[Mb-civic] The WAY? To Richard & Ian

[Lyle K'ang]

Hi Richard and Ian,

Can I jump in here with both feet-I believe this is an open forum is it not? So, can I interact? Richard your points are well taken and correct because you have an advantage in your strategy, it is experience.

Ok..., 'The Way' Chinese. How old is 'the way'? Very old-so very old.
The early pre-Christian Church stole it's value from the 'WAY'. Let me explain--I use the word 'stole' because it has become exclusive as though it is now a Christian right.

Many Christian Churches say today you are welcomed, bring your own old values and you will find that your values and Christ's true Church will only enhance your belief. What enhancement and what belief? I have seen just the opposite here, Ian. It is the Christian Church that become dominant. The folks from the old country are shy, respectful and let the steam-roller roll right over them or leave the Church to SAVE themselves from further degradation of their true beliefs.

I said this early on in our discussions, perhaps Ian missed that. He seems to be missing the point lately. If in fact, the pre-Christian Church borrowed these values from the 'PAGANS' then why borrow or steal another's value-claim it as your own, then denigrate the 'old' value (Taoist, Chinese) as 'PAGAN' beliefs. If my argument is in error, why do the missionaries throughout the world (the mean ones) constantly think they have to save these wretched beings? Sounds more like the republic party here.

Oh! Almost forgot-do not gloss over a muddled history that you have joined or taken into your bossom. The history and group that you join Ian, are murderous, treacherous, and leave in their wake human misery. Just a small point I wanted to regurgitate again and again. Offensive - By God! Not ME!


Lyle K'ang,
~~Enterprise Insights: Advanced Tools for Business Communications!~~
http://www.SiloManagement.com
~~Information, Imagination & Musings~~ 
http://www.Lyve-Oasis.com 

-- "Ian" <ialterman at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
Richard:

Exclusivist?  Yes.  "Offensive?"  Only if it is being offered, portrayed,
discussed or debated in an "offensive" manner, by an "offensive" person.  At
the risk of seeming to lack humility, I do not believe I fall into that
category.

As for "exclusivist" (or, even your word, "offensive"), why limit it to the
Judeo-Christian construct?  Do not all faiths claim to be "the" way?  Islam?
Taoism (which literally means, "the way")?  Zoroastrianism?  Even Hinduism
and Buddhism, which do not espouse a "God" as such, lay claim to being "the
way" to "enlightenment."  So why are you picking on Christianity?

Yes, Christianity has a "checkered" past, including some very horrible
"moments" (the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.).  And yes, way too many of
its "leaders" (especially presently) are corrupt and self-serving, just like
the ultra-legalistic Temple Priests of Jesus' time.  And yes, way too many
of its adherents blindly follow those leaders, and are as misguided as to
what Judeo-Christianity was "meant" to be - what it can and should be, at
least as I (and, yes, many others) understand from Jesus' ministry and the
New Testament as it is - as it is possible to be.  And yes, ultimately
Christianity is "exclusivist" (in one sense; in another, it is the most
inclusivist faith that there could ever be; but that is another
conversation).

But that should not make it "offensive" any more than any other faith (i.e.,
most of them) that lays claim to "the" way.  Again, it is all in how the
faith is offered, portrayed and discussed that would seem to determine
whether it is "offensive" to someone.

In sending the apostles and disciples out to "preach the Gospel," Jesus
specifically tells them to offer it freely (i.e., without charge, including
room or board), and NOT to "force" it on anyone: to share it humbly,
lovingly and patiently and, if someone does not want to hear, to "shake the
dust from your feet" and move on.

There can hardly be anything LESS offensive than that.  And although too
many people (both clergy and lay) do not adhere to that command (and yes, it
was a command) - and not only attempt to "ram" it down others' throats, but
then condemn and judge if someone does not want to hear it - this is what I
mean by what Christianity has become, and what it was "meant" to be.  To
"judge" or "condemn" the entire faith simply because many (or even most) of
its adherents are misguided and only add to the problem of giving
Christianity a "bad name" does not mean that the faith itself is
"offensive," or even that its underlying tenets are "offensive."

What I find enormously hypocritical in Lyle's approach is that he claims a
high degree of enlightenment, yet he does more judging and condemning of
others' faiths than anyone else here.  Yet most people here seem quick to
jump to his defense by claiming his right to express his views, while they
ignore the hypocrisy and, yes, "meanness" in his approach.  There is
something truly disconcerting about that.

Peace.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "richard haase" <hotprojects at nyc.rr.com>
To: <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] Self-Agrandizing? Re: To Lyle


> Ian respectfully though there is something very offense to non christians
in
> the christian's erroneous belief that the only way to heaven is through
> christianity; having been a non christian until the age of 35 i can vouch
> for it; in addition to being extremely hateful and offensive, it is in my
> subjective judgement patently false and a blasephemy against god ( eg
> decreasing the numbers of his flock ); christianity is a true way to god;
> but not the only way
>
> of this i am 1000% sure
>
> richard haase in nyc
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ian" <ialterman at nyc.rr.com>
> To: <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 4:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] Self-Agrandizing? Re: To Lyle
>
>
> > Barbara:
> >
> > I agree.  However, if you go back over all the myriad e-mails between
Lyle
> > and myself, you will find an interesting fact: Lyle has consistently
> > denigrated, demeaned and maligned my faith - not just the
Judeo-Christian
> > construct in general, but my own personal belief in it - while, until my
> > most recent post, I have never made a single denigrating comment about
his
> > personal belief system.  Rather, I have spent the time defending my own
> > belief against continuous negativity on his part.  Yet despite this(and,
> > again, until my most recent post), I believe I conducted myself (on the
> > whole) in an amazingly patient manner, despite his continuous demeaning
of
> > my faith.
> >
> > Yes, he is entitled to his opinion, and I do not begrudge him that
right.
> > As the adage goes: I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend
to
> > the death your right to say it.  But this does not mean that I have to
> like,
> > or even put up with, his negavitity.
> >
> > As I said, being a Christian does not make one "perfect."  And I never
> > claimed to have the patience of a saint.  In this regard, my patience
for
> > Lyle's smug meanness (the very thing he accuses ME of!) has grown thin,
> and
> > I reacted.  I believe any one of you would have done the same.  I do not
> > apologize for being human.
> >
> > Peace.
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Barbara Siomos" <barbarasiomos38 at webtv.net>
> > To: <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
> > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 4:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] Self-Agrandizing? Re: To Lyle
> >
> >
> > Personally I think that Lyle and Ian both have a right to speak their
> > minds as they see fit.... Lyle is NOT trying to win anyone to his side
> > or point of view merely expressing himself in a debate as he is entitled
> > to do....
> >
> > peace,
> > barbara
> > >From: "Ian" <ialterman at nyc.rr.com>
> > >To: <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
> > >Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] Self-Agrandizing?
> > >Re: To Lyle
> > Al Baraka:
> >
> > Thank you for your wisdom. Your "dogs and cats" concept does seem
> > to have hit the nail on the head. Clearly, Lyle and I are debating at
> > cross purposes. It is not simply a matter of neither of us "wooing"
> > the other to their side; that is clearly not going to happen.
> > However, we are also debating from two antithetical positions re the
> > Judeo-Christian Scriptures (independent of whether or not one
> > "believes" them). Herein lies at least part - perhaps a good part -
> > of why he seems to equate simple "correction" (vis-a-vis what the
> > Scriptures actually say - again, independent of whether one believes
> > them or not) with "hammering" (his word).
> >
> > Also, like you, I cannot figure out where he stands: as you note, he
> > claims to be an atheist, but believes in angels, and also (at least from
> > what I can tell) supports many of the principles of Jesus'
> > ministry. And although he can certainly do so without subscribing
> > to Jesus' divinity, C.S. Lewis' statement still stands:
> >
> > "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would
> > not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a
> > level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the
> > Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and
> > is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut
> > Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you
> > can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come
> > with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher.
> > He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
> >
> > Lyle subscribes to what many Christians call a "pick and choose"
> > spirituality. He has read broadly (as have I), and has chosen which
> > aspects of which faiths he feels make sense to him (psychologically,
> > emotionally, spiritually). At the same time, he has "rejected"
> > anything in those faiths (especially Christianity) that he feels is
> > hypocritical, or simply inconsistent. Out of this he has created a
> > "personal faith" that he "protects" as "aggressively" as I do mine.
> > However, in creating a "pick and choose" spiritual philosophy, he leaves
> > himself with no "bottom line" or real "foundation" for his faith: it is
> > simply a mish-mash of things he believes to be true (or untrue) of human
> > nature and "God" (however he perceives Him).
> >
> > Many of you may see me as misguided for my extremely devout belief
> > in the Judeo-Christian construct (as I understand that construct;
> > not as it is practiced by the masses, or taught by the corrupt
> > leaders). However, at least there is a "bedrock" upon which I base my
> > faith, belief, life principles and day-to-day living. In this
> > regard, from my perspective, I find it sad that Lyle does not have such
> > a foundation. I am not questioning whether his belief system "works"
> > for him or not; clearly it does. It is just that, to my mind, the
> > lack of a specific foundation leads to the sort of moral relativism that
> > is at least part of the reason why the world is "going to hell in a
> > handbasket."
> >
> > Again, thank you for your wisdom. It is refreshing.
> >
> > Peace.
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: Alexander Harper
> > To: mb-civic at islandlists.com
> > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 1:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] Self-Agrandizing? Re: To Lyle
> > I am almost - but not quite - speechless over these
> > exchanges. Intemperate adjectives are being bandied about,
> > particularly, I fear, by Lyle, who I am sure has every one's best
> > interests at heart, although what is to be achieved by calling Ian
> > 'mean', for instance, for the moment escapes me. Actually I do not see
> > how their two viewpoints can easily be reconciled as I am not sure that
> > they are arguing about the same thing. It is not easy, Lyle, if one is
> > discussing dogs (for the sake of argument), if you reply with a polemic
> > about cats. I am not sure either, how you can possibly be an atheist. An
> > agnostic, maybe, a pantheist, perhaps but not, surely, an atheist. You
> > certainly seem to have studied a wide and varied range of beliefs and
> > to have derived some understanding and benefit from many of them and you
> > seem to be able to see in quite straightforward matters, things, which
> > are not immediately visible or obvious to less gifted mortals. In that
> > you have the soul of a poet or a real-estate agent. It occurs to me that
> > you ought to read about the Albigensian heresy, if you have not already
> > done so and/or if you have time. Its adherents, the Cathars, had a very
> > singular view of how to become perfect. I am sure that you would find it
> > interesting.
> > I think I will stop here before I start writing in tongues. It seems to
> > be contagious.
> > AlBaraka
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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