Little Whip writes:



Little whip, how can you so consistently miss the point? Evil does not exist outside of our actions, that is, there is no devil to cause evil. Get it? Of course men to evil things, that is how evil is brought into the world. Are those men evil? No. Their actions are evil. Get it? I do not think of jihadists as "poor" in the sense that you suggest, i.e. to be coddled or pampered. Your suggestion is childish. Are they poor? My sense is they are suffering in hate and are poor in spirit. They have no meaningful connection to community other than through their hate. Are we going to win them over with violence? No. Are we going to terrorize them into submission with our own? No. Can we smarter and think out of our own box of hate and fear? That's the question. For you the answer is apparently not.

Now, I am well aware that you believe me to be a bigot. I am sorry you feel that way. It is way off mark. Do I have issues with Christians? No, not specifically. Do I have issues with intolerance, you betcha. And we are talking on this thread about tyranny. I argue the intolerance of some Christians and the specific Christian belief that there is only one way, their way, as well as their willingness to seek legislation to maintain this dominance is, in fact, bigoted and tyranical. Do I think they should be stopped from speaking? No. Would I try to control them through governmental restriction? No. But then, I will not allow them to do the same to me, either. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes, so be it.

Please try to get past your hate, and your will to violence, it is very unbecoming.

_____
As far as Jesus not being a Jew. Goodness. How could he not be? There were no Christians until way after he died. Early "Christians" thought of themselves as Jews. He was thought to be the Jewish Messiah, for goodness sake.

KFC and Loca argue that Jesus was religiously intolerant. I still maintain, not so in the context of interfaith relations. He did not ask Romans to become Jews. He disparaged the practices and faith of the Pharisees and behaved atrociously on the Temple steps. He demonstrated a flawed nature with this temper tantrum, in my opinion. But he was yelling at Jews about their Jewish practices. No where in Judaism do we disparage other paths. All are welcome to walk with us and maintain their original faiths. Judaism is a tribal religion not a belief system. One can be Jewish and leave the faith, like a Messianic Jew. Are they Jews? Yes, bit not religiously speaking, and if they see the light and return to their faith of origen, they will be welcome.


Be well.

Jythier, Where am I saying good is evil? Or evil, good? They are very different actions. Yet, they are actions, none the less.

I am not enlightened, but I am a buddha.

Be well.

How tolerant do you want me to be? I'm not hurting you, or seeking legislation for anything. My faith allows all to enter if they so choose, including you. Is that intolerant? If they choose not to, their eternity will not be with God. Is that intolerant? If they did not choose God in life, why should they get to be with Him after? God tolerates you to be on His Earth, and tolerates you making the decision against Him. He continues to let you live! But someday, just like everybody else, you will die and that will be the end of your decisions. All that will be left is consequences, either good or bad.

There is a devil to cause evil. Evil does exist outside of our actions. The devil you don't believe in is very active, and he doesn't really care whether you believe in him or not, as long as you don't believe in Jesus.

Jythier,

I don't want you to be intolerant at all. I would like very much for you to be a loving and respectful person toward people from differing cultures and religuous backgrounds. Perhaps I am wrong? You do not want to see our constitution changed to allow publicly funded prayer? You would like to see publicly funded Christmas displays, the promotion via public funds of your faith?

When you say that my faith is false or not equal to yours, you are, indeed, hurting me. It is hurtful speech.

We can certainly agree to disagree on the subject of the Adversary. Christians have their own spin on he Hebrew text and went wild with Milton's poetic embellishments. So it goes. If it is important to you to havce a devil to explain the conduct of men, fine. Yet, it is men who make the choices. And men who do the deeds. Wouldn'tr it be a bit better to focus our attention on our behavior than on our beliefs? Just a thought.

I support you in your right to have your prayers. You are free to pray anywhere at anytime, even in school. You just can't do it at other's expense. Just so, I don't expect you to allow me to lead your children (were they in public school) in a Buddhist prayer. Not when you are a taxpayer paying my salary as a school employee.

I believe wholeheartedly in an ecumenical approach to spirituality in America. I am a member of the Interfaith Council at New Mexico State University and get along very well with its members.

I would hope you could share in such efforts.

Be well.

No and neither are we asking anyone to be Christian Sodaiho. We are asking that our nation stay focused and stand on the same principles it was founded on.

As far as Christ acting as he did. That was ok. It's ok to be angry over sin. It's ok to be angry but it's also important not to sin in our anger. It's ok to be angry when you see somebody hurt or cheat another. In the case at the temple, there's alot to the story that most don't understand.

This was a case where the rich authorities were making money off the poor. They were using their position of authority to fill their pockets. Christ uncovered their little lamb scam and drew attention to it. He was always one to uncover what was being covered up. Your sins will always find you out eventually. Christ will uncover what we try to cover. But it's good to know that he will also cover what we uncover.



This subject is brought up in scripture quite a bit. The Jews that were Jews in nationality but not religious were not Jews to God. The Jews that had their hearts circumcised (yes even in the OT this is mentioned) are the real Jews. Actually a Messianic Jew is a real Jew...not according to the Nationality but to God. He would be a Jew that recognized that Jeses was the Messiah spoken of by the OT prophets. They would be Jews that were circumcised without hands.

No you're not wrong, we are called to be kind and loving to all. But we are not called to be tolerant of other religions in the way you would wish. What I mean by that is we are not to consider them equal with Christ. Our hope and trust and faith is not in a creed, a pope, or pillar but on a God/Man. There are many religions out there but there is only one Christ. He did what no other religion could do for us. He died for us. He took our spot.

Tolerance is not to be equated with acceptance. To be intolerant is not to be equated with force either. Christ was clear. Give out the message, if they accept you win a brother. If not, walk away. Never force anyone. We can't anyhow. Some Christians don't understand this. They think it's all on them to win souls. It's not. It's the Holy Spirit's doing, not ours. We are just the vehicle. The HS is driving the car.



Of course it is. We shouldn't do this. But keep in mind Christians that have met Jesus want you to meet him too and it's out of love not to insult but I can see how that can come across just as you said. We have such a strong sense of battle going on that we believe we are taking you from the grip of Satan to Christ who sets you free.



and this is exactly where we're heading not just here but globally. From my POV this is the desire of the Anti-Christ and will be the platform on which he wins acceptance. His smooth ecumenical words will make sense. Only later will people realize they have been duped by the master deceiver himself. After they help him in, he throws them off his back and will demand worship himself. That's the whole plan. Get worship away from Jehovah God and onto himself.

Dear KFC,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and compassonate response. As you, I pray we will all one day become brothers or as I call it, One. We may have different takes on his, and that is really OK. You have an interesting POV regarding Messianics. Your take on ecumenicalism is sad to me, but I understand it from your POV. As I see it our minds and hearts can become so cluttered with our fears and the bogeymen of religious doctrine that we live in the dark, which you call light. Too bad, really. In all sincerity, I will pray for you.

As to Jesus and the Pharisees and monety-changers, we have clear differences on this as well. Moneyt was not clean, just as many things were ordaoined by God not be be clean. What Jesus was demonstrating was a rebellious nature. He was disssatisfied with the principles. Like many immature rebellious people. It is not OK to become angry at those who you feel are wronging God. It is not OK to be angry with sin or with simnners. Anger only begets anger. Anger is a poisonous emotion. An enlightened being would not become angry. While the Hebrew Scriptures has it that God became angry, I do not think this is in fact so. I believe we want to (or need to) believe God becomes angry, but that is an anthropomorphism and more a reflection of our shortcomings than God's. God is emotionless. He is the entire universe without limit. He is not even a He. That is our own addition to the mix. And that addition distorts the truth.

God speaks to us in ways we can understand, but that does not mean that understanding is it. It is only a way wee can understand. We must get outside of the box to really understand.

May you be well.

You're basing this on what? You keep saying you believe or you think. Where are you getting this from?



How can you say this in lieu of the cross? Christ wept over Jerusalem. He wept at the tomb of Lazarus. He was troubled before he went to the cross. He was angry as we've already noticed. We see many times where God loved as in "God so loved the world...."

If we are made after the image of God, and emotion is such a big part of who we are, I believe also that God also will display emotion that we will see, feel and recognize. The first will be his overwhelming love he has for us as he welcomes us into eternity.

Hello KFC,

My experience of human beings and scholarship. How people think, project, and assign to the universe whast we either want or need from it. If you think a text is a solution to discovering the truth, you are making a grave error (in my opinion).





Christ was not God. You keep thinking he was. I weep over the universe, as well. The notions of God emoting anything is a human one attributed to Him, It, Her by men who write about him.

Be well.

Little Whip, people should attempt to get laws passed that will further their beliefs. I do not argue they shouldn't and I support their right to do so. However, I also have the right to oppose such efforts, call them nonsense, short sighted, or whatever, as well.

I do not believe evil can be applied to individuals, only their behavior. Some behavior is virtuous, some far less so. I suspect we can agree on that. But all people, all people, including you, Little Whip, are perfect as they are. You have within you the seeds of buddhahood. You may choose not to nurture them, but they are there.

As far as tyranny goes, it is tyrannical when people (or even just one person) seek to place their interest above the interests of the common good on the basis of their belief that their way is the only way. And to claim that it is their inalienable God-given right to do so. This is exactly what the King of England did to our ancestors and we wrote a Declaration of Independence about it.

Do they have a right to attempt to do so? Absolutely. Is it bigoted, of course. Is it tyrannical? I suppose it depends on the thing. If I am a Jewish shopkeeper and I close my business on the Sabbath, but want to be open on Sunday and I lived in a state where the majority ruled the Sabbath was Sunday and all shops were to be closed, I suspect I think that might be tyranny. Or like in those delightful home states of mine in the deep south when I was a little boy and the good Christian white folk made lots of laws keeping black folk from water fountains and voting booths, yeppers, I'd say that was tyranny, as well.

Do I hate Christians? Goodness no. I do not hate anyone. There are ways in the world thogh that I do fighth against. Hate greed, delusion, these I work against as I see them as the source of evil behavior. I will stand up against these behaviors and those who use them, including "terrorists" or "Christians" or even "Buddhists" gone puritanical. When all we see is black and white our world is petty damn colorless, don't you think?

Be well, Little Whip.

Well, Christians believe that, for the betterment of everyone, everyone should become a Christian, and live a Christ-like lifestyle. That would be the best thing that could happen. Everyone who lives in a non-Christ-like manner is acting against the greater good.

What's wrong with that? You say it like it's a bad thing!

Little Whip, May you live a long and happy life. Be well.

So you're saying....that you trust your own human experiences and intelligence, to tell you that God does not become angry? How so?

Also, can you think of a time or times when your human experiences and smarts haven't led you wrong before? When it comes to the eternal, we must be quite sure we've done our HW because eternity is such a long time to live with a mistake. How can you know what God is like outside his revealed information given to us via 1500 years of written words from so many with such similar experiences? I guess if I didn't have this I would or could think whatever I wished. I might even agree with you because what else would I have?

So you're asking me or anybody to believe that the church fathers for the first five centuries (closer in time to the action) did not proclaim the true gospel; that Origen, Justin, Iraneaus, Jerome, Eusebius, Anthanasius, Chrysostom and then later Thomas Aquinas, Huss, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Knoox, Wesley, Whitefield... etc not to exclude the 40 writers of both OT and NT who were in complete agreement,,, all were wrong? They all believed that God does indeed get angry and they ALL agreed that Jesus IS God. This is all beside the fact that Jesus even said he was God himself and demonstrated not only that he was but also this anger as God in the flesh.

So with one dogmatic assertion Sodaiho you have pronounced them all wrong. And Because you think he wasn't God and that a God wouldn't get angry it must be so.



But that's just it Sodaiho. It's not ME thinking. There's overwhelming evidence that he was God. He said he was by his actions and words. The many eyewitnesses said he was. They saw things that would indicate his deity. He was unlike any other. The changed lives then and still now are a great testimony to encounters with this same Christ. I'm not just thinking it and pulling it out of thin air.



Well that's good to know, but you do seem to have issues at the very least Sodaiho. I think (and I could be wrong here) that you are choosing to use these bad experiences to paint Christians in the light you wish to see them in so you can discount what the true Christians are saying.

You make a very good point.

Kingdoms have risen and fallen and our history books tell the tale. According to James Michener from his book 'The Quality of Life' (2000) reckons that;

'In the last two centuries every other nation has had to revise its form of government, most of them radically. China, oldest among the continuing nations, has experienced change of the most violent sort. Russia, one of the most powerful, has undergone total upheaval. Spain, France, Turkey ... all the others have tried one form of government after another, seeking stability which we miraculously attained.'

He continues:

'The four nations which might seem exceptions to this theory are Great Britian, Switzerland, Sweden and Thailand, but upon inspection they are not. Since we started our history as a constitutional democracy in 1789, Switzerland has been forced to change its basic law several times, often to a radical degree. Sweden and Thailand have shifted enormously in their attitudes towards their kings; and even stolid Britian has changed from strong kingly privileges to weak, and from a powerful House of Lords to one which serves principally as a cautionary figurehead.'

and finally:

'Therefore, when I look at my country, I see the oldest continuing systme of goverment and I take pride in the fact that we have founded a stable system while so many other nations did not. I think of the United States as a rather old nation, experienced, tested, so I tend to be occupied with the problems that overtake successful and established nations. I find no sense in theories which refer to us as a young nation, for among the family of nations we are the oldest brother.'

Jesus taught us to pray:

'Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.'

Jesus taught us a code that I am not sure any nation follows wholeheartedly:

'A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another as I have loved you.'

I think the best we have managed is 'my kindgdom come, my will be done, on earth as it is in .... where' and 'a new commandment I give unto myself, is that I love myself as much as I can manage, after all that is good therapy etc.'

The idea of a Theocracy or one nation under One GOD, has not really worked for Israel, for unless the Lord brings a nation to it's knees in repentance, we will just have as Jythier notes, reforms, more laws and eventually if God decides a nation 'given over' (Romans 1). I hate to say it but on a world wide scale our planet is in one sorry mess... The Judeo-Christian system is the only one that offers a definite plan, but there is only one who can properly impliment it, and well He is not here yet.

Come Lord Jesus.


Aeryck.