Who does not believe in freedom of choice in religion?

[eik]

I get the impression you're trying to justify your misogyny.
You keep quoting the Bible. Why do you think the Bible's more authoritative than the Guru Granth or Popol Vuh?
Do you ever think for yourself or make your own moral decisions, or is the Bible your Magic 8-Ball?

Why should I answer one who has accused me of misogyny? As I said, if you don't understand spiritual things, the conversion is futile. In any event, why are you quoting male "spiritual" leaders. I would have supposed you would be quoting female ones to make your point.
If you have no knowledge of the bible, then it's unlikely you know God. Quoting the sacred books of long defunct civilizations is self-defeating. God would hardly have entrusted his words to such civilizations. If you can't tell the difference between myths and truth, you may have a problem. Christ is the saviour of all men, but especially of those who believe to whom he gives knowledge in abundance about all things.

 

[Pipiripi]

What about in the time of now?

It continues the same as in the beginning. Look at Revelation 12:17 and 14:12

 

[Secret Chief]

It continues the same as in the beginning. Look at Revelation 12:17 and 14:12

Exactly, not through the whim of fashion.

 

[Valjean]

It's time for you to start producing evidence once you start making allegations of apophenia

You're seeing patterns, omens and coincidences in unrelated facts and folklore. You're picking through random data to construct an imagined edifice.

Pagans make no pretence to spirituality, unless it be to the occult.

This is why I asked you for a definition. Are you using Pagan to refer to a particular anti-religious philosophy, or in the usual, catch-all sense of 'all things not-my-religion'?
Intro from RF's DIR: Paganism Overview

You'll notice that in the age of equality, the rate of crime has increased massively. In England roughly double the number of sexual assaults on females were logged by police in 2012 compared with 1965, when the Sex Discrimination Act did not exist.

And you've come to the post-hoc, conclusion that this is all due to female empowerment? What a surprise.
I think you need to broaden your perspective.

Your quotations are socialist claptrap. That is why i asked you to seriously think whether you are trying to play politics or engage with religion.

"Your's are Fascist foolishness!" See -- two can play at this game.
Please explain how you got socialism out of my posts, not that I mind, particularly, I just suspect you're trying to fit a dissenting opinion into a hated pigeonhole. Perhaps you equate a posteriori argument, objective facts, reason and logic with the political left. I can't blame you for this, I equate rigid conventionalism, tribalism and authoritarianism with the religious right, myself.

You're quoting from a political manual that could have been written by any communist or feminist. Nothing to do with spirituality.

You're anti-social and misogynist. Apperently you think any social or feminist writing is automatically anti-spiritual and wrong?
Define "spirituality."

 

[eik]

You're seeing patterns, omens and coincidences in unrelated facts and folklore. You're picking through random data to construct an imagined edifice.

I didn't ask you to define the word. I asked for evidence. I fear you're just trying to appear hyper-intellectual.

This is why I asked you for a definition. Are you using Pagan to refer to a particular anti-religious philosophy, or in the usual, catch-all sense of 'all things not-my-religion'?

All things not Christianity are paganism, in Christian parlance, except Judaism.

Intro from RF's DIR: Paganism Overview

So I think we agree paganism is very wide and certainly includes devotees of all nature religions, including feminism, by which I mean extreme feminism, because all feminism is pretty extreme nowadays. Women achieved equal pay laws 50 years ago. Some women are never satisfied until they're lording it over men. If that's your agenda, it's not a spiritual one although it may be a feminist one.

And you've come to the post-hoc, conclusion that this is all due to female empowerment? What a surprise.
I think you need to broaden your perspective.

No, I'm just disproving the Baha'i claptrap that you quoted.

"Your's are Fascist foolishness!" See -- two can play at this game.
Please explain how you got socialism out of my posts, not that I mind, particularly, I just suspect you're trying to fit a dissenting opinion into a hated pigeonhole. Perhaps you equate a posteriori argument, objective facts, reason and logic with the political left. I can't blame you for this, I equate rigid conventionalism, tribalism and authoritarianism with the religious right, myself.

You preach socialism, feminism and communism from your pulpit. Anyone who uses the word "misogyny" against Christians who distinguish male and female roles is not just a feminist, but an ultra-feminist. In fact I would go further and classify you as a misandrist. I mean you're not just condemning me: you're condemning Christ himself since he distingished male and female, and billions of Christians too who attend church where male and female are distinguished. "God made them male and female." Male is not female and female is not male, don't you know? If you can't see a difference, or if you think the difference is only skin deep, you have a problem with understanding sex. It affects the genes, the very molecules of your body.

You're anti-social and misogynist. Apperently you think any social or feminist writing is automatically anti-spiritual and wrong?

Feminists are in general votaries of nature religion and mother goddess worship. They expect people to listen to them on that account. Yet the people of YHWH put all that nonsense behind them thousands of years ago. No, Christians do not worship women but value them as heirs of Christ, if they are heirs at all.

Define "spirituality."

Jesus Christ.

 

[Valjean]

Why should I answer one who has accused me of misogyny? As I said, if you don't understand spiritual things, the conversion is futile.

I'm pretty confident any dispassionate reading of your recent posts would come to the same conclusion.

Why do you think I don't understand spiritual things? I'm very spiritual.

If you don't understand objective facts, reason or logic; if you're incapable of independent thought or judgement, perhaps our conversation is futile.

In any event, why are you quoting male "spiritual" leaders. I would have supposed you would be quoting female ones to make your point.

I'm just playing your game: dueling quotes. My quotations illustrate the teachings of a very recent and growing religion. (Christianity, oddly, seems to be in decline).

If you have no knowledge of the bible, then it's unlikely you know God.

Have you seen the religious section of my library? I have multiple Bibles, plus a lot of writing from other faiths. Part of my skepticism is because of my knowledge of the Bible.

Quoting the sacred books of long defunct civilizations is self-defeating. God would hardly have entrusted his words to such civilizations. If you can't tell the difference between myths and truth, you may have a problem. Christ is the saviour of all men, but especially of those who believe to whom he gives knowledge in abundance about all things.

My quotation was from 1912. Who's the one quoting scripture from defunct civilizations? And it's not I who cannot seem to distinguish myth from objective truth.

Eik, you're preaching, and you're so deep in your fundamentalism you're not even aware of it.

Your whole religious mythos is based on an axiomatic acceptance of a highly edited, cherry-picked, mistranslated, self-contradictory compendium of ancient myths. Your theology has no foundation in objective, verifiable facts. It's a house built on sand -- which you're vigorously defending, for just this reason, I suspect.

 

[Valjean]

I didn't ask you to define the word. I asked for evidence. I fear you're just trying to appear hyper-intellectual.

Analyze your posts. You are doing exactly what I described in my post.

All things not Christianity are paganism, in Christian parlance, except Judaism.

Thanks. That clarifies things.

So I think we agree paganism is very wide and certainly includes devotees of all nature religions, including feminism, by which I mean extreme feminism, because all feminism is pretty extreme nowadays. Women achieved equal pay laws 50 years ago. Some women are never satisfied until they're lording it over men. If that's your agenda, it's not a spiritual one although it may be a feminist one.

Right...
No-one would ever accuse you of being misogynist.

No, I'm just disproving the Baha'i claptrap that you quoted.

You have a very loose definition of "prove," apparently.

You preach socialism, feminism and communism from your pulpit. Anyone who uses the word "misogyny" against Christians who distinguish male and female roles is not just a feminist, but an ultra-feminist. In fact I would go further and classify you as a misandrist. I mean you're not just condemning me: you're condemning Christ himself since he distingished male and female, and billions of Christians too who attend church where male and female are distinguished. "God made them male and female." Male is not female and female is not male, don't you know? If you can't see a difference, or if you think the difference is only skin deep, you have a problem with understanding sex. It affects the genes, the very molecules of your body.

Eik, you're just digging yourself in deeper. Take some deep breaths.
You're in a theological panic, comrade.

Feminists are in general votaries of nature religion and mother goddess worship. They expect people to listen to them on that account. Yet the people of YHWH put all that nonsense behind them thousands of years ago. No, Christians do not worship women but value them as heirs of Christ, if they are heirs at all.

<< Dons wellies >>

Valjean said: ↑
Define "spirituality."
[/quote]Jesus Christ.[/quote]That neither makes sense nor is it a definition.

If we're using the same terms with different meanings we'll be talking past each other all day. That's why I keep asking for definitions. You seem to be using words in an unusual sense.

 

[Secret Chief]

comrade

Aha!

 

[Valjean]

Aha!

LOL!. Caught that, did you.

 

[Milton Platt]

Your idea of freedom of religion is different from mine.

Only a hypocrite would not raise their children to practice their religion. Children learn about other religions in school (depending on the school). What I have seen Christians doing in America, is trying to incorporate values into the government. The question is, why is the public so afraid of someone pointing out their immoral ideas? And isn't it part of democracy that they have the right to try and make changes in as much as they can?

I did not say they could not raise their children to practice their religion. I said that they did teach their children about other religions.

Of course, Christians can work to make changes. But not changes based on their religion. They can hold whatever moral concepts (even faulty ones) that they wish. but they cannot force others who do not hold their religious beliefs abide by those same standards.

 

[eik]

I did not say they could not raise their children to practice their religion. I said that they did teach their children about other religions.

Of course, Christians can work to make changes. But not changes based on their religion. They can hold whatever moral concepts (even faulty ones) that they wish. but they cannot force others who do not hold their religious beliefs abide by those same standards.

Why not? Ultimately it's a question of power. Christians are not in power. But if they were they could do exactly that, i.e. force others who do not hold their religious beliefs to abide by those same standards, in the same way as large numbers of Americans who do not believe in the law of the USA, are obliged to adhere to it, irrespective of their beliefs.

 

[eik]

Analyze your posts. You are doing exactly what I described in my post.

So it's just your own opinion then. I care not as it is meaningless.

No-one would ever accuse you of being misogynist.

I can safely say that the only persons who have ever accused me of being a misogynist are radical feminists with a pseudo-theological bent.

You have a very loose definition of "prove," apparently.
Eik, you're just digging yourself in deeper. Take some deep breaths.
You're in a theological panic, comrade.

Nature worshippers do not panic me. I find them boring, because they can't prove anything. They keep on resurrecting nature worship in new forms, but it's just the same fundamental religion of BS.

Valjean said: ↑
Define "spirituality."
Jesus Christ.

That neither makes sense nor is it a definition.

If we're using the same terms with different meanings we'll be talking past each other all day. That's why I keep asking for definitions. You seem to be using words in an unusual sense.

So Jesus Christ is unusual? Not to my knowledge. He's the epitome of spirituality because he claims God who is Spirit as his Father. It's what I said all along: there's no point in talking to you, because you cannot comprehend the spiritual world. If you can't comprehend Christ, that is proof of it indeed.

 

[Valjean]

I can safely say that the only persons who have ever accused me of being a misogynist are radical feminists with a pseudo-theological bent.

And I think I can safely say that there are an awful lot of people reading your posts who would answer that description.

Nature worshippers do not panic me. I find them boring, because they can't prove anything. They keep on resurrecting nature worship in new forms, but it's just the same fundamental religion of BS.

So what can your particular doctrine "prove?"

So Jesus Christ is unusual? Not to my knowledge. He's the epitome of spirituality because he claims God who is Spirit as his Father. It's what I said all along: there's no point in talking to you, because you cannot comprehend the spiritual world. If you can't comprehend Christ, that is proof of it indeed.

No!
I'm saying "Jesus Christ" is not a definition.

 

[eik]

And I think I can safely say that there are an awful lot of people reading your posts who would answer that description.

I care not

Rev 20:8,9
"And [they] shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea....and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

So what can your particular doctrine "prove?"

Nothing can be proved to those without faith.

No!
I'm saying "Jesus Christ" is not a definition.

Well, it's true that occultists will lay claim to spirituality, as will all manner of eastern philosopher. And it's true that no-one is excluded from approaching God, and receiving wisdom from God.

But in respect of what is supreme and superlative, and cutting out all the dross (which would take you a lifetime to wade through anyway), the only spirituality necessary and vital for life is found in Jesus Christ.

 

[Milton Platt]

Why not? Ultimately it's a question of power. Christians are not in power. But if they were they could do exactly that, i.e. force others who do not hold their religious beliefs to abide by those same standards, in the same way as large numbers of Americans who do not believe in the law of the USA, are obliged to adhere to it, irrespective of their beliefs.

Because our constitution forbids it

 

[eik]

Because our constitution forbids it

On the contrary, the constitution only forbids the establishment of a religion under secular law. But there is nothing to stop secular law itself being enacted along Christian lines, and that is what you will find on a historical basis in respect of many criminal laws. Much criminal law of today originated in Christian society, although since modified by non Christian liberals. Yet if muslims were in future to become a predominant majority, you would find that secular law begins to take on an appearance of Sharia law. In effect all law is constituted according to the religion of its legislators and supreme court judges.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If you have no knowledge of the bible, then it's unlikely you know God. Quoting the sacred books of long defunct civilizations is self-defeating. God would hardly have entrusted his words to such civilizations. If you can't tell the difference between myths and truth, you may have a problem. Christ is the saviour of all men, but especially of those who believe to whom he gives knowledge in abundance about all things.

Not coming in defense of Valjian (he has already given his reply), but he has enough knowledge of Bible (even I have). But what is written in Bible does not prove either the existence of God or any divine mission of Jesus, it does not prove heaven, hell, deliverance or final judgment. That was the story spun by Paul, Gospel writers and others. You said: 'because he claims God who is Spirit as his Father'. I do not know who fathered Jesus by violating an unmarried betrothed girl (I would not debate her virginity)? Is a claim everything? For me, Jesus' paternity remains unknown. I have not heard of women being impregnated by Ghosts.

If you want your book to be respected, you should respect the books of other religions as well. Judaism and Christianity also were pagan religions of a people (you said: all things not Christianity are paganism). Sikhism is a beautiful religion followed by 25 million dynamic people who are always in the forefront to serve humanity. You take myths and stories as truth, do not blame the others for it. Jesus saving people from an imaginary hell is only a Christian canard.

 

[eik]

Not coming in defense of Valjian (he has already given his reply), but he has enough knowledge of Bible (even I have). But what is written in Bible does not prove either the existence of God or any divine mission of Jesus, it does not prove heaven, hell, deliverence or final judgment.

As I said to Valjian, nothing can be proved to those with faith. This was the teaching of Jesus in the parable of Lazarus.

Luke 16:19-31 "31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’
​

That was the story spun by Paul, Gospel writers and others. If you want your book to be respected, you should respect the books of other religions as well.

I can respect the books of other religions provided they are consistent with the bible. Thus wisdom books are found the world over, and they contain what I would concur to be wisdom. Books coming after Christianity are to a lessor or greater extent based on Christianity, in any case.

Judaism and Christianity also were pagan religions of a people (you said: all things not Christianity are paganism). Sikhism is a beautiful religion followed by 25 million dynamic people who are always in the forefront to serve humanity.

Guru Nanak is 1500 years after Jesus Christ. In that time, the whole of Asia had been evangelized first by the Nestorians, and other Christians, and also conquered by Islam & then the mongols, who having converted to Islam, conquered India. Sikhism seems to be a syncretic cross between Hinduism and Islam, which seems not to be a good basis for being deemed supremely authentic. It has been criticized. Its scriptures have been termed incoherent.

Jesus is looked on as a "saint" by sikhism. In common with the Islamic misunderstanding of Christ as the son of God, sikhs reject his sonship, largely because they fail to grasp what it entails, which is not that he was God, but that he came from God.

It is this age-old problem of misunderstanding the sonship of God that has led sikhs to reject Christ and adopt the Islamic version of Christ, which is pagan in Christian terms. That's not to judge sikhs, because all outside the church will be judged by God, but it is to say that sikhism is unavoidably a heretical religion in Christian terms. Much of sikh theology is completely incompatible with the teachings of Christ.

You take myths and stories as truth, do not blame the others for it. Jesus saving people from an imaginary hell is only a Christian canard.

Hell is a necessary concept to judge the wicked. If you don't believe in hell, you don't believe in the judgement of the wicked or in a reward for the righeous. Judgement is perhaps not an attractive doctrine to many, as it interferes with their liberties. But as the parable of Lazarus discloses, hell must exist if God is just.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As I said to Valjian, nothing can be proved to those with (out) faith.
I can respect the books of other religions provided they are consistent with the bible.
Guru Nanak is 1500 years after Jesus Christ. In that time, the whole of Asia had been evangelized first by the Nestorians, and other Christians, and then by Islam.
Hell is a necessary concept to judge the wicked. If you don't believe in hell, you don't believe in the judgement of the wicked or in a reward for the righeous.

- And those who have faith (blind faith) do not require any proof. Actually asking for proof is considered foolishness.
- Yeah, sure, Sikhism is a recent religion but it is different from the Abrahamic religions. It is not an exclusivist religion. It is wiser. It does not send all those who do not worship Ek Onkar (their name for the Supreme entity) or Guru Nanak to eternal hell. But remember, Sikhism is a monist religion. Sikhs have nothing to do with Jesus, since he is revered by Christians, they sure, do not disrespect him.
- That is as good as saying that you do not respect any other book. Even with Bible, there are said to be 30,000 sects in Christianity. Different people have different views. Why should you expect books of other people to be same as Bible?
- Whole of Asia being evangelized! That is exaggeration par excellence. Christians make 2.3% of the Indian population and are even less in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Only Philippines is Christian and South Korea has a large number (30%). Know you numbers.
- There is no proof of rebirth, reincarnation, heaven, hell, judgement or being raised after death. These are Christian lollypops. Being Christian allows you to see the Emperors New Clothes.
- Actions may have their results in this life, like Osama or Caliph Ibrahim dying by violence or people being awarded for their nice works. But death is the end of the story. If someone escapes the punishment of deeds, it is that person's luck. And many do escape.

 

[eik]

- And those who have faith (blind faith) do not require any proof. Actually asking for proof is considered foolishness.

No that's not what I said. I said to those without faith nothing can be proved. The reason for it is that they cannot experience the fulfilment of the promises. For the promises and punishments of Christianity extend to this life as well as the next. Unless you become one, you cannot know it.

- Yeah, sure, Sikhism is a recent religion but it is different from the Abrahamic religions. It is not an exclusivist religion. It is wiser. It does not send all those who do not worship Ek Onkar (their name for the Supreme entity) or Guru Nanak to eternal hell. But remember, Sikhism is a monist religion. Sikhs have nothing to do with Jesus, since he is revered by Christians, they sure, do not disrespect him.

They do disrespect him, by refusing to believe in him.

- That is as good as saying that you do not respect any other book. Even with Bible, there are said to be 30,000 sects in Christianity. Different people have different views. Why should you expect books of other people to be same as Bible?

I respect other books, Tao Te Ching, writings of Confucius. Anything that's practical and conforms to God's word. I don't like the stuff by the poets though: gods and goddesses etc. Just fairly tales.

- Whole of Asia being evangelized! That is exaggeration par excellence. Christians make 2.3% of the Indian population and are even less in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Only Philippines is Christian and South Korea has a large number (30%). Know you numbers.

I wasn't meaning that all were converted. I just meant that the gospel was preached to eastern China and beyond, way back. Even some of the mongol generals or at least their wives were Christians.

- There is no proof of rebirth, reincarnation, heaven, hell, judgement or being raised after death. These are Christian lollypops. Being Christian allows you to see the Emperors New Clothes.

Jesus was resurrected as a fact, which makes everything he said true.

- Actions may have their results in this life, like Osama or Caliph Ibrahim dying by violence or people being awarded for their nice works. But death is the end of the story. If someone escapes the punishment of deeds, it is that person's luck. And many do escape.

Christianity is not a matter of luck. God has appointed every tiny thing that happens. Your idea of God is far too small. God knows every little thing. Every action will be brought into the light. Learn from Christ: a guru much superior to any other.