[Mb-civic] ... Ian
Ian
ialterman at nyc.rr.com
Wed Nov 17 09:31:39 PST 2004
Robin:
You are correct that "everyone has the right to choose and believe in their own spiritual higher source without damnation." I would never suggest otherwise. As the old saw goes: "I may disagree with what you say [believe], but I will defend to the death your right to say [believe] it."
However, even given this, there is nothing to preclude that there may, indeed, be an exclusive "one way" to salvation and eternal life.
The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Peace.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robin McNamara
To: mb-civic at islandlists.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] ... Ian
Everyone has the right to choose & believe in thier own spiritual higher source without damnation, all due respect to Ian but there is no exclusive "one way." Of all the interpretations of "God" there must be one "God" that represents all the interpretations.
Peace
Robin
----- Original Message -----
From: Lyle K'ang
To: mb-civic at islandlists.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] ... Ian
Al Baraka wrote:
"On the other hand how do you massively propagate the 'word' without any organization? I guess you just do your best, accepting that in any human organization there will always be elements antithetical to the raison d'être of that organization and just to try that much harder every time you come across a rotten apple."
Al Baraka and Ian and MBCIVIC,
This is very true and rings to the heart of each thinking individual that knows for a surety that there are those that have gone before us professing that a GOD (Spiritual Source) does exist. That was a truly inspired piece by Al Baraka.
To answer your question: How do you do this..why only with calm? Why only with facts or scripture or Christianity? Do you now think I am heathen and need to hear from only a Christian point of view? I don't think that is what you are saying nor is Ian. I only point to it so we can be aware where the boundaries are and the off limits are suggested.
Clarity is a gift-to know that you know and profess it eloquently is an art or is it part of being overcome by the spirit of tongues?
I am a believer of ALL RELIGIONS. This has no boundaries nor limits-let it fly!
Christianity proliferates this Earth with much sadness, hence my Soul piercing towards those that profess only to believe in ONE religion becomes hardened in their only belief. It is interpretated by me only- as non tolerant and half compassionate!
Again, I know that Ian doesn't think like this, but I do now know that perhaps you do think like this Al Baraka, because of your statement, "just to try that much harder every time you come across a rotten apple." That statement like many of mine are perhaps more ego centric than constructive.
Where are those that believe in the same tenants of PEACE, UNDERSTANDING, good will towards men-that believe that ALL religions are in apart TRUE-everywhere? You do remember the TOWER of Babel or is that bunk? Why do you try?
I do remember a time in HAIR when people from all walks of life came together OVER religion and NOT because of it. It was a pure form of discipline not needing interpretation or mediators. It just was!!
Krishna? Buddhism? Are other religions! Are they not appropriate here as discussion points-not Christianity...Christianity has a long road yet to travel and it will not be easy for converts and those with a long held belief system but it is your's only. It is therefore, sacred unto you? Sacred to me as a religion only...and yes, God hears my cries and agony about the present state of our wordly affairs.
To congregate profusely towards your believe with needed support units shows a weakness with Christianity-for that matter, so are other religions weakened at different dispensations and interpretations.
To point to other scripture that can paint a more universal approach is more appropriate, more divine, more spiritual and more eloquent-in the name of a HIGHER SOURCE. In other words, when The Christ went throughout the world-there you will find commonality in thought.
I am not asking that anybody lay out scripture here, you'll only allieniate me, but NEW TESTAMENT stuff is fairly close, but from which version? Why a version? Why is Christianity so confused within its own ranks and versions?
I am saying MY GOD in HEAVEN! There must be more than Christianity on the FACE of the EARTH!
Remember, I am not here to defend any religion-it is human nature to defend your belief. I am here to defend man's choice for a vehicle for spiritual redemption. I am guilty of defending man's choice...
Unfortuanetly, we are not given that choice-even in the best of communes, communities, and gatherings.
Lyle K'ang
Enterprise Insights:
Tools for a Brighter Tomorrow...
http://www.SiloManagement.com
Please note: message attached
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good on you, Ian. I do not see how there can be any rebuttal to any of that, well, at least it is pretty close to how I would wish to interpret and carry through the teachings of Christ, if I could. Of course I understand the beef that Lyle and Cheesebuger (no pun intended) and others have with organised religion because daily we suffer watching it 'taken by knaves to make a trap for fools' (pace Rudyard K.) and then find ourselves on the receiving end of the actions of mean-spirited hypocrites, bigots, fanatics and cheats purporting to act in the name of God, Allah, Jahwe, Krishna etc. It is obviously hard to prevent organised religion being hijacked by the 'wrong sort of people' for the wrong ends, which is why , ever since any of the great world religions came into being, every generation has produced a saint, ascetic or (literally) protestant urging people to establish their own dialogue/communion with God because of the corruption/inefficiency/irrelevance of the official, organised religion of the time. On the other hand how do you massively propagate the 'word' without any organisation? I guess you just do your best, accepting that in any human organisation there will always be elements antithetical to the raison d'être of that organisation and just to try that much harder every time you come across a rotten apple. There is nothing like evil for bringng out the best in (some) people. I have started to ramble; I don't know how I ended up here and now I have no time to explain myself further. Bugger.
Al Baraka
Lyle:
Blessings and Peace. Because it is so basically...fundamental both to whom I am and to what I believe to be a critical element in any continuing discourse on both the immediate subject (faith and religion) and the subject of this group (effecting change by bringing as many people "into the fold" of people-based socio-politics), let me see if I can put this in a way that will not leave room for misinterpretation.
I believe strongly in the "dogma" and "doctrine" of the Judeo-Christian construct as I believe (from both my own readings and those of others) it was meant to be; i.e., not what it became, but as Jesus lived, spoke and preached it. Two of my four mentoring ministers refer to this as "primitive Christianity." It has also been called "true Christianity" (a loaded phrase if ever there was one) and "essential Christianity." And I believe in that "dogma" and "doctrine" not only because I believe it to be an excellent basis for living and interacting with others (again, when practiced "correctly"), but because it has worked for me: I have seen and felt the benefits, gifts, etc. that living that "dogma" and "doctrine" - that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph - have bestowed on me. In other words, I do not believe in or live that "dogma" and "doctrine" in a "blind" manner.
For whatever reasons, you do not believe in the "reality" of that "dogma" and "doctrine" and its application to every day life. You have called it "tired," "trite" and other dismissive terms.
However, simply because (i) you have personal issues with that "dogma" and "doctrine," (ii) it is admittedly exceptionally difficult to actually live that "dogma" and "doctrine" on a day to day, much less moment to moment, basis, and (iii) that "dogma" and "doctrine" have become associated with historical atrocities; the corruption of mainstream, heirarchical, "organized" religion; and a dangerously narrow, conservative "religious" (and political)mindset, this does not mean that the underlying principles of that "dogma" and "doctrine" are not "sound," and maybe even "correct" (another dangerously loaded term).
In this regard, I was not being "defensive." I only responded at all because your insinuation (that my beliefs somehow make me a closet racist) was particularly heinous.
Nor am I "angry," since it is simply not in my nature to be so. Rather, I am saddened that you feel the need to denigrate my beliefs in order to support your own. Calling my beliefs "trite" and "tired" is, as Andrew Carnegie might say, not the way to make friends and influence people. You will note that, although I may disagree with your beliefs, I have never denigrated them, much less used pejorative terms to describe them.
Consider the following hypothetical situation. A person -specifically, a "spiritual seeker" - who does not know either of us happens upon Civic and monitors it for a few days. They read our respective posts. They "watch" our language, approach and attitude. Based on this, whose "faith" do you think they will find more attractive? One that includes insults, invective, denigration and dismissiveness? Or one that includes courtesy, calm and reasoned discourse?
Note that I am not suggesting that I am "better" than you. Or even that my "beliefs" are "better" than yours. But the single most important way that others may be "drawn" to our beliefs is by example - by how we live them: in our daily lives, in our deeds and, yes, in our words.
In this regard, it is disingenuous, if not a bit hypocritical, to talk to me about "love" when you are suggesting that I am a racist. It is disingenuous to talk to me about "acceptance" when you are calling my beliefs "trite" and "tired." And, with specific regard to Civic and its "mission," it is particularly disingenuous, if not self-deluding, to believe that you are contributing positively to that mission when you continue to take a position that alienates so many potential allies as a result of an almost complete dismissal of their beliefs.
If your offer of love is genuine, I accept it. And, indeed, return it. However, I would be very careful not to bandy that word about too off-handedly. After all, anyone can talk about love. But real love reflects other important virtues - some of which seem absent in your attitude and approach.
Forgive me, but I cannot resist:
"Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails." [1 Cor 13:4-8]
Peace.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mb-civic mailing list
> Mb-civic at islandlists.com
> http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic
>
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Mb-civic mailing list
Mb-civic at islandlists.com
http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Mb-civic mailing list
Mb-civic at islandlists.com
http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20041117/5b3cd17d/attachment.html
More information about the Mb-civic
mailing list