Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ada last won the day on March 2 2010

ada had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About ada

  • Rank
    New Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1981

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    No where.
  1. The Dalai Lama once said, "The biggest obstacle to interfaith tolerance, is a bad relationship with one's own faith tradition." Thoughts on this quote? I personally love this quote, and it rings with so much truth. But what's sad is that this not only applies to inter-faith relations, but that it continues to be a strong reality even between Christian denominations -within- the faith. It plagues Christianity in so many ways.. People often think they have an amazing relationship with God -- and perhaps they do in and of themselves -- and it ends there. A good portion of them go on to have a really crappy relationship with other faithful -people-. It is such a disservice to God on so many levels, when we've been commanded above all other commands to love not only God, but each other as well. In a way, this comes full circle to again question the health of one's relationship with his or her own religion, and how they truly understand it. Anyway, just thought I'd put the quote up for discussion. Thoughts?
  2. My views of the afterlife are very, very specific... and horribly controversial. I do not mind stating what I believe, but I will not sit here and defend or debate it with people who want to rip it apart. I really have no interest nor time for that kind of thing. I am a live-and-let-live pluralistic girl, I believe what is right for you is fine and what is right for me is fine. Can we not just get along? At least I think, that people will be respectful... I'm hinging on that, so don't prove me wrong. My views are and you really do have to read the entire thing to grasp the overall view. I need to go through it step by step to layer my beliefs up into a stack that will form one entire viewpoint, so if you aren't in for a read, you might wanna skip this post. The basics: First, I believe there is an afterlife (Heaven), and I don't really believe in a Hell in the usual definition ... I do not believe we automatically go to the afterlife when we die. I think we'll all end up there eventually, but it isn't an instant transition. I'll talk very, very, ever so briefly about this at the end of the post. It'll be just about my most controversial view, I think. Heaven: I believe in it. That it is a state of existence after death where we exist with God, not apart from Him. I see Heaven almost as a potential working and functional society which typically differs from the "sit around and eat bonbons in joy and worship God 24/7" motif. I think after death we will have a "life," with work or tasks, goals, and so on. There will be no suffering, it will be perfect, but the manner in which I see the "perfection" of the afterlife is quite different from most people. I don't think God's ideal of perfection is for us all to be lazy, or mindless robots with no choices, or for us to not maintain relationships or goals. For me, sitting around doing nothing all day is more like my idea of Hell Moving on.. I think God's love is perfect, and eternal. Eternal doesn't mean it ends at death. I think the idea of damnation being "just" is flawed. Some people are appalled by the fact that murderers could end up in Heaven... but I would be appalled if they didn't, because that would mean God either didn't want to forgive them, or was incapable of forgiving them, one of the two. Neither of these sits in my (very personal) Christianity. I don't mind that murderers might be beside me in heaven, because they will have been forgiven by God for their sins just as God forgave mine. Perhaps I didn't murder someone, sure... but I've done plenty of my own trespasses that need God's grace. Who am I to say what is greater than another when it comes to sin, people, or even deeds of any kind? That's not my place. People often argue "Well we're given every chance to seek God while we're alive," but that isn't true. If we are to be given -every- opportunity to accept God, we not only need a nearly limitless amount of chances to do so, but we must also be allowed to stand in His presence and decide for ourselves. (More on that in a moment...) Hell? I don't believe in a literal place of fire and brimstone. I think the literal Hell was a garbage dump on the outskirts of Jerusalem and I probably wouldn't wanted to have lived there. Anyway... as per Hell: I think that it makes no sense (not in logic nor justice nor religion) for a loving and "just" God to punish a mortal finite life of 90 or so years, with eternal punishment. Eternal punishment for finite actions is not justice, unless we're talking a kind of hell you can work your way out of over time (finite hell for finite actions? Maybe... That's not my belief though, just for the record. I'm just saying it makes more sense.) I don't believe God needs to "punish" us at all because He forgives us, with love and justice that knows no bounds. I think it makes more sense that God's grace and truth are eternal in all aspects, including in/through/after death. When we face God, including those who never believed in Him, we will then know the truth... and we will be faced with reality, and we will still have a choice. When God gave us free will, He gave us the ability to choose our own fates. At our final hour, this choice will not be stripped from us, and that makes no sense under the whole "eternal punishment for finite actions" deal. And even if we never before believed in God, or even if we did horrible things to people during our lives... who could stand before God now and say "You don't exist" or "I reject you." -- Who wouldn't fall on his or her face and beg God's forgiveness for basically being a moron in life? Actually ... I think some people could, that's the thing. Look to God Himself after death and still reject Him, I mean. So if in all of that... if even after death we are given a chance to accept God's grace while standing -in his presence-, and still we reject Him for whatever unfathomable reasons? Then yes, we do place ourselves in a state of Hell: A state of separation from God we choose to thrust ourselves into. I don't know what that state is or how it operates... while my beliefs are fairly firm on this, the details are sketchy; however, I simply don't think the details are all that important since I have a relationship with God. I'd imagine if I needed to know more about it, God would be letting me in on it. As it stands, I only know that a separation from God after death would logically involve the extreme opposite of existing in perfection on all things (including joy) -with- God. The exact extreme opposite of perfection in joy certainly can't be very good, to put it mildly... but I choose not to dwell on negative things. That "interim period"... All right so.. I gave you the basics, and my thoughts on heaven, and my thoughts on hell... there is that one little thing left hanging that I almost hate to mention, the whole "What happens after we die if the Afterlife isn't immediate" idea. This is where I get Gnostic on people, and they basically lose me all together, they tell me I'm not a Christian, and proceed to feed me to the resident wolves (I'm on a number of Christian forums, I know the standard procedure ) ... I believe that we are reborn after we die, and we will continue to be reborn until we have learned what we need to know in order to connect with God so that we may return to Him. *shrugs* Anti-climactic perhaps, it's not a new concept, though it does get quite controversial in Christianity of all places. But, it's actually pretty fitting with everything I just said (assuming anyone read it all ), since I believe God must in all fairness give us every possible opportunity to accept Him since He is eternal and not base anything off of a single mortal life. Rebirths make complete sense to me, and they jive in my personal relationship with God. And yes, it may seem that this makes Hell obsolete entirely, but I do believe a person can go all their lives til the end of the earth or the end of humanity (should we manage to get off this rock), or the end of the universe, or some other end I'm not aware of, and just.. never get it. And there may still be other instances where the soul stops progressing through rebirths that I am simply not aware of, I am after all not God and not the master of life and death... But all I know is that end, whatever it may be, that is when you really have your final chance to get it right. Standing in His presence, once and for all, having managed to screw it up time and time again. You've got your last shot. To touch back on that for a moment, I honestly do believe that 99.999~% of people will be with God, which means I do believe there is someone (probably a lot of someones when you total up the population over the entire history of the human race) who is going to end up separating themselves from God in a state of "Hell". The idea of someone rejecting God in His presence seems silly perhaps to some, but I've actually read blogs of people who have stated outright they have intention to reject God in His presence when they die, for any number of reasons. Now frankly, I don't believe they will all truly be able to do what they claim.. but if they really do have that will in life, if they aren't even willing to say "You know, all right, if I'm face to face with Him in death, I guess I can't ignore that," that may mean they are capable of carrying that will and that choice into death as well. So I definitely can't count it out. There is one other facet to the "separation from God" aspect: That when you die (in any one life), you've rejected God so completely and fundamentally that you've created a stain so deep on your very existence, that rebirthing isn't even a possibility any longer. You've truly died to yourself in the worst possible way (a statement Christians often used as a positive statement -- dying to yourself as obedience to God -- but one I consider accurate in a much different and negative way). If you cannot even acknowledge God at all any longer, how can you keep going when God is what keeps the process going in the first place? When God is at the root of all that exists. ... and I think this in essence is the true blasphemy that threatens to separate us from God forever. Final thoughts: .. well .. that is my entire belief in the afterlife. Perhaps there is no one who will ever agree with me, I'm ok with that. I guess it might sound cowardly (though I consider it "peaceful"), but I really have no interest in "defending" my beliefs. I enjoy sharing what I believe but... that's really the extent of it. I see a question that was asked, and I want to answer it so that people can see my take on the subject... but what do I care if everyone wants to pull it apart from the seams? It has no impact on my personal beliefs because I right my beliefs with God. So you'll forgive me if anyone decides to take issue with what I've said, and I then seem suspiciously absent. It's not personal. It's just business. On one last offnote: I stuck to the "afterlife" related concepts in this post, but I actually do believe in other sorts of "hell" that we as mortal beings confine ourselves to in the mortal realm. Those are important but, I believe they relate more to life than to death, and this thread is about the afterlife.
  3. ada


    I believe attonement is a personal process that can not be explained in an objective and unbiased manner for everyone. Just as everything else that is mortal (and perhaps immortal, at that), it is completely unique to each individual. You know, modern-day Christianity certainly is built on the platform of Jesus' death of all things to be central.. a fixed, unmoveable point of so-called atonement based on the death of a man. But, Christianity is a living religion and our God is a living God. Our spirituality is vibrant, breathing, dynamic, alive, changing... To me, the concept of the ressurection is a perpetual event that never ends and is dynamic, rather than a fixed point in time. And it is less about attonement, than about the survival and continuation of my own personal faith and walk with God. While many people see Jesus' death as the pinnacle point of all points, the sacrifice of all sacrifices... and yet for me, I actually find the death of Jesus means very little to me; or at the very least, much less than his -life- and -teachings- both mean to me. Most consider his death to be a sacrificial point in time that extends forward (and backward) from the day it happened, radiating out as a beam of light from a point covering all other points and never grows dim with time nor distance; however, I see this ressurection of Jesus as a spiritual event that occurs as a spark within each of us at numerous and limitless times over the course of our lives, and becomes far more important than the actual point of nailing a human being to a cross a couple thousand years ago. Don't get me wrong, I do see Jesus as a reconciliation between ourselves in the mortal realm, and God in the realms beyond.. and he is -my- reconciliation; but, I do not believe he is the ONLY reconciliation. I do not believe Jesus is the "only way," not by far.. which means atonement and reconciliation go far beyond a simple event in time. Reconciliation (or Atonement, but I far prefer the word Reconciliation) is a daily, personal process. Often, many Christians see the death of Jesus as a single point in time where attonement took place; however, I am not one of those Christians (and I am, indeed, a Christian). For me, I look to the process of reconciliation to God through Jesus's teachings and life in an ongoing daily basis, rather than his cited death on a cross as a fixed point in history. And the spiritual ressurection is a mystical event that touches my life, as our faith in and relationship to God must overcome the threat of death to the mortal world on a continuing basis in a variety of shapes and forms. The reconciliation is truly about triumph in (or salvation from) the face of adversity of all sorts. Reconciliation and atonement are both living and breathing, like all other portions of spirituality and religion should be. My attonement happens now, it happened yesterday, and it will happen again tomorrow. Reconciliation is repeated as much as I need it to recur for my relationship with God and my spirituality to exist in a perpetual state of health. That's just my personal viewpoint.
  4. Which one? "All of them" is my answer I have a wide variety of Bible translations so that I can cross-reference everything I am reading. I don't find any one particular translation to be enough. I like to see how it's been translated through all of them. It's also important to have resources to be able to go back into the original languages and work out the way something has ended up translated as it has. I always try to learn the root of everything for myself.
  5. I feel that something I might say below may end up being misinterpreted and taken "too personally". I hope that's not the case. I just like sharing my answers to these questions, but honestly everyone is different, everyone sees the world differently and God differently. I'm not here, nor anywhere, with the intention of forcing my beliefs on anyone. I hope that's enough of a disclaimer. 1. What makes the search for meaning and purpose in today's world an important undertaking? The same thing that makes it important at any time in the span of history. The fact is, the world can continue on undisturbed if no one ever sought out the origins and meaning of anything. That to me brings the search for meaning and purpose down to a completely subjective experience. Its importance is completely unique to the person doing the seeking, or not doing the seeking as the case will sometimes have it if that search for meaning and/or purpose is deemed unimportant by any particular individual. My husband, for example, is Agnostic... he believes in God but no longer subscribes to any particular faith. He was raised Christian by his family, but has no interest in pursuing spirituality in adulthood. He understands something higher exists, but searching for it? Just doesn't hit his priority list. For me though, I couldn't imagine going a single day without seeking, and the relevance of that seeking and searching is completely personal. I think I'd have a lot of trouble putting it into words. 2. In what ways does "absolute certainty" keep us separated from God and our neighbors? Because no one knows for sure, as much as any of us would like to believe otherwise. God is too big, too vast, and too eternal for someone in a mortal, finite life to understand His nature and everything about Him in 100% accuracy and completeness. There are just so many things wrong with being "absolutely certain" of anything or everything. Absolute certainty also cuts off learning and growth. And I've said it before: Once you stop learning and growing, truly this is when you die as a human being. You might keep on physically living but your mind and spirit are truly dead the moment you cease to learn. In absolute certainty, we essentially prescribe for ourselves an outlook on life that involves no learning whatsoever. What more is there to learn if you are certain of everything, afterall? This would have a negative impact on a person's relationship with God (you can't grow closer to God if you reject everything He's trying to teach you or tell you) and it also has a negative impact on our relationship with the people around us because people develop the tendency to ignore the unique ideas, values, and beliefs of others since they must be "wrong". Absolute certainty creates situations where those who are "certain" look down on those who have a different perspective, and it creates division and breeds negativity, rather than fosters support, love, and positive social interaction. The two greatest commands of all were to love God and to love each other. The concept of absolute certainty threatens both of these things as we close ourselves off in a box, and hang a "do not disturb" sign on the exterior. 3. Do you believe it takes more faith to live in ambiguity or more faith to believe in a dogmatic faith? Why? Mm.. I've come face to face with this question before, and I'm not a fan of it. It requires me to make a judgment about others that I'm simply not comfortable making. At the same time, I crave to talk on the point at least based on opinion. I disclaim up front that anything I say in the following opinion is not a judgment, I'm always fearful it might sound as such... it just happens to be how I relate to what I see around me. I've tried to write it in as vague a way as possible to prevent misinterpretation. As I said in a previous pots, both dogma and "freedom" (I'd rather use that word instead of ambiguity) are capable of holding similar problems. I don't necessarily consider one so horrible and the other so "righteous" to be able to say "Those of dogma have a lack of faith." That being said... I do believe current-day dogma and even a good chunk of scripture itself is both corrupt, incomplete, and just plain wrong in some ways. And I often stop to ponder why more people don't see what I see. Obviously the answer is clear: We are all different, and we must all relate to God and relate to each other in unique ways. No one is going to see the world as I do, not ever. But some things seem so obvious to me, and some things that I do not believe seem so obvious to others... it makes me stop and think: Who is right, and does one of us have more faith than the other? Origen once said that literal and historical interpretation of Biblical scripture was for "simple believers of simple mind," that strict interpretation was for those individuals who were not of spiritual maturity and couldn't grasp the deeper meaning of God's words. I have to say that I have trouble disagreeing, and I don't agree with these words with the intention of insulting others, but rather I do see literal face-value interpretation of the words attributed to a Being Who is so absolutely infinite that we shouldn't really be able to comprehend Him completely in one, or many over, human lifetime. Most of our current-day Christian dogmas are a result of literalistic, face-value interpretation of scripture that has been errored, altered, and incomplete (in my own opinion and study). To not see beyond the words and their literal value, when in fact that literal value may be stifling to the spiritual community as a whole (or even potentially dangerous -- ahem, Uganda for example..) does seem to me to contain a certain lack of faith. It is my opinion... while at the same time trying to impress the fact that I am open to the fact that some people who follow dogma and literal values may in fact be far more faithful than I, and that I am not here to pass judgment but to give an opinion (no matter how disliked)... that it appears to take much less faith to follow dogma, rules, regulations, and direction about God, than it takes to go straight to the source and ask the big questions, and listen carefully for the answers and directions -from that source- which is far above man. That being said, there is more to the story than mere appearances... I believe that dogma and scripture both can be great tools in our spiritual guidance, either serving as a magnificent "jumping off point" of study and relationship with God and each other, or even taking us far in our spiritual growth in and of themselves -- as long as there comes a point where we must exit the "control" of dogma and hierarchy, and turn to the Source of all Sources and ask the questions we struggle with the most of the God of all Gods, and not of man. As long as dogma is used as a tool, and not as something more detrimental... I truly don't think there is any difference between dogma and ambiguity in the long run. We are all trying to get the same answers and get to the same goals... In conclusion? I believe that it takes the most faith to live the way you feel God is asking you to live, and that's basically that. 4. How might the words of these two scholars Mitroff and Bennis apply to religions of our day? "If humans cannot control the realities with which they are faced, then they will invent unrealities over which they can maintain the illusion of control." I'd prefer to know the context of the quote in question, but as it stands I suppose it is accurately applied to a lot of world religions. People can't control what other people think, and belief is a form of thought that is uniquely held in our own minds. People can't control unique thoughts, so instead they set out to create external rules in an attempt to maintain control over beliefs as a whole. This is essentially the birth of dogma for me. I don't set out with the mindset that dogma is accurate by nature... I believe the majority of dogma will always end up being a farce designed to siphon people in one particular direction, and if the dogma contains truth, it is purely either by accident, or because the individual as a follower has managed to interpret the meaning behind the dogma in an accurate and meaningful way. Humanity is a species that wants to control it's environment, and unfortunately it's people as well. It is sometimes necessary in some aspects of society, but I don't believe religion is one of those necessities. I believe we create illusion through religious dogma that keeps people ignorant. They stop seeking true knowledge of God, and they die spiritually. This is the biggest tragedy of all.
  6. 1. The birth story of Jesus actually portrays how the spirit of Jesus should be born within ourselves. The baby Jesus is a seed of light that radiants love and connection to God. This has been the way I've seen the birth of Christ for a long time, but I have to admit I hadn't considered most of the other parts you mentioned I think they are really great thoughts. This makes me remember something I was thinking about a couple weeks ago. At Christmas time, I get a little tired of the "war on Christmas" on both sides, including the Christians who insist on bludgeoning people over the heads with "Don't you know what the real meaning of Christmas is? [Answer: Jesus]". I wrote something a few weeks ago based on what I personally felt was the better "meaning of Christmas". Here's part of it, I think it applies in some ways, though it might be a little off in other ways ---- Our season of Christmas involves the celebration of the Light given to this world, in Jesus Christ as a messenger from God to reconcile the world to Him. And in that reconciliation, we bring love, peace, joy, kindness, comfort, charity, generosity, and numerous other positive things to each other as fellow men and women of humanity. If Jesus was the Light given to this world, surely we are to emulate that in all ways. Surely we are to be a light to others, a guiding light, an embracing light, a loving light... and accepting, kind, and generous light. The light isn't our actions themselves, but rather the Light is God shining through our actions, for everything good is truly of Him. To me, that easily boils the "real meaning of Christmas" down to one thing: a standard. Christmas is a standard of living we should apply to the world around us, not just as the festive times of the year, but at all times, in all places... and to all people, regardless of circumstance or situation. If Christmas is the birth of Christ, than Christmas is the birth of the Light. If Christmas is the birth of the Light? Christmas is the birth of love: The loving message from God to humanity often over looked in our every day lives. Christmas is more than the birth of an individual. Christmas is the birth of God... and I don't mean in Jesus Christ (as I do not fully support the doctrine of Jesus' divinity, many of you already know this). I mean through all of the above, God was born into this world anew through Jesus Christ who brought to us a message above all other messages, to bring us as mortal and stray beings back to Him so that we could experience life and love as only He could teach us. Christmas is the birth of a value -- a form of living our lives for the true value of ourselves under God, as His children, His magnificent creations. Christmas is the birth of tolerance -- as Jesus was cast out by his people, we must recognize the value in acceptance and love for all that we may not fully understand so that we do not make the mistakes of the past. Humanity killed Christ, not God... humanity attempted to extinguish the Light of the World sent to guide us, but they failed. They failed because the true resurrection of Jesus Christ lies in the hearts, souls, and minds of each and every one of us, because we now embrace what humanity once rejected. So too must we embrace each other as brethren in humanity, and under God. Christmas is the birth of progress -- Out of the old, and into the new... or into the world anew. Christmas is the birth of an era. ... the birth of peace. ... the birth of hope. ... the birth of joy. ... the birth of love. Christmas is the birth of a standard for every day living that we must not leave behind on December 26th.
  7. A few months ago I finished a book called Unlikely Disciple by Kevin Roose. The author goes "under cover" at Liberty University to see what life is like as a conservative Christian university student under Rev. Falwell. He completely immerses himself in the experience and writes about it... I haven't lamented finishing a book in a long time, but I was really sad when this book ended. It was an excellent read and I just want another one so much, lol.
  8. ada

    Sticky Questions..

    I truly think if we all saw the world in exactly the same manner, the world would be an incredibly dull place My views will always be radically contrasted with those of others, I've come to accept that a long time ago and have found peace in a very unique and personal relationship with God. I've yet to find an accepting community to talk about my views, I do spend a lot of time on a mainstream Christian forum where the common attitude is to be a spiritual bully instead of a loving example of Jesus, I sort of hope this forum will be a much more mature (and diverse) experience.
  9. My motivations would be the latter... personal event in harmony with the God of my understanding. I'm sorry if something I said was unclear. I can think of no way to clarify it other than that Thank you for asking! For the record, due to my Agoraphobia, I do not currently take communion and have no intentions to do so in the foreseeable future. I believe communion is completely about personal relationship and personal understanding, and my relationship with God is not hindered by it's absence because God understands my limitations better than I do, luckily. Cheers!
  10. ada

    Stickies... Point 5

    1. What problems might arise in a church community that has no dogmatic beliefs? Dogma is a funny thing... it can be a very negative thing, but it can also bring people together. People have the ability to "bond" through dogmatic beliefs of several varieties, not always a good way mind you, but as a point of commonality. As a result, when you remove dogmatic beliefs and allow people more freedom of what they may choose for themselves (rather than the belief-set being dictated for the whole), it has the propensity to do one of two things: 1) Create a diverse community of respectful individuals who enjoy sharing in each other's unique beliefs and differences, and people become -less- likely to judge each other based on mutual respect, or: 2) The answer to your question: A community full of people who want to chase after each other for having the right and/or wrong beliefs. With no master-structure of dogma to follow, some people become even -more- judgmental because they believe that they hold "special knowledge" that no one else holds; They begin to press that on others, they put others down who don't get on board, and it really becomes a "no better, no worse" scenario. Truthfully, no dogma at all can sometimes be just as bad as dogma. I only say that to play devil's advocate, because I am certainly Dogma's biggest thorn... however, I do believe it's less about the dogma itself or lack-there-of, and more about how people use whatever they believe in a good or bad manner. 2. How do we deal with our differences in a healthy and positive way? Respect, plain and simple. If you respect someone, it creates a higher standard of treatment between people. When you hold respect for someone, you give that person the best of yourself in all ways, and you consider what they have to say to be in high value. I'll say more below... 3. What are some of the ways we can demonstrate our understanding of the “great commandment” when it comes to loving our neighbor? To play on what I just mentioned above. I believe Love and Respect form an unbroken chain... love is primarily an emotion (as much as people may argue) and as a result it has the tendency to wax and wane. Even married individuals may not feel as much love for their spouse on one day or one moment as they will the next, and also the reverse. So in the times when love may be difficult to feel, find, or choose... respect is what creates the unbroken bond. As stated above, when you respect someone, they get the best of you, it creates a high standard of treatment, and you place what they say and do in high regard. In addition, it can give you something to hold on to until you can grasp that concept of love again. If you maintain respect for your fellow man, love has a better chance of growing in time. If you cannot respect the person behind a belief-set, apart from his or her beliefs, this is where the real problem comes into play. We honestly have to see "through" religion sometimes to get to the actual human being behind it all. We can hold respect for all people in a similar way despite beliefs if we can tear down exterior categories we place them in (race, religion, gender, education, financial status, job, and so on) and get back to the roots of commonality: We're all the same race of people, on the same planet, trying to do the same thing... understand our world and our existence. 4. Create a list of Christian values that you think are reflections of your faith today. I prefer to focus on just plain "good" values, rather than place the label "Christian" on them. It is not right to make values proprietary. Besides, aside from "Love, Respect, and an Open Mind," I think I couldn't in good conscience sit here and create a big list of values that I think are reflections of faith. I really hesitate to judge anyone's faith, or -everyone's- faith, by marking down measurements of such. 5. Do you believe that you behave as a follower of Jesus most of the time; some of the time; or now and then? As in... Are my actions always Godly? Of course not, we all fall, some more often than others and more significantly than others... this is a point of the TCPC I have trouble with, as I do not necessarily believe outward behavior is a tell-all standard for who is a follower of Jesus and who is not. I believe we risk severe judgment that is not warranted by claiming this. I believe the most heinous of criminals could have potentially been a follower of Jesus who strayed as far as humanly possible from the straight line... but I would not put myself in a place to judge this person's faith by label. To answer the question more pointedly though... as I said, my actions are not always Godly. To that alone I'd place the label "some of the time" with a hopeful prospect of a future label "Most of the time". But I do understand the principle behind what the TCPC has put forth in this point, just for the record. I do agree with it in theory, though not always in practicality.
  11. thank you~ I admit that's not the best Robert Frost work I could have posted, but it's strangely one of my favorite little pieces, haha
  12. There are some Ukrainian roots that I know oh so little about Thanks for all the info!
  13. Good post. I particularly enjoy the above, and agree with you here for sure. Especially the underlined portion
  14. Having seen how some very mild things I believe appear to shock people, I'm terrified to post my view of the afterlife LOL I wish this thread were back in the Progressive section. I'd love to talk about it, but I truly loathe debate. Sadly this is where all the interesting threads are!
  15. Just as all things, it completely hinges on who is reading it, viewing it, interpreting it, and using it.
  • Create New...