Posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2010, at 16:34:35
In reply to Lou's response-knurenbherrglawz, posted by Lou Pilder on September 5, 2010, at 15:14:13
> > > > I don't know of any religion that doesn't claim it is charged with the exclusive franchise for salvation of human beings ... Part of having faith is having faith in something and not in something else I guess.
> > > >
> > > > hyperfocus
> > >
> > > > how should conflicts in belief be handled as civil communication on the Faith board. Personally, I don't believe that we are all riding on the back of a turtle. However, I can still tolerate others having this belief.
> > > >
> > > > What about religious beliefs that are used by some to foster antisemitism?
> > >
> > > > Is there room for conflicting beliefs?
> > > >
> > > > - Scott
> > >
> > > There's limited room here for conflicting beliefs. There's room for me to believe we're riding on the back of a turtle and for you to believe we're riding on the back of a rabbit. There isn't room for me to post that you're wrong or for you to post that I'm wrong.
> > >
> > > There's room for me to post that I have faith in X and not Y. There's room for you to post that you have faith in Y and not X. There isn't room for either of us to post that the other must have our faith to be saved.
> > >
> > > Even if we're willing to tolerate being told that we're wrong or won't be saved.
> > >
> > > From the Faith board introduction and posts it links to:
> > >
> > > > Since the idea here is support, please don't pressure others to adopt your beliefs or put them down for having theirs. Sorry, but this may mean not posting some aspects of some beliefs.
> > > >
> > > > Agnosticism and atheism are considered not to be supportive of religious faith.
> > >
> > > > There may, however, be exceptions, depending on the context, etc.
> > > >
> > > > A discussion of what different faiths teach would be a good example of such an exception. For one thing, various points of view would be represented, so there wouldn't be any implication that any one road was the only "right" one.
> > >
> > > > > This is very difficult, to find the right balance between saying what you believe, and sounding like you believe everyone should follow your chosen path.
> > >
> > > > In general, these would be OK:
> > > >
> > > > I feel I should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > > I feel I should have one God and no others before him.
> > > >
> > > > I believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > > I have one God and no others before him.
> > > >
> > > > People of my faith believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > > People of my faith have one God and no others before him.
> > > >
> > > > And these wouldn't:
> > > >
> > > > People should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > > People should have one God and no others before him.
> > > >
> > > > My faith says people should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > > My faith says people should have one God and no others before him.
> > > >
> > > > My faith says I should believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost.
> > > > My faith says I should have one God and no others before him.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > Mr. Hsiung,
> > You wrote something like,[...there is not room here to post something that states that another must have a faith to be saved (which has the potential IMHO to be analogous to that {saved} also means having forgivness and Eternal Life).
> > If this is an incorrect thinking of mine here compared to yours, could you post here why it is while citing the statement in question that you say that you have drafted your rules here to be {OK} to post it? And also, could you post here as to if that statement is {supportive} or not supportive by you saying that it is {OK} to post it for I consider that {OK} does not automatically mean that something is supportive, but that you have drafted your rule to allow it and would like for this , as I see it to be an ambiguity, to be cleared up? (the statement is not the one that you say [...that's good, thanks...])
> > Lou Pilder
> >
> Mr. Hsiung,
> You wrote something like,[....there is not room here to post that one must have a faith of another to be saved...].
> Here is the statement that you say is {OK}.
>
> The ONLY reason given in God's Word that has or ever will cause someone to miss out on God's forgivness and Eternal Life...is to reject the gift of His Son Jesus as Lord and Savior
>
> Now I think that it is reasonable for readers to understand what the statement says in regards to how one is saved or not according to what the statement purports, and to understand that to have forgivness and Eternal Life is conditional upon not rejecting what the statement purports.
> Then I also think that reasonable people can undertand that since there is a condition in the statement to be saved, and an imperative, that some people will be precluded according to the statement from forgivness and Eternal Life. The Jews and Islamic people and others that reject what the statement's imperative purports could ask themmselves:
> A. Do the Jewish children that have been murderd by antisemites have forgivness and Eternal Life according to the claim in question?
> B. Do the Islamic children murdered by anti Islamic people have forgivness and Eternal Life according to the claim in question?
> C. Do the murderers have forgivness and Eternal Life if they accepted the claim in question?
> D. other questions not stated that members could have and I would appreciate them emailing to me with.
> You say that you have drafted your rule here to say that it is {OK} to post it. But does that automatically mean that the statement, in and of itself, is supportive?. I am awaiting your reply to me concering for you to let the membership know if you are or or not wanting to mean that the statement is or is not supportive. If you could post your reply to that here, then I think that this discussion could be opened up to responses to whatever you post here. OTOH, IMHO without a declaration by you here as to if the statement is or is not supportive, then IMHO there is an ambiguity, and if so, how could that be supportive in a mental health community?
> Lou Pilder
>
Friends,
I am requesting to those that are considering being a discussant in this thread or parallel threads to read what is in the following article. If you could, I think that you could have more education concerning this ongoing issue here related to, but not limited to, that I am asking for Mr. Hsiung to post here as to if he is considering the statement in question in and of itself to be supportive or not.
If you could read the article, you could have maybe more knowlege concerning:
A. The relation to (redacted by respondent)
B. The laws that fosterd (redacted by respondent).
C. Why a Jew could (redacted by respondent) that is the subject now by me.
D. How antisemitic feelings (redacted by respondent)
E. How scapegoating is (redacted by respondent)
F. other education concerning this ongoing situaation here
Lou
To read the article:
A. pull up google
B. type in:
[Martin Luther's little book]
the one is the one authored by Jim Walker
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:960265
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/961395.html