How well Christians themselves today, or the ones you know know
about their teachings is completely irrelevant!!! So you're saying
that if Christians know their teachings better, this religious
group within SAF could be sanctioned? Clearly you're talking about
something irrelevant again, for what reason I do not know.
Next, I think non Christians should take a step back before they
go around passing judgment about the knowledge of other believers.
Who are you to say that you KNOW the extent of Christians and their
knowledge? Are you God? Also, do you know ALL Christians? Are you
even a theologian, who can then say you have done some kind of
conclusive studies on the ACTUAL DIFFERENCES between each
denomination? What do you know how the methodist differs from the
anglicans? What do you know about the actual compositions of these
intricacies? are you claiming that you know MORE about this than
actual Christian, when you're NOT a Christian? It appears so to
me.
As a Christian I can safely tell you that the charge of
different denominations under the umbrella of Protestantism is a
well-loved target board used by many non Christians. But it's
really as futile and baseless as anyone making statements from the
outside, with no knowledge of what goes on within. Until you know
the DIFFERENCES between each denomination, you cannot know the
extent of their SIMILARITIES. Logical? ALL Protestant denominations
believe that Christ is the only way to eternal life, and are
bounded by common principles about 1) original sin 2) Christ 3)
Grace.
The differences between the mainline denominations (please note
that there are denominations that are not mainline, which exist but
are not recognised), are limited to practices of service (how
solemn or not solemn) and other superficial differences mostly not
pertaining to scriptures. Some denominations quibble about the
necessity of baptism for salvation, but none of the disputes are
about the core and heart of the common principles of Christianity.
ALL Christian mainline denominations are against homosexuality and
view it as a sin. Those that claim otherwise are considered by
mainline denominations to be cults eg Safehaven.
You didn't literally remark the word "limitations" but you
inferred it under no question. You made the point that buddhist
teachings are about "wisdom and experience", which makes it more
sanctioned and more orthordox for the person I quoted yamizi who
confessed that as a PC, used his buddhist knowledge to counsel his
men. There's no need to deny that that was your point.
1) I told yamizi that even if he had no intentions, he used his
knowledge gleaned from buddhism to counsel his men, that is in
effect extending his spiritual influence, even if unintentionally,
on them.
2) YOU in turn replied this "You
can counsel your men using Buddhist principles without giving the
appearance of propogating Buddhism, because Buddhism's
teachings is grounded in experience and wisdom... i.e. you can give
your advice as they are and not have to phrase the advice by
quoting from some Buddhist religious texts."
3) So isn't it clear that you're saying that if the PC in
question was a Christian, he cannot do the same, use Christian
principles without "giving the appearance of propagating
Christianity"? I'm not 12 yrs old you know? What you meant to say
was so clear to everyone, I don't even know why you're bothering to
deny it now. Stand by your statement lah if you have the gumption
to make it. Clearly, you're saying that buddhism principles allow
for this, but Christian principles don't. So that's a limitation on
Christian principles. Why isn't that inaccurate? Something poses as
a limitation, when it causes something else an impediment to
present itself in one way that ANOTHER thing when compared to, can
without impediment. That is the meaning of LIMITATION.
So why isn't my question to you valid, on what do you know about
Christian principles and teachings for you to make such a
comparison, for you to conclude that only a buddhist PC in that
situation can do so and so, and a Christian PC wouldn't be able to
due to Christian principles? If you could make such a comparison, I
would like you to back up your knowledge on Christianity so your
comparison is an educated one.
I'm not trying to curb your speech, contrary to your
claim. I'm asking you to back up your statements.
You do have a tendency to put words into my mouth.
I am merely expressing a positive trait about my religion, and
you are reading all sorts of implications into it. What you have
accused me of saying is in fact something I did not intend. In
fact, what you are accusing me of "saying" is something that
totally did not occur to me untl I read your
post now. Now I know what you are so agitated.
Lets keep this disussions civil. We have our differences but
that does not mean we cannot talk over the issues in a civil way.
Go easy on the caps and exclamations if you please. I will reply to
your points when you can do so. Else we will end up in a
downward spiral of you accusing me of things which I do not mean,
and I will have to defend something I did not do.
