Originally posted by cookiecookie: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.
Are the mods deliberately ignoring the blatant loss of direction in this thread? Instead of debating the merits of a religious grouping within a state organisation, it is threatening to become a debate on theology.
Thread is locked. This is a sensitive issue and we don't want spats here.