To The Members of "Christian Hippies"

So I used the wrong terminology, suprise, I'm not perfect. When you pointed that out, I corrected myself. So I don't think that was the basic Christian tenet that Huck was referring to. I think we can all agree that just believing in GOD doesn't make you a Christian. We KNOW that. It was a slip of words, that's all. I don't think the terminology is the issue here anymore.

 

Yes, you corrected what you said, and as far as I was concerned, I dropped the issue.

Then "HuckFinn" brought it back up again.....

What do YOU think "HuckFinn" is getting at? Nowhere did I express surprise at Xtians espousing Xtian theology. Only the incorrect (and potentially inflammatory) statement that you later retracted.

 

I'm not sure how exactly to word what I want to say, but I'm going to take a stab at it. Chances are it won't come out the way I want it to.

I think what Huck was getting at was that "Christian Hippies" (the little group we had going on and the personal forum) affirmed basic Christian tenets in that we all agree on the very basics of what it means to be a Christian, to pratice love, acceptance and other things we feel God and Jesus are all about, and studying the Bible, as well as following the whole "Jesus thing", for lack of a better term. I don't think it had anything to do with terminology... I think even Huck would agree that just believing in God doesn't make one a Christian ( I could be wrong ) so I don't think that was what he was getting at.

That's my interpretation anyway. At the risk of being redundant, here's a recap: I'm not exactly sure what he DID mean by that, only he knows, but my point was that in my personal opinion, I don't feel that by "basic Christian tenets" he meant that "anyone who believes in God is a Christian"

Huck, would you care to clear this up?

 

EllisD,

Please state your censorship intentions clearly.

You are letting it be known that anyone stating that Christ is God outside of a personal forum will be subject to censorship?

Dont be 'funny' with word definitions please - banning someone IS censoring their opinions, ideas from this forum.

This seems to be exactly what you are threatening to do?

Maybe we should check and see if this is the wishes of site management and site rules for moderators first. Then proceed from there.

(Im also curious if you intend to apply this rule to ... for example, Hare Krishnas who clearly spoke to each other 'as if' Hare Krishna was the true God without Qualification?)

Please reply with explanation?

 

oo i'm a christian hippie i am lost though, i don't know how to search for threads i posted in eep

 

Juiceman:

My comments were directed to YOU and only YOU, and have NOTHING to do with discussions of religion, Xtian or otherwise. Trying to claim that they do in an attempt to recruit supporters here is a desperate move at best.

Comments about "Christ is God" would never be subject to "censorship" outside of a personal forum. They certainly would be subject to criticism, deconstruction, and vigorous debate, if posted in a general "Religion and Philosophy" discussion area. If posters want an area for "believers only" discussions where nobody is allowed to say anything that might contradict anyone else, then they need to set up a personal forum for it.

The "obnoxious behavior" that I referred to is the same kind of crap that got you banned previously. Homophobic comments/trolling in the "Gay" forum, for example. Whether you post them as "JackassJack", "vokalrights", or one of your "juiceman" names, such behavior is against forum guidelines, and is grounds for banning, as you found out previously.

As far as I can tell, the "General Amnesty" that Skip declared for previously banned posters had much more to do with the difficulties of importing the previous "ban list" into the new software than with a desire to see all of you come back. Given time, I am sure most of them will find their way onto the new list. We will be watching.

In the meantime, if you have any more questions about this, PM me or at least post them in an appropriate forum.

 

Well, he did claim that to reject him is to reject God.

It is a basic Christian tenet that (A) there is only one true God and (B) he came to Earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth some 2000 years ago. Of course, people believe in many different "gods," but in a Christian framework these "gods" are understood to be false.

Having said all that, I suppose that Bree could have been a bit more precise in defining a "Christian hippie," but your antagonistic response has been overwrought. Unclench!

 

the truth is that anyone who believes in God is a Christian but Christians have not understood the their own teachings and have twisted them to have cultic understandings...when christians understand the panthiest nature of Christ's teachings, then they will truly be found in Christ

 

ChiefCowpie,

I've referred you to this site before, but you've never bothered to respond:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0088a.html

Why should I believe that Gnosticism reflects the "real" teachings of Jesus?

 

Hey all. Nice to see everyone together. Not sure what to think of the new forums just yet. Hope it works out. =)

 

raise the roof bree, im representin. thanks for bringin us all together again, thats good enuff for me, i'll start pickin apart everyones words next week, im just too happy today to get involved.

 

you dont miss a beat do you cowpie? i have a hard time myself with being humble and understanding that the truth lies with in everyone, but becareful about the pantheistic remarks, for although we are all children of God, we are still Man, and the fallen angel can use that conflict to confuse us and trap us.

 

the fallen angel is a boogie man myth of the early church so folks wouldn't question their authority as it is the devil that would lead one to question so...there is no old testement validation of satan...only in n.t. texts that were altered does such an entity appear...don't believe the hype

 

well i'll have to look into that one. im not the most versed bible scholar, but i will research . . . is the book of Job in the new testament or old . . .??? hmmmmmmm interesting, ill look into it chief.

 

job...o.t.

 

now read the first chapter.

 

Actually your Comments were directed at Bree.
My concern was what exactly she was being warned about and if that warning applied to the group.
IF it was true that Christians would be censored for stating their beliefs then I certainly would hope others would be 'supporting' the original freedom of speech rules of Hipforums.
(I doubt Id have to 'recruit' anyone)

Trying to turn this into a personal debate between you and I sound like a 'desperate move' attempt to make this an ad homonym debate and its not.

GOOD!
This is what I wanted to hear!
I hope that applies equally to Muslims, Athiests and Hindus as well!

Im not sure why you mentioned some request or desire for a forum where no one is allowed to contradict Christian tenents???????

That is not possible in a free speech forum and I have never, never, never heard ANYone (Christian or otherwise) request such a thing?

Personally I find you extremely obnoxious. One example might be the way you describe people as 'Xtians'. Deliberate disrespect with no other intention than to insult and spite is my personal standard for 'Obnoxious'.

I do not, and never have made 'Homophobic comments' or 'trolled' the Gay forum.
Once again these are insults directed at me which I consider 'Obnoxious' and also Untrue.
I have never posted as 'Volkarights' and again, this is an untruthful comments about the Juiceman.
Banning me hurts this forum as you found out previously.

Your theory is interesting but the fact remains Juiceman3000 has sanctioned amnesty.
Thats the facts.
Im sure certain moderators 'will be watched' too.
Great.

Thank you EllisD for clarifying your position that you will continue to allow free speech and not ban and censor Christians for stating their beliefs as they understand them to be true.

You did answer my question and I will PM you or use the 'Questions' forum if I have any more.
Please feel free to PM me if you have anymore 'zingers' against me or questions about what I did or did not do in a forum.
Thanks!

 

HELLO EVERY1!

another xtian hippy here!
hows every1

 

​

The Old Testament

When copies of the Ancient manuscripts were first translated it was into the Latin Vulgate Bible. At this point in time the Hebrew word 'satan' (spelt the same way in English, Latin and Hebrew) was introduced to its new language. It had never before been used. The Hebrew word 'satan' simply means 'to oppose' or 'to be an adversary'. When the Latin Bible was translated to English, once again, the word was transliterated and introduced, this time, to the English language. In many cases transliterating the word would not have 'fitted into' the doctrine of the day and so in those cases the word was translated.

Before we look at the actual verses let's see the statistics.

The Hebrew 'satan' is used 33 times in the Old Testament.

7 times as 'adversary' 3 times as 'adversaries' 1 time as 'accuser' 3 times as 'accusers' 1 time as 'oppose' 1 time as 'stand against' 17 times as 'satan' Of the 17 times the word is transliterated 'satan', 14 are in the Book of Job.

So that you may verify what I am saying for yourself the two numbers to look up in your Strongs concordance are #7853 and #7854.

​

Satan - A study on the Hebrew word ‘satan’ in the Old Testament

Hebrew - 'satan', translated 'adversary'

Numbers 22:22
Then God's anger was aroused because he went, and the Angel of the LORD took His stand in the way as an adversary (Hebrew - 'satan', translated 'adversary') against him. And he was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him.

(Here we see quite clearly that the angel of the Lord is the 'satan'.)

 

I find it interesting that the moderator for the Philosopy and religion site is very closed minded about different religions. Sure she stated that Christians believe in God and that is true, we do. True we are not the only religion that belives in God but we still are that. I also find it rude to call us xstians just because you don't believe in Christianity. I don't go around calling you ******tripp because I'm against the use of drugs and narcotics. But to each his own.