Inclusive & Exclusive - Belief

[Bandit]

Quahom, no doubt the christians extend themselves beyond others in many ways. Without a doubt there are christians filled with God's love and spirit. Some of these folks spread the word of God with the intention of truly helping another, others because they feel it is their duty as a christian to convert people to Jesus Christ. I think it can be taken as arrogant and presumptuous that one would need saving because they don't believe the same as others. I think it is very exclusive to tell people that heaven isn't open to them due to their nonbelief in Jesus. How is this inclusive. It's inclusive if you believe the same way, if not then you aren't considered part of God's maercy and grace.

Hi Didymus

i am seeing this the other way around. people choose to include or exclude Jesus. the same way i choose to include or exclude buddha & whoever.
but i think part of this here needs to be addressed to Jesus & not Christians per say- because he is the one who said what he said. so it is really Jesus, some people have the problem with...and when some people choose to include ALL of what he said & taught, people do not like that.

i do not exclude any individual from my life until i have a reason to do so, regardless of the beliefs they have. i do not flaunt my beliefs in Jesus as being better but i also do not compromise them.
i know you were taliking to Q, but i just wanted to point that out in behalf of myself.

Bandit, I think there are many misleading books out there,. These aren't any of the books I refer to. The language of the heart is universal. Those that speak truth are known by their words and actions. There are so many different forms of spirituality that take onestraight to God. I read alot of different things out there, particularly experiences of those that enter deep meditation, prayer, NDE's and the like. There is a commonality that threads through all of this and that is God. The God that speaks to you sometimes but you ignore itbecause it may be wrong. You know what I mean. Those fleeting thoughts or that intuition that something doesn't sound right or sit well with you, but you can't share it with some,because they will tell you that you are wrong. Those people that will listen to the doubt and ambiguity you have without redirecting you to the source of confusion. These are the people that speak the same language. They will direct you to your heart and your conscious. There you will find truth. As the master said, "the kingdom is within you".

i was going through a reincarnation forum. i feel the bible does not give an absolute yes or no dogma concerning this & adresses it in a very obscure & vague manner. at this forum i am reading stuff like my dog came back as a cat. my uncle came back as my freinds son. ok fine. whatever. & there were some good articles on children that i have no problem in seeing a possibility in some reincarnation. it is a non issue for me & i stand neutral with it & refuse to accept any yes or no absolute dogma on this.
however, i got to the pages with FAQ and all i saw was a bunch of bashing christians & the bible. so there, my beliefs are excluded by these reincarnation people. with them- it is reincarnation or die!
naturally i will be chastized & condemned & excluded by a lot of Christians as well & i do not care, because the bible does not adress it, IMO.


so we all choose what & who to include in our beliefs. that does not mean we have to treat others badly or pound them over the head. all the rest of your post we are in agreement...the books & attitudes etc.

one thing i am a bit tired of seeing (not by you Didymus) are those who keep saying christians are exclusive. well, that may be so for some, but dont keep throwing us all in the same pile.
all these other religions & personal beliefs are just as exclusive as some Christians & dont tell me they are not.

people CHOOSE every single day what to include & exclude. if some choose to exclude Jesus & the Bible. then so be it. if i choose to exclude the Braham teaching, then so be it.
Everyone is excluding & including something. that is just the way it is because you cant have cake & eat it too.

i do not answer for what others do & thank God i dont have to.
i hope that explains a little better how i feel about the inclusive & exclusive sentiments & accusations that people like to direct toward Christians or anyone for that matter.

any way- good to see you again, Didymus

 

[Bandit]

anyone else up for the inclusive & exclusive church dogma?

 

[taijasi]

Bandit,

Recommendation ... or suggestion:

As I often say (stole it from an ex): Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think it's neat that you're open to the idea that Christ (and other Prophets) taught reincarnation. Some people believe in transmigration - or many, many variations of this idea, including the notion that one can regress. This is NOT an esoteric teaching, however, and as a strong proponent of the idea that Christ taugth Rebirth, I would like to emphasize that there is always progress, even if very slight. There is also accountability, and all of this for the purpose of learning. The notion of punishment (or reward, in a personal sense), is not a part of the Teaching of Rebirth.

Those were specific ideas ... but I have a broader suggestion - and not just for you, but for anyone who is willing to take this approach at Comparative relgion. Rather than try to embrace, discard, adopt or reject entire belief systems, or even such core tenets of belief as Rebirth, or say, vicarious atonement ... why not try to focus a thread quite specifically (these topics are fine, for starters) - and then go point by point around the table, so to speak. Thus, if you find, in looking into threads on rebirth, that folks are bashing, or displaying intolerance, why not bring it up? And of course, not in a personal way ... I think you do an excellent job of trying to isolate the points people make from their belief, or faith - in those points. But the easiest way, as we all know, to drive a wedge in deeper, is to attack someone, or ridicule a belief, or in short - to fail to respect that such ideas are believed sacred (in varying degrees) by that person.

I don't mind stating that I find the exclusivity of some Christians ... well, non-Christian (!) ... but if you really want to know more, engage me. Ask me about my experiences, or at least challenge me to defend that statement, if you disagree. But what I think you'll find, is that, as far as I'm concerned, one's personal relationship with Jesus, Buddha, or any other Teacher/Prophet/Savior ... is ultimately up to that person. No statement, if it is untrue, can shake one's own inner knowings - if they are sound. And thus, to defend the good name, accomplishments, and planetary role of the Christian teachings & traditions ... is only natural & sensible - for you. If the spirit in which you do so, and your motive, is to show that many Christians are inclusive, and/or that this is part & parcel of the very Teaching of Christ Jesus, then I will be the first to agree.

But if you assert that Christ taught that there are no other Saviors - or, more precisely, that the Christ is not a Universal Presence, then I will disagree, and state my reasons. Likewise, if you suggest that one path is more valid than another, without defending that assertion, not to mention the familiar "my way is the only right way" nonsense, which always demonstrates the true ignorance and intolerance of s/he who utters it.

But I think it's back to two things. Above all, Respect. I think that's an area where I can acknowledge I'm sometimes lacking the Christian spirit (although, again, this is a universal virtue, imho). Still, if I step out of line, a friendly reminder is in order ... else a word from a mod.

And the other thing, is the idea of focusing on one or two specific points, if we're in the debating mode, or challenging mode ... or even if we're just going about about the Comparative business, which includes comparison & contrast, and the pointing out of both similarities, as well as differences.

My own inclination is to look for similarities & Unity, but I have sometimes made the error of forcing the issue, or of disregarding important distinctions. I think another error would be to focus too much on the diversity and surface differences ... to the extreme of missing an underlying Unity that might exist. One can always miss the forest for the trees, or vice versa.

Fence-sitting is okay, too. Objectivity is always good. I think the irony is that, even as we become more objective, it is still possible to find deeper revelation, deeper understanding, deeper meaning. This almost seems paradoxical, but then again - from down here, the earth looks flat. Out in space, it's almost spherical. But to a mathematician, it's elliptical, and not truly spherical ... and this makes all the difference in the world! literally!

cheers,

andrew

 

[Bandit]

Bandit,

Recommendation ... or suggestion:

As I often say (stole it from an ex): Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think it's neat that you're open to the idea that Christ (and other Prophets) taught reincarnation. Some people believe in transmigration - or many, many variations of this idea, including the notion that one can regress. This is NOT an esoteric teaching, however, and as a strong proponent of the idea that Christ taugth Rebirth, I would like to emphasize that there is always progress, even if very slight. There is also accountability, and all of this for the purpose of learning. The notion of punishment (or reward, in a personal sense), is not a part of the Teaching of Rebirth.

hey taijasi

i cant say it is 'taught' either way in the scriptures, but i am not so blind to know that God can & will do as He pleases, regardless of our own personal opinons on reincarnation & any absolute doctrines that follow it. there is something greater below the surface going on there with Jesus, Lazarus, Mose & Elijah than most Christians will admit or realize. i know it was taught for centruies in the RCC & other Christian institutions. but as i said, it is a non-issue for me & am not persuaded by any absolutes because i see some contradictions when it becomes absolute.
rebirth yes Jesus taught, reincarnation is something different.

Those were specific ideas ... but I have a broader suggestion - and not just for you, but for anyone who is willing to take this approach at Comparative relgion. Rather than try to embrace, discard, adopt or reject entire belief systems, or even such core tenets of belief as Rebirth, or say, vicarious atonement ... why not try to focus a thread quite specifically (these topics are fine, for starters) - and then go point by point around the table, so to speak. Thus, if you find, in looking into threads on rebirth, that folks are bashing, or displaying intolerance, why not bring it up? And of course, not in a personal way ... I think you do an excellent job of trying to isolate the points people make from their belief, or faith - in those points. But the easiest way, as we all know, to drive a wedge in deeper, is to attack someone, or ridicule a belief, or in short - to fail to respect that such ideas are believed sacred (in varying degrees) by that person.

i was going to put in comparative, but it does not move the same way this board does.

I don't mind stating that I find the exclusivity of some Christians ... well, non-Christian (!) ... but if you really want to know more, engage me. Ask me about my experiences, or at least challenge me to defend that statement, if you disagree. But what I think you'll find, is that, as far as I'm concerned, one's personal relationship with Jesus, Buddha, or any other Teacher/Prophet/Savior ... is ultimately up to that person. No statement, if it is untrue, can shake one's own inner knowings - if they are sound. And thus, to defend the good name, accomplishments, and planetary role of the Christian teachings & traditions ... is only natural & sensible - for you. If the spirit in which you do so, and your motive, is to show that many Christians are inclusive, and/or that this is part & parcel of the very Teaching of Christ Jesus, then I will be the first to agree.

all these other religious teachings do not agree all the way through with Christ. some of the teachings do & some of them do not.

But if you assert that Christ taught that there are no other Saviors - or, more precisely, that the Christ is not a Universal Presence, then I will disagree, and state my reasons. Likewise, if you suggest that one path is more valid than another, without defending that assertion, not to mention the familiar "my way is the only right way" nonsense, which always demonstrates the true ignorance and intolerance of s/he who utters it.

this you need to direct to Jesus himself. Jesus is alive well as far as i am concerned & he will judge all men according to their works & i do not see anything ignorant about that.

But I think it's back to two things. Above all, Respect. I think that's an area where I can acknowledge I'm sometimes lacking the Christian spirit (although, again, this is a universal virtue, imho). Still, if I step out of line, a friendly reminder is in order ... else a word from a mod.

right on the money.

And the other thing, is the idea of focusing on one or two specific points, if we're in the debating mode, or challenging mode ... or even if we're just going about about the Comparative business, which includes comparison & contrast, and the pointing out of both similarities, as well as differences.

i dont debate personal beliefs to that degree unless they are in a ONE on ONE discussion & this board does not offer that. so that wont happen very often with me. you are someone i would probably enjoy & learn in a one on one with because of respect.

My own inclination is to look for similarities & Unity, but I have sometimes made the error of forcing the issue, or of disregarding important distinctions. I think another error would be to focus too much on the diversity and surface differences ... to the extreme of missing an underlying Unity that might exist. One can always miss the forest for the trees, or vice versa.

easy to do & easy to achieve. never the less....

Fence-sitting is okay, too. Objectivity is always good. I think the irony is that, even as we become more objective, it is still possible to find deeper revelation, deeper understanding, deeper meaning. This almost seems paradoxical, but then again - from down here, the earth looks flat. Out in space, it's almost spherical. But to a mathematician, it's elliptical, and not truly spherical ... and this makes all the difference in the world! literally!

cheers,

andrew

...nevertheless fence sitting can be a good thing, however we dont know if we have tomorrow. Eventually you get tired & will fall one way or the other even if you do not want to . i walk a very moderate midlle of the road path with Jesus & the Bible & as you know i do not belong to any established institution. i have tons of questions, yet i dont see one instituion or individual on the planet with all the answers, but for me, Jesus & the bible has never failed me.
thanks for the chat & have nice evening.

 

[Dondi]

If I may have a say.

As a Christian, I have in the past beliived that unless one believed in Jesus Christ as their Savior, then one cannot be "born again". In witnessing to others, that main point has always been made clear, regardless of the other persons beliefs. But this is not something that is the conclusion of some personal belief or some dogma of a particular church. It stems from the words of Jesus Christ himself. For example:

"Jesus answered, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man can come to the Father except by Me'" - John 14:6

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." - John 3:16-18

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep....

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." - John 10:1-2, 9-10

Then there are the words of the Apostles:

"Then Peter said unto them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. '" - Acts 2:38-39

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.


For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." - Romans 10:9-13

"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.


This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." - Acts 4:10-12

So inevidably, a Christian will tell you that there is no salvation outside of Christ, not because of his/her own beliefs or even their church's beliefs, but what they read in Scripture regarding the manner. Many will say that Christians are just narrow-minded, but when the Founder of Christianity, that is Jesus Christ, is quoted with such exclusive sounding sayings, the conclusion is plain. So don't kill the messengers.

Having said that, I'm wondering if Jesus didn't mean some else when He made these statements in how one should believe. That is, is believing in Christ just a mere profession of faith at a specific time on one's life, a pivotal point in which one gets saved after sincerely praying the sinner's prayer. Or is believing in Him meaning following and abiding in His teachings, taking His words to heart and applying them to one's life. Words that have universal meaning summed up best in the the two greatest commandments:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." - Matthew 22:36-40

These words are basically what consititutes the Golden Rule, Do unto others what you would have them do unto you, which most major religions have some form of.

Is it possible that believing in Jesus means following His example in loving others? That Jesus represets the epitome of love in thoughts and actions? That our purpose in life is to love others as He did? Isn't that what it is all about?

 

[Thomas]

anyone else up for the inclusive & exclusive church dogma

Count me in from the Roman Catholic perspective.

I think the point must be stressed, and it's one that you have made already, is that we need to be sure of what we mean by 'exclusive'.

I think didymus' point sounds more like elitism, "I'm saved and you're not", which is not Catholic, and nor, might I suggest, is it Christian. It certainly isn't a reasoned or reasonable argument.

On the other hand, a follower of any tradition has the right to defend the doctrine and dogmas of his/her confession, and reject that which is ancilliary or external as being either 'wrong' according to his/her perspective, or immaterial with regard to the spiritual means available within the tradition.

For this reason a Buddhist is not a 'Christian heretic', although Buddhism was (and perhaps still is?) considered a 'Hindu heresy'.

'Comparative religion' is not religion, it is the practice of comparing two or more traditions, likewise one cannot be faithful to more than one tradition. Even the renowned religious inclusivity of the Hindu traditions includes only that which they see as being in accord with their own beliefs - it's a philosophical exercise.

And reincarnation is a whole other ballgame...

Thomas

 

[Bandit]

thanks for the replies Dondi & Thomas. it is pretty much the way i am seeing this also.

i know there are all the arguments about the scriptures being the Word. I choose to include the scriptures as the Word. Others choose to exclude the scriptures as the Word. i know there are other writings & poetry that are inspired the same way the Word is, yet there are some writings that i choose to exclude as the Word & inspired by God, the same way others choose to exclude the 66 books as inspired by God.

i think taijasi made a good point by going through each difference individually & see where & why they dont all match up & where & why some of them do. we would be here for a very long time doing that. some of them we already know where & why.

everyone has made some good points here.

it is simply not possible to follow every single religion or belief that pops up without including or excluding some of them & everyone does it because we all choose what to accept & what not to accept, thus making everyone inclusive & exclusive to others beliefs. there is no reason that we cannot still love each other as far as i am concerned.

please pardon all my typos & spelling. i am just getting over a real bad flu & feel a bit tired. i kind of tossed this up in the air with with basic surface sentiments. my main interest this year is the parsha & the tabernacle. this inclusive/exclusive thing finally reached the brim & i had to empty the cup a little.

thank you for listening, sharing & for the opportunity to try & explain

 

[wil]

Is it possible that believing in Jesus means following His example in loving others? That Jesus represets the epitome of love in thoughts and actions? That our purpose in life is to love others as He did? Isn't that what it is all about?

this begs the question, 'how does a 250 pound man dance on the head of a pin?'

Namaste all, great discussion.

I think this is the line in the middle of christianity...seperating the if you don't believe Jesus is your lord and saviour you are going to hellists, with the restofus that can relish in festivus as well.

The first form of christianity is nothing if not exclusive. And true the dogma presents itself in such a way that there exists this need to include others into the group...or pray for the pour souls that don't accept the 'facts'.

And then there exist those on the other side of the line, that say yeah it is a good book, it has a lot of good stories, and Jesus taught us how to act, how to pray, how to love, and that we could do anything that he had done...and more. And yeah, Dec 25th is a day...not a birthday, but a day chosen to celebrate...and yes there exist a lot of other pagan rituals that are have gained acceptance as christian...but it is my actions that count. And yes there exist many other good books and traditions that I can also employ in practice, just the churches and denominations around the world brought in theirs, I can bring in mine. And those that wish to worship differently or have found attributes in others that they model, they too will find their way to G-d... that seems to me the inclusive side of christianity.

 

[taijasi]

I think this is the line in the middle of christianity...seperating the if you don't believe Jesus is your lord and saviour you are going to hellists, with the restofus that can relish in festivus as well.

The first form of christianity is nothing if not exclusive. And true the dogma presents itself in such a way that there exists this need to include others into the group...or pray for the pour souls that don't accept the 'facts'.

And then there exist those on the other side of the line, that say yeah it is a good book, it has a lot of good stories, and Jesus taught us how to act, how to pray, how to love, and that we could do anything that he had done...and more. And yeah, Dec 25th is a day...not a birthday, but a day chosen to celebrate...and yes there exist a lot of other pagan rituals that are have gained acceptance as christian...but it is my actions that count. And yes there exist many other good books and traditions that I can also employ in practice, just the churches and denominations around the world brought in theirs, I can bring in mine. And those that wish to worship differently or have found attributes in others that they model, they too will find their way to G-d... that seems to me the inclusive side of christianity.

Yeh ... it's the attempt to pass off the first type of stuff as christianity ... that has me guessing. Fortunately, most people I know practice the latter way, even if there are throngs of folks here in the Bible Belt (I'm in North Carolina ) who don't take heed.

Dondi, I think it'd be neat to take any one of the seven or so lengthy passages you mention, and examine it, and offer different interpretations. After all, that's the only way we stand a chance of deepening our understanding, and coming to learn something about the many, many ways in which others are inspired by the same Wisdom. I wouldn't dare tackle all seven passages at once, and some of them are lengthy enough to break down into 2 or 3 sections. I think Christians do that sometimes in "Bible study," but I don't do that, so that's just an educated guess. lol

At any rate, the final passage you mention, as well as the emphasis on the Golden Rule, is what I think true Christianity is really all about. It can, indeed, be summed up thus, and wonderfully, this is in complete accord with the message of other faiths, and religions. And that is why I am a Universalist .... and why it can be said, that the devil is in the details.

Maybe I should be out doing some kind of community service, and not quibbling over the many ways to slice a grapefruit. Still, I always did think it was neat that if you cut an apple the right way, lo! - there's a star in there! I know, that's silly ... but knowing I'll be back (here), I look forward to more dialogue, and perhaps taking a look at one or two of the Gospel passages you brought up. There's a wealth of wisdom there ... in each one.

cheers,

andrew

 

[Bandit]

At any rate, the final passage you mention, as well as the emphasis on the Golden Rule, is what I think true Christianity is really all about. It can, indeed, be summed up thus, and wonderfully, this is in complete accord with the message of other faiths, and religions. And that is why I am a Universalist .... and why it can be said, that the devil is in the details.


andrew

Hi Andrew
the last scripture Dondi gave is in accord with most other faiths. but the first six are not. once again, everyone chooses what is inclusive & what is exclusive to their beliefs. i do it. you do it. everyone in the world does it.

how do you interpret these passages below?. the first one is from Jesus, the other three from, peter, paul & from John.
we already know it is exclusive by ALL other beliefs. however, i choose to make the blood of Jesus inclusive to my beliefs.

what i would like to know is what makes all these other people so 'special' & so great & so holy & so much better than me in their beliefs. the attitude i get from a lot of people is rejection & exclusiveness if i even MENTION the blood of Christ & it comes across quite often as hate toward my beliefs & people make fun of me because i believe in Jesus, but i am still not ashamed.

WhY? because they choose to exclude it & insert something different the same way i exclude what others insert, BUT i dont put them down for their beliefs or what they choose to include & exclude .
my beliefs all the way through, do NOT fit into these other religions & you know they dont.
if you say you are a universalist, then explain how these passages fit into your universal religion. thank you

& please interpret these passages, taijasi ?

this is the part that everyone rejects & chooses to make Jesus exclusive & not inclusive.

Matt.26:27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
26:28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

1 Peter 1:18-19
18. Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19. But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Ephesians 1:7
7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

1 John 1:7
7. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

 

[taijasi]

Bandit,

If Jesus was exclusive, I'm Popeye.

But please say more about the blood of Christ, or Jesus, or whomever. What of it? It was spilt by the Romans, at the hands of the Jews. And that was a grave sin, for Jesus was the vessel of the Christ ... yet as he himself said, Father, please forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Hmmm ... I can't speak to those passages you mention. I'd have to look at what was uttered before, and after, and try to make sense of it in context. If blood spilt from the Messiah 2100 years ago, is somehow related to me today, I want to know more about that. It's not what Christ came for, as I understand that, and I have never quite understood the connection. But it might help if someone could make it intelligible for me ...

peace ...

andrew

 

[Bandit]

Bandit,

If Jesus was exclusive, I'm Popeye.

But please say more about the blood of Christ, or Jesus, or whomever. What of it? It was spilt by the Romans, at the hands of the Jews. And that was a grave sin, for Jesus was the vessel of the Christ ... yet as he himself said, Father, please forgive them, for they know not what they do.

you are correct on this, taijasi.
but at the same time there was a catch 22 there for Jesus. God gave Jesus a commandment to lay down his life. Jesus did not want to die that way & he prayed to God & asked for God to not make him die that way, but he had to in order to be obedient to God. Jesus was the only man who could bring remission of sin to the people. so Jesus gave up his own will & his own life to make this happen for us. he said I LOVE THE SHEEP, SO I LAY DOWN MY LIFE FOR THE SHEEP. in another place he said, NO GREATER LOVE HATH ANY MAN THAN A MAN TO LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR HIS FRIENDS...then he went on to say YOU ARE MY FRIENDS IF YOU KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS & LOVE ONE ANOTHER. (paraphrased)

10:17Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
10:18No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
do you want to see those scriptures?

Hmmm ... I can't speak to those passages you mention. I'd have to look at what was uttered before, and after, and try to make sense of it in context. If blood spilt from the Messiah 2100 years ago, is somehow related to me today, I want to know more about that. It's not what Christ came for, as I understand that, and I have never quite understood the connection. But it might help if someone could make it intelligible for me ...

peace ...

andrew

his entire ministry was surrounded by the prediction of his death. i did not put the whole chapters up because i was only trying to show the topic itself-that paul, peter & john are all in agreement with Jesus on his blood being for the remission of our sin. this is what other beliefs exclude. like you say Jesus is not exclusive, people choose to exclude or include him.

i choose to include Jesus in my beliefs but i know not everyone does & not everyone has to believe the same way i do.

 

[Dondi]

Bandit,

There's another verse that is worth noting:

"And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins." - 1 Peter 4:8

Which is taken from the book of Proverbs:

"Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins." - Proverbs

Personally, I think that when we love one another with the "agape" love that is epitomized in Christ, forgiving one another for wrongs, THEN the Blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin. The principal applies regardless of religious affiliation. God's not interested in what clique you are in, He just wants our hearts to love one another and love Him, thus fulfilling the aforementioned commandments.

I will say this though, I'm not a Universalist, though my statements may paint me a such. I believe there are those who will not see the Kingdom of God for the reason that they did not learn to love. (The Kingdom of God is within you).

"And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?


And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question." - Mark 12:28-34

Those who do not have this Love in their lives will not find the Kingdom of God. That is the Gospel that must be preached to people. There are so many, whether Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Agnostic, whatever, that do not know this Love. All sin is a poor substitute for this Love, and too many people are caught in lifestyles that will destroy them and they will have created their own Hell in this life and the life beyond.

 

[Bandit]

Bandit,

There's another verse that is worth noting:

"And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins." - 1 Peter 4:8

Which is taken from the book of Proverbs:

"Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins." - Proverbs


Those who do not have this Love in their lives will not find the Kingdom of God. That is the Gospel that must be preached to people. There are so many, whether Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Agnostic, whatever, that do not know this Love. All sin is a poor substitute for this Love, and too many people are caught in lifestyles that will destroy them and they will have created their own Hell in this life and the life beyond.

we are in agreement. without the agape love that comes from God through Christ, then the blood of Jesus has no effect & the title Christian or whatever title people choose, means nothing. it is neat the way it all intertwines itself!

 

[taijasi]

I do not believe in the remission of sins. I realize that many (most?) Christians do, and that it is also regarded as a teaching of Jesus - central, even, to being a Christian. However, I disagree, and I would be happy to explain why, or give all sorts of back-up for my belief. But it might just be easier in this case, if we agree to disagree. I find that that saves all sorts of valuable time and frustration. I guess it's just one of those beliefs that I exclude.

In a nutshell, I simply feel that it all comes down to Responsibility. So I can dig most Christian teachings, and one way or the other, I can reconcile myself with everything found in the Bible. But vicarious atonement, and the remission of sins, are two things I will never believe. In my understanding, other beliefs "occupy that space."

peace,

andrew

 

[Bandit]

I do not believe in the remission of sins. I realize that many (most?) Christians do, and that it is also regarded as a teaching of Jesus - central, even, to being a Christian. However, I disagree, and I would be happy to explain why, or give all sorts of back-up for my belief. But it might just be easier in this case, if we agree to disagree. I find that that saves all sorts of valuable time and frustration. I guess it's just one of those beliefs that I exclude.

In a nutshell, I simply feel that it all comes down to Responsibility. So I can dig most Christian teachings, and one way or the other, I can reconcile myself with everything found in the Bible. But vicarious atonement, and the remission of sins, are two things I will never believe. In my understanding, other beliefs "occupy that space."

peace,

andrew

well, that is what Jesus came for & yes the blood of Jesus Christ is what all these other religions gladly & happily exclude. & i guess that is why i would like to know what makes all these other people so much better & more special than me, that they have no sin or feel they can do it all by themselves.
they are inclusive to something different. hmmm

 

[Dondi]

I do not believe in the remission of sins. I realize that many (most?) Christians do, and that it is also regarded as a teaching of Jesus - central, even, to being a Christian. However, I disagree, and I would be happy to explain why, or give all sorts of back-up for my belief. But it might just be easier in this case, if we agree to disagree. I find that that saves all sorts of valuable time and frustration. I guess it's just one of those beliefs that I exclude.

In a nutshell, I simply feel that it all comes down to Responsibility. So I can dig most Christian teachings, and one way or the other, I can reconcile myself with everything found in the Bible. But vicarious atonement, and the remission of sins, are two things I will never believe. In my understanding, other beliefs "occupy that space."

peace,

andrew

Let me ask you this, taijasi. Do you believe in some kind of purification process? An analogy: You can just purify dirty water by putting something into it (like chlorine), the water still has to be filtered to get rid of the junk that's in it.

 

[taijasi]

Yes, absolutely, the purification process (called the "burning ground" in esoteric teachings) is, in my understanding, a stage prior to discipleship proper. No person can skip this process, nor are we capable of doing it alone. Even as we demonstrate Emerson's self-reliance, there are Divine forces and energies at work. Of this, I am certain.

andrew

 

[taijasi]

well, that is what Jesus came for & yes the blood of Jesus Christ is what all these other religions gladly & happily exclude. & i guess that is why i would like to know what makes all these other people so much better & more special than me, that they have no sin or feel they can do it all by themselves.
they are inclusive to something different. hmmm

Hang on, who's better than who? I dunno who gets off saying that, or expressing an attitude of superiority. Sounds like smugness to me, or just a projection. Better than, usually means that a person has something to hide, an insecurity.

I do believe that among us there are Masters, who are without sin, as was the Christ. Therefore I don't think it's correct to say, "everyone has sin." These individuals, as I believe, have overcome their sin - via the Christ within.

But you and I, unless I'm gravely mistaken, are quite error-prone, and probably - despite our best efforts, still sin. For example, I think it's safe to say that I sin daily, and I know it. I'm not real happy about it, but I also believe (or know) ... that I am accountable for it. If twelve people throw a big rock at twelve different windows, they're all going to break. As the 13th dude coming along, with my own heavy rock - man, that 13th window's gonna break, too!

Wittingly, or willingly sinning, isn't exactly wise, I know. I'm just acknowledging that it's part of our human nature, and remains with us until the very last stages of the journey (as I believe things .... ).

cheers,

andrew

 

[Bandit]

Hang on, who's better than who? I dunno who gets off saying that, or expressing an attitude of superiority. Sounds like smugness to me, or just a projection. Better than, usually means that a person has something to hide, an insecurity.

I do believe that among us there are Masters, who are without sin, as was the Christ. Therefore I don't think it's correct to say, "everyone has sin." These individuals, as I believe, have overcome their sin - via the Christ within.

But you and I, unless I'm gravely mistaken, are quite error-prone, and probably - despite our best efforts, still sin. For example, I think it's safe to say that I sin daily, and I know it. I'm not real happy about it, but I also believe (or know) ... that I am accountable for it. If twelve people throw a big rock at twelve different windows, they're all going to break. As the 13th dude coming along, with my own heavy rock - man, that 13th window's gonna break, too!

Wittingly, or willingly sinning, isn't exactly wise, I know. I'm just acknowledging that it's part of our human nature, and remains with us until the very last stages of the journey (as I believe things .... ).

cheers,

andrew

ok. i thought you were trying to say you are above sin or have no sin or make mistakes. we agree- we both have sin.
so if you dont believe in remission of sin, then it must be ok in your belief?
that is confusing for me.