Abigail

I would respectfully disagree with you. I do believe that absolute truth can be known.

However, I also think that the belief system that says no one can know truth in such a way as to invalidate someone elses beliefs is wrong, and is in itself religious.

It has its own affirmations--doctrines--and denials.

all religions have their own affirmations, doctrines and denials, so what is the difference? I think the difference is that openess/acceptance of another's religion brings about the possibility of peace and on some level unity. On the other hand, the notion that "my god is bigger, better, righter than your god is more inclined to bring division and strive.

To say that God cannot be known at all presupposes that the one saying this knows all. Which is what saying our beliefs are similar fosters.

Who said God cannot be known at all? I would be more inclined toward saying no one individual knows all of God. However, if we combine our knowledge and share it, we all know more than any one of us can know individually.

Why is it that a broken, unworthy, sinful, repentent Christian who dogmatically holds fast to Jesus and the bible is arrogant?

I didn't say broken, unworthy, sinful and repentent Christians are arrogant. Perhaps you would have to explain what you mean by dogmaticcally holding fast to Jesus and the bible??

While the "All paths lead to God-tolerant-we are more alike than different" relativist disciple is enlightened? This system uses absolutes to say there are none.

I guess I don't tend to think in terms of one individual or one group as being more enlightened. I think we all have different areas of enlightenment and together we shine more brightly.

As much as I can love you, I cannot agree with you. I am positive there is no other way but that of Jesus crucified, buried, and risen.

And that is fine - that is your way, so if nothing else it is the only way for you. I have no quarrel with you there. I am Jewish. I still believe in Jesus, but I have a somewhat different understanding of him than you do. At least, I suspect I do - I am somewhat stereotyping you based on the label you have given yourself and the terminoligy you use. It is entirely possible I am wrong and that we view Jesus the same . . . only further discussion would give us a better understanding in that regard.

With His refining work to follow. It is hardwired into me.

I am unflappable. Therefore, by many standards arrogant and unenlightened.

I would not be so bold as to call you unenlightened. I am not sure I would even go so far as to call you arrogant. I MAY (I don't really know you well enoough to have formed an opinion) decide that one, two, a few of your beliefs are arrogant - then again, I may not.

I surely do not mean to sound harsh, but I am steadfast. Not because I see myself as morally superior, in fact I know that I am not, I am broken, sinful, and

unworthy to stand before a Holy God. That is why I cleave to Jesus. I don't judge those who believe other than I---not my job or inclination. I just don't find

common ground and build from there. Faith in Christ is what it is.

I think your unwillingness to look for common ground is sad. In the end, however, your choice and potentially your loss. Shrug

Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, philosophers have posited true reality as "timeless", based on permanent substances, whilst processes are denied or subordinated to timeless substances. If Socrates changes, becoming sick, Socrates is still the same (the substance of Socrates being the same), and change (his sickness) only glides over his substance: change is accidental, whereas the substance is essential

This is the deeper essence of many religions, I think. Those permanent substances being those things which are not yet seen.

And yet, the essence of us/me does change some too, I think, it learns and grows as a result of those things that glide over (and sometimes crash into) our substances. This is the process part, the "Becoming." of process philosophy.

Bramble said:

To many Christians, making the Christian choice is the only right decision humankind can make, which makes nonChristians wrong, of course.

Geisha said:

Again, I am no good at apolegtics. It would take someone with far more knowledge and intellect to explain the difference between the Koran and the Bible--the essence of God and the Power of the Holy Spirit

And this is probably my biggest problem with organized religion - the tendency to focus on the differences. For a while, a number of us (Christian, Jew, Pagan, etc.) spent quite a bit of time down here in the doctrinal forum exploring our similarities. What I found is, we have far more in common than you might imagine. In fact, if you remove the labels/names and traditional rituals, you would find there aren't many differences at all.

Geisha said:

To agree with you, I would have to presuppose that those who strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocents are martyrs for their faith. That is a supposition I cannot prescribe too. I do dare call it murder/suicide though.

Ah, but if the martyrs were Christians and they were blowing up innocents in the name of a holy war???? If they were killing off the Jews and heretics as was done in the 1400 - 1500's? If they were killing off Native Americans and forcing their children to convert to Christianity???

Perspective.

I'm not condoning suicide bombers, mind you. Likewise, I don't condone things which have been done in the name of Christianity.

If Jesus told you that you must abandon a dying parent or loved one in order to follow him, - would you have done it?

In my early days with TWI I was discouraged from taking care of my mother, who was dying of cancer. No one told me flat out not to take care of her (though my husband was pretty unhappy about me doing it and no one from TWI offered an assistance or support). I took care of her anyway, in a hospital bed, in her livingroom, with the help of my sister, my grandmother, and the mother of my sister's boyfriend (who never even met my mom until she was very near the end).

A few years later, as my grandmother was undergoing surgery, I was busy taking a class. I should have been at her side at the hospital, but the all important class . . . A few days later I got a call from my sister-in-law telling me my Uncle was withdrawing life support and I should come right away. I dropped out of the class and drove as fast as I could to Detroit, but by the time I arrived it was too late.

If I had it to do over again, I would have spent those last few days at h er bedside.

Sadly, no fishing for me. The pasture that I had arranged for the horses fell through at the last miniute and I will be at home fencing in Tenn. instead of enjoying fishing and festivities in Michigan over the 4th.

Any possibility you could make it up mid August? I'm not going north for the 4th this year either, but we are going to head that way in mid August.

I can't read the entire article right now - Sushi is cooking dogs on the grill and they are almost done.

But, I am very interested in this disucussion and will come back to it. I hope others will chime in as well. The gist I got from what I did read made a lot of sense to me.

Abigail, good to see you.

Nice to see you too Bramble! Summer is here, we are finally adequately staffed at work, and life is good. I miss the discussions we used to have here. I don't know if it is me who has changed or this place, but it seems there was a time when things weren't so caustic down here.

Oh well, I'll keep peaking in to see if things settle back down again.

I can't help but wonder if an all powerful God and the son he has seated at his right side really need us to defend them. I can't help but wonder if it is anger or compassion that should be shown to those who "don't know Jesus"? I can't help but wonder if accusations towards others of devil spirits truly comes from God and/or His revelation or simply from our own anger and frustration? I can't help but wonder how a display of anger is supposed to persuade and win someone to God or Jesus?

For me, such things just discourage me, leave me uninterested in hearing more. In Judaism, and throughout the O.T., we see men and women arguing with God, questioning God, even laughing at God. Yet these same men and women did great things for God - Sarah gave birth in her old age, Abraham saved Lot from destruction, Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt . . .

I think questioning is good. It is when we stop questioning that we potentially close the door on learning, potentially close the door on God showing us something . . .

There was a time when the doctrinal forum was a place to exchange ideas, thoughts, beliefs, with friendship and kindness. Where we could disagree without anger and harsh words. Where we could learn from each other.

This thread is a perfect example of why I so rarely post here anymore. Sad. :(

While I don't believe in Jesus in the traditional Christian sense, and I certainly don't know your Jesus, Jeno, there was a time when the love he preached about was often seen in this forum - brief though it was in the grand scheme of things.

p.s. Bumpy, I can no believe you killed off Grumpy!!

I hope your day is as sweet as every one of my day's with you has been!

Thanks Abigail, I couldn't say much more at this time.

I appreciate your heart and life.

I'm at a loss for words with such a post.

I've missed all of my "basement dwelling" friends and it is good to see all of you. The past 6 - 8 months have been very busy at work, trying to keep up with kids and homework, etc. etc. But we have finally found a competent legal secretary who I will truly enjoy working with, which has lightened my work load considerably. And school is out for summer!! YEAH!!!!

we can all read and discuss ... if doctrinal is not limited to the Bible .. what doctrine is referred to?

In simplest terms, it would be my opinion that doctrine could come from any source that one holds in esteem. For some it is the bible, for others the torah and oral traditions, for some the quoran, for others it could be a scientific study, etc. etc.

where has bigger context been discussed ... or you mean the context of modern political correctness?

what history?

Well, I believe Eyes brought up some of the bigger context surrounding some verses. She also mentioned history. SirG and Clay brought up some of what they see as deeper meanings.

you seem to have quit speaking as if it is only your opinion, and have not discussed anything doctrinal ... but are in "the teacher" mode.

Generally, anything I say is simply my opinion. It just seems to get tedious to have to add "imo" after every paragraph.

No thanks ... nothing has impressed me to want to attend your class.

well that's cool by me. I didn't realize I was running a class. Any idea what I am charging for it, cause I sure could use the cash!!

OK thanks Abi ... this makes more sense, you are speaking more directly for yourself ... thanks.

You're welcome Rhino, I'm glad I was able to say something that made sense to you. I am not being sarcastic, I mean that. But, I have been speaking for myself the entire time. I was never speaking for Cman, I was simply trying to re-state what he said in another way, in the hopes that it would help you understand, because you didn't seem to.

I'm not a "literalist" ... it is more about not telling other people they are hateful for their belief.

Some beliefs do strike me as hateful. I'm sorry, I am quite certain that is offensive, but it is honest. Would it be better if I lied?

It seems clear enough the homosexual act is not "normal" ... I think bramble or someone alluded to something happening early to cause some psychic thing or whatever ... so it is like dealing with an injury maybe ... some people limp ... but that is not absolute ...

Okay, lets go with that. Do you tell someone with a limp that because they limp they are not allowed to walk? Do you reject them because they are no longer normal? Obviously not. So say you are right, say homosexuality is not "normal," do we then simply reject them? Disown them from the humanity and civilization? stone them? what?

Alternatively, we could love them and accept them, despite their "abnormality", no? A mentally handicapped person is also not "normal" and there was a time when such people were institutionalized or worse. Now, those that are able to, can find jobs and live relatively independently. Others can live in group homes or with family members and lead as normal a life as possible, given their disability.

it seems to me the life style is "promoted" ... and there is a political aspect ... are people naturally attracted to animals? yet that becomes acceptable in certain realms ... of all the wild sexual stuff that happens with teenagers now, is it beyond possible that the homosexual acts is "promoted" by a PC teaching? Is it really just how you are born? I think there is more to it than that.

I don't know that the life style is promoted. I think what is being promoted is the concept that homosexuals are human beings and want to be treated with dignity and equality.

As far as it being genetic verses "environmental", perhaps it is both. Perhaps for some, bad experiences with the opposite gender cause them to chose to be homosexual, perhaps for others they are simply born that way. Perhaps others still are born with a pre-disposition in that direction, but only those who experience certain things actually become homosexual. When I brought my oldest son home from the hospital after he was born, one of the first things that I noticed was that he slept in the exact same position his father slept in. That wasn't learned, it just was. I see traits from me in the boys as well, that I think are genetic and not learned.

Some cities seem more given to these things, even in the Bible. Was it really genetic there? Or is it taught and accepted, along with adultery and other "vile" things? This sexual "openness" does not seem good ... free love, no rules ... do we want Woodstock to rule?

I don't know, Rhino, I struggle with those questions too. I was raised that you only had sex with someone you loved. A large part of me still believes that.

However, life taught me there were many people who had no qualms about sleeping with someone they didn't love, and there were plenty of guys who would say those three little words just to get in a girls pants. Then there is all of the mental gymnastics one can do to convince themselves they are in love with someone who they are really only sexually attracted to.

So, in some sense, it seems to me the kids these days are more honest. They want to have sex and they don't have to pretend it is something more. Then, when it is something more, they are more likely to know that it is something more and not some delusion they made up to justify having sex with someone.

Maybe the Bible offers more wisdom than most are willing to accept. wht we see here, I believe, is political correctness ... all who hold any belief that does not praise homoexuality ... must be condemned ... and it is the fact that we see that here in spades that troubles me.

I don't condemn someone for thinking homosexuality is not how God designed things. Heck, I still haven't made up my mind entirely on that score. What I do have a problem with, is how someone treats another person - I have a problem with treating someone badly, with denying someone equality, because they are homosexual.

Sheesh Rhino, you are a tough cookie and you make it difficult to have a civil conversation sometimes.

No one has shown a layer of the Bible that accepts the homosexual act ...

First, in these forums, doctrine isn't limited to the Bible. Second, if all you are looking for is chapter and verse, with no indepth view at the bigger context, the history, etc. etc., well it seems you are perfectly capable of picking up your Bible and reading it for yourself. I'd bet you've even done that quite a few times.

and cman can speak for himself ...

Yes, Cman can speak for himself. But, you appeared to be having difficulty understanding what he was saying and I was simply trying to help.

and who is this "we"?

We is whoever choses to share in an exchange of ideas, thoughts, perspectives, etc.

Your version is that the Bible means nothing .. it is all nuance, layers, nothingness ... which seems total BS .. right back to where we started. We are in doctrinal .. if you want to expound on your doctrinal layer, go right ahead ... not some children's story about onions.

My version of the Bible may mean nothing to you, may seem like b.s. to you, but it does mean something to me. Shrug, oh well, you're entitled. I tend to feel similarly toward a literal, black and white view of the Bible.

Despite the accusation of close mindedness ... I was looking for something real .. instead I get bad interpretation and something that should be written in the onion.

I'm not sure I accused you of being close minded, but again, if teh shoe fits . . .

Still waiting for that "doctrinal" discussion. Ha ... but thanks for talking down to me .. that's the ticket.

I wasn't talking down to you, at least that was certainly not my intent or heart. As for the doctrinal discussion, it is taking place all around you, but for whatever reason, you aren't aware of it.

Here is a bit of my take, Rhino, for what it's worth.

I am Jewish, though quite obviously not orthodox. I know what the Old Testament says about homosexuality. I also know the literal, orthodox view does not sit right in my heart.

In SirG's posts I see Kaballah, that works for me. I don't know the ins and outs of SirG's studies or the path that led him to his current beliefs, but Kaballah sits well in my heart. In Eyes posts I see questions, logic, and argumentative reasoning. That too is Jewish and it sits well in my heart. Yet neither of them are Jewish and neither of them have followed the same field of studies, the same path.

Clay uses shades of both and adds his own unique perspective.

I struggle with the more literal views that you seem to have and Jeno does have. It tends to raise my hackles. Maybe that's not fair, but I am being honest about how I see it. That doesn't mean that the two of you don't have valid layers to add to this onion, though.

Peel an onion, Rhino. That is a large part of what Cman is saying.

There are many many many layers to the Bible. You see one layer, Clay another, Sir yet another still. . .

Sometimes we can share what we see and add a layer to someone else's vision, though their new perspective will not be exactly the same as the perspective of the one who shared. Sometimes we can share a layer and the person we share with won't understand it. Later, someone else will say the same thing in a different way, and the person will understand.

So. rhino, what does doctrine say about how to treat homosexuals, or sinners, or whatever label you care to use?

ABI! I really would like to meet you in that RED Little OutFit...Why don't we move over to another corner Away from those who feel a touch "offended" possibly by discussing other attitudes of SEXUAL Orientation!!

I JUST LOVE...HOT! RED LOW CUT LARGE PROTRUDING FEMALE EQUATIONS!!

Do you mind if Sushi joins us in that corner? While I may have the female parts, he looks maaavelous in the red dress!!!

It's aaah Gaga Got to be HOT...or it just ain't worth the trouble! But if You'All can debate it Forever and HIDE Behind Scripture, BUT NOT ADMIT You IS What You IS...SHAME ON YOU!! Now THAT has to BE Hypo-Critical!! No matter what Your American Culture Chock on the old Animal Farm You Want, Don't Hide Behind the Verse! <_<

IF You Can't Talk the Walk...then Just let it Go!

I prefer hooker red, myself.

I'm game bump, but you have to go first. :P

To be more straight forward ... Eyes lied about me, though she did not name me. Then others talk about "those people will never be convinced no matter hard hard you try" or whatever.

If she didn't name you, how do you know she was even speaking of you? Unless of course, the shoe did fit???

Rhino and Jeno, my overall impression in these discussions is that your minds are made up and you are not going to be persuaded to a different pov, regardless of what anyone says to you.

huh? so that's what the goal is!... to try to "persuade" me to a different pov?

yeah, my mind is made up... is that suppose to be a bad thing?!?

i've read the scriptures concerning "homosexual acts",

i've let the scriptures speak for themselves without my having a hidden agenda...

and i've come to my conclusion thru research, analysis, and logic...

so are you telling me that is a bad thing?!?

abi, you've never made up your mind about anything?

i don't think the problem is that i've "made up my mind", i think the problem is you don't like my conclusion...

No, it is not necessarily a bad thing to have your mind made up. I have my mind made up too - so what. And yes, to some degree or another, my participation in discussions of this nature (doctrinal, political, etc.) is to persuade and be persuaded both. So, if I am neither going to persuade or be pursuaded, what is the point. Why do you participate in such discussions, if not to do the same? Most people express their opinion because they think someone is interested in hearing it. Usually someone is interested in hearing it because it reaffirms their own belief (in a sense a form of persuasion) or it causes them to consider another perspective (again, in a sense, a form of persuasion.)

What I fail to understand is why the two of you insist on following her from thread to thread on this topic and hounding her, when she has already said she does not care to debate it with you?

again i say: huh?

what makes you think that i am following eyes around...

i had been posting on the "God bless CA" thread long BEFORE eyes showed up there!

my question to eyes on her book thread concerned her false accusation that she had been "attacked"...

and i began posting here in response to lindy's question about "abominations"...

i will say this though: when people don't like what another person is saying, they sure pull out the "victim" mentality in order to shut them up!

Oh give me a break! Eyes has certainly not proclaimed herself a victim and neither have I. I have simply expressed my impression of your behavior here. Yes, you posted first, but since her post you have asked her over and over and over again to answer questions she has already said she is not interested in answering. From where I am sitting, that is hounding and harassing.

Do you think if you nag her enough she will give in???

give in to what??

reality check: this is a conversation on a message board...

i originally asked eyes why she disagreed with the plain meaning of the scripture... (no response)

i then asked eyes for the who, what, where, & when of the alleged "attacks"... (again, no response)

abi, are you telling me that certain questions are "off-limit" on a message board??

and perhaps you think that certain opinions should be "off-limit" as well...

No. I am telling you that when someone has repeatedly told you they do not care to discuss something with you, and you continue to nag them and harass them in an attempt to get them to discuss what they have already said they do not care to discuss with you, that it makes you look a little unhinged. And notice I said discuss with you. Just because Eyes does not care to debate this issue with you or Rhino, does not necessarily mean she does not wish to discuss it with others.

Do you think you would like someone to follow you from thread to thread and hound you into engaging in a debate you have already said you have no desire to engage in???

more of the same old victim mentality...

i've been accused of: hounding, nagging, stalking (following), attacking...

all because i asked for the reasons why someone disagreed with the plain meaning of sciptures...

this is definitely one hot topic...

people seem to be willing to go to any lengths to stop the mouth of one who repeats the plain meaning of scriptures...

is the plain scriptural meaning really that threatening?

evidently so...

No, not for asking, but for asking over and over and over and over again, when you have already been told by her that she doesn't care to discuss it with you. Can you really not see the difference? I'm not trying to shut you up, except in the sense that every thread on the topic of homosexuality has become derailed by your insistence that Eyes answer your questions when she has already said she doesn't care to. You could discuss this issue with any of the other posters, ask them questions, etc. etc. and they may even be willing to respond. Instead, you continue to ask the one person who has already said she doesn't care to respond. Why is that?

now people may disagree with the bible, they may criticize the bible for being "flawed", they may point to outside sources to support their opinion, they may set up a straw man argument accusing those who disgree with them of "hating homosexuals", they may pull out the persecuted victim mentality to garner sympathy, etc. etc. ... they do everything BUT support the opinion that the bible approves of homosexuality...

and i have seen NO EVIDENCE, ABSOLUTELY NONE, that supports the opinion that the bible approves of homosexual acts!

and folks have had plenty of opportunity to present such information (if it did exist)...

btw, abi, if someone does not want to engage in debate about whether homosexual acts are right or wrong according to the bible, then why would that person post on a doctrinal discussion thread in the doctrinal forum?!?... seems to me that's what happens on doctrinal threads...

Perhaps that person would like to engage in a debate or discussion with some of the posters, but not all of them. Perhaps that person simply doesn't care to discuss it with you, but would like to continue conversing with Sir, Bramble, Roy, etc. etc.

peace,

jen-o

and for the record, Jeno, I am not saying these things because I am all buddy buddy best friends with Eyes. In actuality I have known you much longer and been on much friendlier terms with you, than I have ever been with Eyes.

I am saying them because I am completely frustrated. I actually am interested in the discussions on this topic, even if I have little to add by way of what the Bible does or does not say. Unfortunately all of the threads have become about Eyes, you and Rhino. Eyes won't answer, you two continue to ask, she still won't answer, so you ask again . . . and again . . . and again.

WW seemed to recognize that earlier and left earlier ... but I don't think he was accused of anything.

So your continued harassment is your response to your perception that she attacked you? Sheesh, I've called you worse things on these boards than anything she said in her posts to you and you haven't followed me around harassing me. So, I guess, in other words, I'm not buying your justification of your behavior. In the end, though, I guess it doesn't matter if I buy it or not. But its starting to look like maybe you simply have thing for Eyes and you know what they say - negative attention is better than no attention at all.

No, you didn't forget ... those are questions that could be asked and answered somewhere else, it is not a question of whether they matter, but they are a separate issue. That is a matter of application or practice ...

... but why are people even in the doctrinal forum that have decided the Bible doctrine is flawed or hateful or just plain wrong?

Of all the accusations flying around ... isn't this a forum for people that DO believe ... and yet some come in here to call them hateful or wrong or whatever ...

Doctrine is not limited to bible believing Christians, Rhino. This isn't the Christian only forum or even the Biblical discussions only forum. :blink:

Well, I already knew.