, at least in my observations. Such thoughts are very different than Bible Christianity, with different views on the state of mankind--not born in sin, not requiring a sacrificial savior-- but children of the goddess/god/cosmos/divine what have you.
I think many people, not just those who have chosen a spiritual or religious path, but also those who live outside faiths and traditions, see the limitations and dangers of a 'my doctrine is the only way for all mankind' thought like held in TWI. That leads to strife, enmity, isolation from the evil world, not wholeness or community--unless of course we all conform to one sect that 'wins.'
I do think there is in the end, one truth, I just don't think humans are capable of more than a glimpse of it here and there, and those glimpses look different as flavoured by the culture, the times, the individual...we all do see through a glass darkly, because we are here, physical in the physical. A Wiccan belief, As above, so below...the physical reflects the spiritual in ways we can understand and practice, and leaves room for individuals to make their own observations and connections.
I've heard it said before when asked, "what religion are you?"
"I'm in the one that God is in".
Interesting, God is in all religion, and God has no need of religion.
In all reliegion there are the "extreemists". It seems that most folks just settle for passiveness.
And here in I believe you find your answer. God is not confined to one religion. Only man's mind is that small.
On another point, I find myself in agreement with Sunesis when she said that she was only pointing out (in the other thread) that your beliefs as stated were not strictly Christian. And probably should not be billed as such.
We will disagree on this board. It is a freedom that we did not enjoy while in twi. So expect it. As long as we keep it civil things wont get messy.
Even if I manage not to offend I'm certain that the fact that I won't budge on certain things is enough for others to separate themselves from me.
I also think "religion" is not the cause of Elitism nor the cause of separation of humanity.
Humanity has separated itself into groups for millenia and will continue to do so.
Whether its politics, ideologies, tribes, nations, sports, government (which is more important - the state or the individual?), science, education, race, whatever, there has always been people separating themselves from others and they will continue to do so.
Every man has free will. Every man is to himself his own god.
Today, you have 6 billion or so individual free wills running around doing their own thing.
In order to get mankind to submit, or, to all "think as one" you must use force and violence, or it will never happen.
I do not believe groupthink, and mankind thinking as one is a good thing. The majority is most of the time wrong.
I do not believe mankind will ever bring about utopia or harmony on earth. Someone will always disagree about something.
It has become fashionable, and an easy way out, over the last decade or so, to blame all of the world's ills on "religion."
As Patrick Henry might say, if posting here at GSC:
If this [i.e. a recognition of mankind’s fallen-ness and a distinction between true and false religious worldviews] be trea -- er, "elitism" -- make the most of it.
I just love it when people take sayings by this country's founding fathers, and endeavor to twist them to fit their theology. And this one clearly is in the Top 5. ((snorts)) Besides, wasn't Patrick Henry, at most, an Episcopalian? And not exactly a Calvinist?
Here's a tidbit re: Patrick Henry:
"Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians ... not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".
. Another spurious quotation. These words appear nowhere in the writings or recorded utterances of Patrick Henry.
But, as far as "mankind" in general progressing, the 20th century was the bloodiest, with more people killed in that century than almost all of history put together.
We have not "evolved" spiritually.
We've made up stuff, started a whole bunch of new religions/cults/beliefs, etc. That doesn't mean we've evolved.
Really? You mean, setting aside all the technological advances, that mankind has not progressed over the past few centuries? You mean to tell us that:
1) the replacement of the divine right of kings by representative forms of government is not progress?
2) the replacement of rendering mentally ill people as possesed by demons (and to be driven out of communities as outcasts) with more modern psychiatric and medical treatments of said mental illnesses is not progress?
3) the elimination of slavery of blacks (when such slavery was 'justified' by the Bible itself) is not progress?
4) that giving women the right to vote, to own property, and not to be regarded as their husband's chattle, is not progress?
I can think of a LOT of other non-technological moral and ethical advancements accomplished by us 'fallen' that you seem to have missed (or maybe don't want to acknowledge, seeing that it would contradict your theology?) ... Heh! And you complain about the 'bloodiness' of this century? How much of said bloodiness, and that over the centuries, have been initiated by the religious or the Christians, and all in the Name of their God, all the while they believed in the very same 'fallen man' doctrine that you do?
I also think "religion" is not the cause of Elitism nor the cause of separation of humanity.
Humanity has separated itself into groups for millenia and will continue to do so.
Whether its politics, ideologies, tribes, nations, sports, government (which is more important - the state or the individual?), science, education, race, whatever, there has always been people separating themselves from others and they will continue to do so.
Every man has free will. Every man is to himself his own god.
Today, you have 6 billion or so individual free wills running around doing their own thing.
In order to get mankind to submit, or, to all "think as one" you must use force and violence, or it will never happen.
I do not believe groupthink, and mankind thinking as one is a good thing. The majority is most of the time wrong.
I do not believe mankind will ever bring about utopia or harmony on earth. Someone will always disagree about something.
It has become fashionable, and an easy way out, over the last decade or so, to blame all of the world's ills on "religion."
I blame it on man.
And yet, if the Book of Revelations is correct, God, via Jesus Christ, will 'use force and violence' to retake the earth, and to set up the Millenial Kingdom, will they not? ... And talk about Groupthink during their rule!
No, I don't think that mankind thinks of themselves as their own God. ... They DO however, want to determine their own destiny.
I don't recall the Book of Revelations being mentioned here. That point is moot. Start a thread on it if you want. We're talking about man's evolution here.
I said man has free will.
Why are you talking about it being wrong for people to want to determine their own destiny? Do you think its wrong? Where did I say it is wrong for man to want to determine his destiny? Quote please.
Two times here you have attributed to me words, thoughts or ideas that I did not bring up or discuss. Knock off the strawmans. Start your own thread on destiny or Revelation if you want.
But right now, you are being dishonest Garth.
As to your other points.
1. Many countries still have kings and dictators. Many on the political forum stand up for these dictators. That idea of divine "right" and/or might is still alive and well. Maybe couched in different terms.
2. Mentally ill people going from possessed to what we know is chemical disturbances, is a scientific advancement. But if you've ever spent time in a hospital, some of the modern cures are just barbaric and horrendous as anything that came before. Sure, I have never denied there hasn't been scientific advancement. People are smart. Technology, science and medicine evidence that. That doesn't mean man has "evolved."
3. The elimination of slavery? Slavery is still alive and well in many places of the world, Africa, Asia and other places. Oddly enough, the places where it was abolished were the western "Christian" nations. Slavery will always be with us.
4. There are many places all over the world where women are property and do not have the right to vote and are treated as chattel.
Your four examples have described mainly western, Christian or today's modern post-Christian societies.
Many other societies are oppresive, nasty, miserable places.
200 million people, give or take, killed in the 20th century alone. That's a scant 108 year timeframe.
Why are you talking about it being wrong for people to want to determine their own destiny? Do you think its wrong?
Personally, I think a LOT of what we consider our destiny was something we agreed on a long time ago. Perhaps we just can't remember making the agreement..
I don't think it's so much about the destination, maybe more about seeing the sights along the way..
I don't recall the Book of Revelations being mentioned here.
I mention it as a reference point in dealing with your points re: your claim of religion (in this case: Christianity) not being to blame for making mankind submit through force and violence. Force and violence in said book, and from the Hand of the God, is obscenly *profuse*.
Why are you talking about it being wrong for people to want to determine their own destiny? Do you think its wrong?
When did I say that? Talk about your strawman!
Where did I say it is wrong for man to want to determine his destiny? Quote please.
Doesn't the Christian gospel talk about man 'wanting to be his own god'? And aren't those who want to determine their own destiny often derided as those who 'want to be their own god'?
See, that is where religion (particularly of the Abrahamic variety) steps in and wants to have all of mankind submit to their god. The doctrine of said religions is full of that mindset, and illustrates how their god (and often his followers) deals quite harshly with those who will not "bow the knee" as it were. THAT you cannot deny no matter what you say, ... and despite your attempt to place the credit of the advancements of society on western "Christian" societies. (And as far as that goes, *many* of said advancements have occured despite religious doctrine and influence, _not_ because of them, even when accomplished by religious people; our own Constitutionally based form of government is a classic example of that.)
But if you've ever spent time in a hospital, some of the modern cures are just barbaric and horrendous as anything that came before.
If you've been keeping up with psychiatric/medical advancements, those 'cures', which are barbaric and horrendous, are also being challenged/eliminated. ... Unfortunately, that's part of the 'evolutionary' process. Ie., it doesn't happen all at once. ... But it does happen.
200 million people, give or take, killed in the 20th century alone. That's a scant 108 year timeframe.
Tell me again how we've "evolved."
Ok, how about in the hundreds of years before this scant 108 year ((cough)) 'godless' century, back during the good old Christian centuries, how were we more evolved back then, hmmmm?
1) back when slavery *was* more widespread, and more legal in these Christian countries.
2) back when women were more likely to be chattle (hardly any rights at all), again, in these Christian countries.
3) back before many countries, including our United States, had less/any form of representational form of government at all, again, in these Christian countries.
4) back when the concept of 'the Divine right of Kings' was in place, and that as backed by biblical concepts clearly illustrating the same thing? (I mean, when were kings voted into office back during biblical times, hmmm?) That was one concept that the Constitution clearly was anti-thetical to.
5) back when one could clearly be put to death for turning away from god, a concept again illustrated (and approved) by the Bible and other religious texts; written authorities that the subject people _had_ to live by back then.
(And if you're going to point out that these centuries aren't of a Christian/religious nature either, ... well, ... When was there a 'more evolved/more godly' period that is far better than now, hhmmm? :unsure: )
All of these examples, and my previous posts, are in the context of this thread as well as in response to your posts. Religion, by its very nature, has often been a tool to separate people via total authoritarian and elitist rule. Hell, I can't find a more Elitist concept than, in the eyes of some Sovereign and All-Powerful (and quite Capricious <_< if I say so myself) Diety, determining the separation of the 'saved' bound for heaven, and the 'damned' bound for hell, and that determined only if they believed in his Son (no matter how moral or immoral their actions were). ... Can you?
See, you're basing your definition of 'evolution' of society (or lack thereof) from a Christian perspective. Ie., if it ain't Christian, it ain't evolving. It's very similar to the seriously flawed rendering of atheists being viewed as amoral/immoral for the very fact that they are atheists. No matter how moral, or ethical, or how much progress is shown, ... if it isn't Christian/religious, it ain't worth a damn, ... cause it doesn't have God in it.
Fortunately, more and more people are seeing past that (dare I say it? ... sure why not!) immoral smoke screen.
I just love it when people take sayings by this country's founding fathers, and endeavor to twist them to fit their theology. And this one clearly is in the Top 5. ((snorts)) Besides, wasn't Patrick Henry, at most, an Episcopalian? And not exactly a Calvinist?
Garth,
You're all worked up and in one of those misrepresentation-chucking fits, again. I was using Patrick Henry's quote for its calmly dismissive character and effect -- not appealing to the orator as a theological fellow-traveler.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Reality bites, doesn't it? ;)
It doesn't bite me. Your "tidbit" is a red herring. I am aware that the subject quote is reputedly dubious, and have not here -- or in some other thread -- invoked it. Your bringing it up is like things would be if someone cited the history of the amorous endeavors you have engaged in outside zoos: off the subject, something that should interest only the abjectly naive.
... the history of the amorous endeavors you have engaged in outside zoos
I can't help but notice that, every now and then, you utilize zoo related, sexual innuendoes as a tool for rebuttal to my 'polemical tirades'. ... Should that be regarded as part of your supposedly superior, Calvinist-inspired apologetics. ..... Really, <_< ... but maybe this helps illustrate and strengthen my point as to the "just because its labelled Christian doesn't mean that its more moral" principle, ... hmmmm? (Tell me something. Do you talk like that in your church?)
It doesn't bite me. Your "tidbit" is a red herring.
My "tidbit" is but a reminder of how certain religious people manipulate what the founding father's say to fit their points of view. Perhaps you didn't mean your post that way, so I stand corrected. But it's still relative, and particularly in this discussion. (So, if the shoe doesn't fit, you have nothing to worry about.)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
15
7
13
Popular Days
Jan 3
17
Jan 4
17
Jan 13
11
Jan 2
9
Top Posters In This Topic
socks 8 posts
GarthP2000 15 posts
Bramble 7 posts
Patrick and Sarah 13 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2008
17 posts
Jan 4 2008
17 posts
Jan 13 2008
11 posts
Jan 2 2008
9 posts
pond
In religion the Latin form "elect" is preferred over the French form "elite" in discussing Cathar or Calvinist theology, for examples, and the social structure that is theologically driven. Other religious groups may use expressions like "the saints" to describe the elect.
Perhaps the most globally recognized of all religious elite reside in Rome: the Pope and the Vatican Assembly. While it is true that the Pope is elected by the college of Cardinals, the cardinals who vote for him are appointed by prior papal decrees. The Pope is himself chosen from among the college of Cardinals. Once elected, the Pope is in "office" for the remainder of his life.
so what your saying is we are all the same in our judgements of one another? i agree with that, but I also believe we have the bible which sets a general standard of what God judges as good or bad for those who are followers of Christ, those who chose not to believe etc. and they are different judgements indeed.
and we do judge All people judge what is good and worthy for our own self unless under some form of tryant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Patrick and Sarah and pond
God loves you two my dear friends
I read what you said Patrick and Sarah how you have become a mixture of many labels and how you pond preach the bible is your only source for truth more or less from what I got out of you two
I am going to be bold here WHEN ARE WE AS CHILDREN OF GOD GOING TO PUT ASIDE BOOKS OF OLD AND REACH FOR TRUTH FROM WITHIN that little use Christ in us
the holy spirit, holt ghost, the holt breath, or what ever label we use Christ die for all we all have Christ in us but only a few feed the Christ in us
some only eat milk while a few eat milk and meat
the milk being written words that were wrote down by holy men who wrote or spoke as the spirit gave them the words some from outside in but today inside out
God overshower in days before Christ came but today Christ is in us all
Do not feed the child in the womb and when birth comes it might not be alive birth
I am not pointing fingers I just had to say that to get us to think together were written words go
whether my written words of ones in the bible or apostate books there just milk
if I did not understnd I am sorry but I believe these words can help us
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patrick and Sarah
Hi Roy,
Thanks for your heart. I was really impressed with ponds aswer, which is the reason I did not answer. It seems that anytime we put our particular religious piety in the lime light, we are showing this elitist tendency, that it is so easy to fall into.
The milk is sour anyway................There is a deeper truth of "Christ is in us all" that all our banter can never touch......the true Holiest of all is Emanuel, God with us, God in us........every one.
Patrick
Edited by Patrick and SarahLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Patrick
God loves you my dear friend
I was impressed with your tread and ponds aswer because they read like one tread
or they seem to fit together as one
yes when we put "particular religious piety in the lime light, we are showing this elitist tendency" and I do it too
I just had to add another point of view with boldness
yes the old written of "milk is sour" by time but we have the right to created new milk for today here and now
by receiving meat from the holy spirit has holy men and women can than drain the meat of its juices making milk to be wrote down and shared as milk
lets reach for that "deeper truth of "Christ is in us all""
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Glad somebody has finally noticed. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
the bible is not my ONLY source of truth Roy. It is a standard of truth for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Well, if starting a new thread calling me - or at least insinuating - that I am an Elitist is not an "attack" - I don't know what it.
All I am saying is, you are not preaching "Christianity." I am sorry if that offends you. But it has nothing to do with "Elitism." Nor am I an "elite" person in life, deed or thought.
You say mankind has progressed.
Yes, you are correct, technology wise, he has - amazingly. Knowledge has increased.
But, as far as "mankind" in general progressing, the 20th century was the bloodiest, with more people killed in that century than almost all of history put together.
We have not "evolved" spiritually.
We've made up stuff, started a whole bunch of new religions/cults/beliefs, etc. That doesn't mean we've evolved.
You can look at mankind your way, I will look at mankind my way.
We need to agree to disagree.
I am sorry you did not like my opinion on your constitution.
I also suggested you may be interested in studying "apostasy" - it was an eyeopener for me and may possibly be for you. It has nothing to do with an "elite" mindset.
May I also suggest that the finger you are pointing at me, you have several pointing back at yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved pond
God loves you my dear friend
sorry I spoke to fast dear friend and I am glad "the bible is not my ONLY source of truth" for you but for me its a place to begin only
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Beloved Sunesis
God loves you my dear friend
I do not think Patrick is pointing a finger at you but what I saw is he used the differ you two have to set up a new tread to help him understand better both sides
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
As Patrick Henry might say, if posting here at GSC:
If this [i.e. a recognition of mankind’s fallen-ness and a distinction between true and false religious worldviews] be trea -- er, "elitism" -- make the most of it.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
Patrick and Sarah
That is interesting................I had not thought of it as 3x back at you in some carmatic way.
If you take your hand and put it in a fist and point your index finger at anthing you have three fingers left and they are all pointing back at you.
Patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
A wiccan may well say "rule of three."
Jesus Christ said "Why look at the speck in your brother's eye, and not think about the beam in your own eye." Mt 7:3
When it comes to certain things I can only think and talk in Biblical terms, but like the wiccan saying I have to acknowledge the truth in it even though I'm quite certain I'll never be wiccan.
Elitism and seperation seem inevitable for the time being. The best that I know to do is to stay meek and yet not budge one bit when it comes to certain things.
Even if I manage not to offend I'm certain that the fact that I won't budge on certain things is enough for others to separate themselves from me.
Often I've looked down on somebody only to regret it later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Hmmm.An opinion...There is the thought that humans are evolving spiritually--the hundreth monkey, the millionth circle beliefs are tied into that. While some see these as the dark end times, others see this period in time as one of change for the better...the age of Aquarius, the water bearer pouring out joyful spiritual knowledge. I find that thought hopeful and more comforting than my past beliefs.
Since pagan/wiccan/neopagans that tend to think the above type thing are not revealed religions--no holy book--it is more a groundswell attitude than doctrine, at least in my observations. Such thoughts are very different than Bible Christianity, with different views on the state of mankind--not born in sin, not requiring a sacrificial savior-- but children of the goddess/god/cosmos/divine what have you.
I think many people, not just those who have chosen a spiritual or religious path, but also those who live outside faiths and traditions, see the limitations and dangers of a 'my doctrine is the only way for all mankind' thought like held in TWI. That leads to strife, enmity, isolation from the evil world, not wholeness or community--unless of course we all conform to one sect that 'wins.'
I do think there is in the end, one truth, I just don't think humans are capable of more than a glimpse of it here and there, and those glimpses look different as flavoured by the culture, the times, the individual...we all do see through a glass darkly, because we are here, physical in the physical. A Wiccan belief, As above, so below...the physical reflects the spiritual in ways we can understand and practice, and leaves room for individuals to make their own observations and connections.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patrick and Sarah
I've heard it said before when asked, "what religion are you?"
"I'm in the one that God is in".
Interesting, God is in all religion, and God has no need of religion.
In all reliegion there are the "extreemists". It seems that most folks just settle for passiveness.
When I find myself in times of trouble
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be.
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be.
And when the broken hearted people
Living in the world agree,
There will be an answer, let it be.
For though they may be parted there is
Still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer, let it be.
Let it be, let it be. Yeah
There will be an answer, let it be.
And when the night is cloudy,
There is still a light that shines on me,
Shine on until tomorrow, let it be.
I wake up to the sound of music
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.
Let it be, let it be.
There will be an answer, let it be.
Let it be, let it be,
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be
--The Beatles (Lennon/McCartney)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
And here in I believe you find your answer. God is not confined to one religion. Only man's mind is that small.
On another point, I find myself in agreement with Sunesis when she said that she was only pointing out (in the other thread) that your beliefs as stated were not strictly Christian. And probably should not be billed as such.
We will disagree on this board. It is a freedom that we did not enjoy while in twi. So expect it. As long as we keep it civil things wont get messy.
So true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I also think "religion" is not the cause of Elitism nor the cause of separation of humanity.
Humanity has separated itself into groups for millenia and will continue to do so.
Whether its politics, ideologies, tribes, nations, sports, government (which is more important - the state or the individual?), science, education, race, whatever, there has always been people separating themselves from others and they will continue to do so.
Every man has free will. Every man is to himself his own god.
Today, you have 6 billion or so individual free wills running around doing their own thing.
In order to get mankind to submit, or, to all "think as one" you must use force and violence, or it will never happen.
I do not believe groupthink, and mankind thinking as one is a good thing. The majority is most of the time wrong.
I do not believe mankind will ever bring about utopia or harmony on earth. Someone will always disagree about something.
It has become fashionable, and an easy way out, over the last decade or so, to blame all of the world's ills on "religion."
I blame it on man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I just love it when people take sayings by this country's founding fathers, and endeavor to twist them to fit their theology. And this one clearly is in the Top 5. ((snorts)) Besides, wasn't Patrick Henry, at most, an Episcopalian? And not exactly a Calvinist?
Here's a tidbit re: Patrick Henry:
From Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp - a little more than halfway down the page)Yeah, yeah, I know. Reality bites, doesn't it? ;)
Sunesis,
Really? You mean, setting aside all the technological advances, that mankind has not progressed over the past few centuries? You mean to tell us that:
1) the replacement of the divine right of kings by representative forms of government is not progress?
2) the replacement of rendering mentally ill people as possesed by demons (and to be driven out of communities as outcasts) with more modern psychiatric and medical treatments of said mental illnesses is not progress?
3) the elimination of slavery of blacks (when such slavery was 'justified' by the Bible itself) is not progress?
4) that giving women the right to vote, to own property, and not to be regarded as their husband's chattle, is not progress?
I can think of a LOT of other non-technological moral and ethical advancements accomplished by us 'fallen' that you seem to have missed (or maybe don't want to acknowledge, seeing that it would contradict your theology?) ... Heh! And you complain about the 'bloodiness' of this century? How much of said bloodiness, and that over the centuries, have been initiated by the religious or the Christians, and all in the Name of their God, all the while they believed in the very same 'fallen man' doctrine that you do?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
And yet, if the Book of Revelations is correct, God, via Jesus Christ, will 'use force and violence' to retake the earth, and to set up the Millenial Kingdom, will they not? ... And talk about Groupthink during their rule!
No, I don't think that mankind thinks of themselves as their own God. ... They DO however, want to determine their own destiny.
And that is wrong?? :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
Im glad God doesnt blame it on man.
he loves us each and every one!
praise HIM .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I don't recall the Book of Revelations being mentioned here. That point is moot. Start a thread on it if you want. We're talking about man's evolution here.
I said man has free will.
Why are you talking about it being wrong for people to want to determine their own destiny? Do you think its wrong? Where did I say it is wrong for man to want to determine his destiny? Quote please.
Two times here you have attributed to me words, thoughts or ideas that I did not bring up or discuss. Knock off the strawmans. Start your own thread on destiny or Revelation if you want.
But right now, you are being dishonest Garth.
As to your other points.
1. Many countries still have kings and dictators. Many on the political forum stand up for these dictators. That idea of divine "right" and/or might is still alive and well. Maybe couched in different terms.
2. Mentally ill people going from possessed to what we know is chemical disturbances, is a scientific advancement. But if you've ever spent time in a hospital, some of the modern cures are just barbaric and horrendous as anything that came before. Sure, I have never denied there hasn't been scientific advancement. People are smart. Technology, science and medicine evidence that. That doesn't mean man has "evolved."
3. The elimination of slavery? Slavery is still alive and well in many places of the world, Africa, Asia and other places. Oddly enough, the places where it was abolished were the western "Christian" nations. Slavery will always be with us.
4. There are many places all over the world where women are property and do not have the right to vote and are treated as chattel.
Your four examples have described mainly western, Christian or today's modern post-Christian societies.
Many other societies are oppresive, nasty, miserable places.
200 million people, give or take, killed in the 20th century alone. That's a scant 108 year timeframe.
Tell me again how we've "evolved."
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Personally, I think a LOT of what we consider our destiny was something we agreed on a long time ago. Perhaps we just can't remember making the agreement..
I don't think it's so much about the destination, maybe more about seeing the sights along the way..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
When did I say that? Talk about your strawman!
Doesn't the Christian gospel talk about man 'wanting to be his own god'? And aren't those who want to determine their own destiny often derided as those who 'want to be their own god'?See, that is where religion (particularly of the Abrahamic variety) steps in and wants to have all of mankind submit to their god. The doctrine of said religions is full of that mindset, and illustrates how their god (and often his followers) deals quite harshly with those who will not "bow the knee" as it were. THAT you cannot deny no matter what you say, ... and despite your attempt to place the credit of the advancements of society on western "Christian" societies. (And as far as that goes, *many* of said advancements have occured despite religious doctrine and influence, _not_ because of them, even when accomplished by religious people; our own Constitutionally based form of government is a classic example of that.)
If you've been keeping up with psychiatric/medical advancements, those 'cures', which are barbaric and horrendous, are also being challenged/eliminated. ... Unfortunately, that's part of the 'evolutionary' process. Ie., it doesn't happen all at once. ... But it does happen.
Ok, how about in the hundreds of years before this scant 108 year ((cough)) 'godless' century, back during the good old Christian centuries, how were we more evolved back then, hmmmm?
1) back when slavery *was* more widespread, and more legal in these Christian countries.
2) back when women were more likely to be chattle (hardly any rights at all), again, in these Christian countries.
3) back before many countries, including our United States, had less/any form of representational form of government at all, again, in these Christian countries.
4) back when the concept of 'the Divine right of Kings' was in place, and that as backed by biblical concepts clearly illustrating the same thing? (I mean, when were kings voted into office back during biblical times, hmmm?) That was one concept that the Constitution clearly was anti-thetical to.
5) back when one could clearly be put to death for turning away from god, a concept again illustrated (and approved) by the Bible and other religious texts; written authorities that the subject people _had_ to live by back then.
(And if you're going to point out that these centuries aren't of a Christian/religious nature either, ... well, ... When was there a 'more evolved/more godly' period that is far better than now, hhmmm? :unsure: )
All of these examples, and my previous posts, are in the context of this thread as well as in response to your posts. Religion, by its very nature, has often been a tool to separate people via total authoritarian and elitist rule. Hell, I can't find a more Elitist concept than, in the eyes of some Sovereign and All-Powerful (and quite Capricious <_< if I say so myself) Diety, determining the separation of the 'saved' bound for heaven, and the 'damned' bound for hell, and that determined only if they believed in his Son (no matter how moral or immoral their actions were). ... Can you?
See, you're basing your definition of 'evolution' of society (or lack thereof) from a Christian perspective. Ie., if it ain't Christian, it ain't evolving. It's very similar to the seriously flawed rendering of atheists being viewed as amoral/immoral for the very fact that they are atheists. No matter how moral, or ethical, or how much progress is shown, ... if it isn't Christian/religious, it ain't worth a damn, ... cause it doesn't have God in it.
Fortunately, more and more people are seeing past that (dare I say it? ... sure why not!) immoral smoke screen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Garth,
You're all worked up and in one of those misrepresentation-chucking fits, again. I was using Patrick Henry's quote for its calmly dismissive character and effect -- not appealing to the orator as a theological fellow-traveler.
It doesn't bite me. Your "tidbit" is a red herring. I am aware that the subject quote is reputedly dubious, and have not here -- or in some other thread -- invoked it. Your bringing it up is like things would be if someone cited the history of the amorous endeavors you have engaged in outside zoos: off the subject, something that should interest only the abjectly naive.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Cynic,
I can't help but notice that, every now and then, you utilize zoo related, sexual innuendoes as a tool for rebuttal to my 'polemical tirades'. ... Should that be regarded as part of your supposedly superior, Calvinist-inspired apologetics. ..... Really, <_< ... but maybe this helps illustrate and strengthen my point as to the "just because its labelled Christian doesn't mean that its more moral" principle, ... hmmmm? (Tell me something. Do you talk like that in your church?)My "tidbit" is but a reminder of how certain religious people manipulate what the founding father's say to fit their points of view. Perhaps you didn't mean your post that way, so I stand corrected. But it's still relative, and particularly in this discussion. (So, if the shoe doesn't fit, you have nothing to worry about.)
So the red herring accusation does not apply.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.