TsukinoRei

I suggest lots of hugs, and extra love. Just being there for him through the tough times is worth a ton!

Dear TR, would you please explain to me where and how I accused you of being passive aggressive? And where did I accuse you of not answering any questions? When did Russia become a "Christian" state? The issues of Mosques is a bit tricky. for Islam is not just a religion, but also a political power. Mosques are not considered by Muslims as just a building to gather in for worship, but they are considered as claiming ground for their "Allah". It's a very sticky situation. That's an interesting perspective. But when you read Revelation, do you see the focus on Christian persecution as being hypocritical as well? I'm so sorry Neb! I misread Oldschools name as yours! It must have been late. Even so that's no excuse for falsely accusing you. Please accept my apologies. Some Islamic people view a mosque as a seat of political power, but by far not all Islamic people do. There are many moderate followers of Islam. The women wear bright colours and uncovered heads. A great many religions have historically been in the position of being viewed as a political power and not just a religion. Vatican City is an example of a Christian seat of political power. That power used to be much more far reaching than it is now. The Monarchy of England is another example. While the monarchy has steadily been reducing their political power, the Queen is the head of the Church and remains the official head of much of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth does still exist as an active international political entity. Just as there are Christians who do not view political Christianity is true Christianity, there are Muslim who do not view political Islam as true Islam. Rather, the only thing either part views as a true representation of their faith is a passionate desire to know God and submit to God in daily life. In the view of both parties, God is a God of peace - and so they believe that there is no room for violence or oppression in submission to God. Both religions have had large groups of people who misrepresent their faith by focussing on, and acting on, the violent passages of their scriptures. Both religions have large groups of people who believe that such acts can only come from a gross misunderstanding of what it is to know and love God. The Russian Orthodox Church is extremely powerful and influential over the Russian State. The country is 70% Orthodox Christian. Putin is very supportive of the Orthodox Church and wishes to bring the nations laws in line with Orthodox guidelines. The separation of Church and State does not exist in Russia. This is why I define it as a Christian State. When I read Revelation I see a strong possibility that it is people who profess to be Christian who persecute the believers. But it's a big book of symbolism so I'm not going to form doctrinal positions based on my interpretation of it.

Are you asking this because you are against calling what these Christians are going through "persecution"? Or are you asking because you think Christians are being selfish for only thinking of their brothers and sisters in this? Or are you asking because you think we Christians are guilty of persecuting others and want to make a point of that? Or . . . what? I'm asking because lamenting over the persecution of ourselves is only reasonable if we would also lament over the persecution of others who are not Christians around the world. Anything less is indeed selfish and a hypocrisy. Do we love our neighbours as ourselves? Do we love our enemies? If Christianity were to become the dominant religion in any of these countries that currently persecute Christians - and then the new Christian dominated government passed a law that sent Muslims to prison for spreading their faith ... On exactly what verses in the New Testament could a so-called Christian gov't base your hypothetical law? Islamic states easilly legislate the persecution of non-Muslims because they base their authority for this and other forms of persecution from the verses of their own Quran as well as the hadith. Not long ago a sheik in Saudi officially approved of the destruction of Christian churches in Arabia based solely on the authority of a hadtih of Muhammad who said there "shall not be two religions on the peninsula of the Arabs". You shall not suffer a witch to live... as well as numerous other Old Testament laws which have been abused to recent history and in some cases present day ... ... are not a part of the New Testament. As I already posted, "On exactly what verses in the New Testament could a so-called Christian gov't base your hypothetical law?" BTW, the only time that mosques are destroyed today is when Sunni and Shia Muslims bomb each others' funerals. It is my belief that if these people actually read their New Testament, the whole thing, and understood it, they wouldn't be left with a violent leg to stand on. And yet, there remains people, not only today but throughout history that have read the whole Bible, believe they have understood it, and are still violent. I think that these people just aren't getting it. It remains that they identify themselves as Christian. The civil war between Muslims and Christians in Africa has been ongoing. If you google Christian terrorists and Christian Militia, or Christian Armies, you will find most of them today are in Africa - kidnapping and training up child soldiers in the name of Christ no less. I am sure that you must know that there are many people who identify themselves as Christian who focus more on the Old Testament than on the New Testament - and as justification for this they point to New Testament verses which state that Jesus came to fulfill these laws, not erase them. To do this they conveniently ignore all the other verses about the law that point to a new and better covenant that supersedes the old, or the verses pointing out the impossibility of being saved by the old law or the fact that it is written that many of the old laws were impossible to live under and the impossibility of them proved further the need for Christ. Even Christians in America do this. I can only give you a dim understanding of what drives people who identify themselves as Christian to be violent. But these are not the extreme circumstances I'm asking you to comment on. I am confident that you and anyone else here would be quick to distance yourselves from supporting such acts of violence. At least I hope you would. I have heard a number of Christians in North America calling for the removal of Mosques from American soil. Would you rebuke them? I have also heard a number of Christians in North America declaring that the laws in Russia which were passed to imprison homosexuals for 'propoganda', are a very good thing which ought to be mirrored in North America - and that Russia is truly a more Christian nation than either Canada or the United States for doing this. Would you agree with them? If not, then why complain when Christians are imprisoned for 'propoganda', or Churches are removed in other nations? Thank you for asking for clarification. I feel like I've answered your questions to the best of my ability. Will you answer mine as well? As I have said, a misinterpretation and misuse of the New Testament used to justify excessive focus on the Old Testament leads to a doctrine of violence or to a doctrine of oppression by individuals and groups who self-identify as Christian. I should probably also clarify that I am not saying that ALL individuals or even MOST individuals who self-identify as Christian operate in this manner. Nor do I claim that all those who self-identify as Christian are born again. I do not see any value in digging up chapters and verses for you, as we will already both agree that only a misinterpretation of them would lead to violence or oppression. But surely you know to which I am referring already, we've discussed them enough in other threads. I had thought that referring to it as I had would be enough for you to immediately recognise the verses. I wasn't trying to be mysterious. But here you go anyway; Chapter and verse; Matthew 5:17. I could tear out and mutilate a bunch of other scriptures to demonstrate how other people justify elevating the worst of Old Testament laws and violence to justify their actions against others - but I would rather not. Do you both still accuse me of not answering your questions? And Nebula, do you still accuse me of passive aggression? It's interesting that while you both accuse me of not answering any questions I was the first person in this thread to ask a question and nobody has answered it yet. It's quite a straight forward question. If there is anything subtle or passive aggressive in it then it was not my intention. I think it was quite direct. Does anybody want to answer it? Is it so frightening to examine how we define persecution?

Post 15, page 1. I'm sorry if you didn't like my answer, but I don't see how I can have a productive discussion with you if you continue to assert that the answer doesn't exist. Once again, it is not my intention to be combative with you. Please refrain from being accusatory towards me. I am beginning to feel as though you are insulting my integrity. You have already questioned my love for and relationship with Jesus Christ. I hope that it is not your intention to turn the topic personal.

Well, there's another question you didn't answer. That's the first as far as I am aware. What other questions do you feel I did not answer? ... For the third time and last time: "On exactly what verses in the New Testament could a so-called Christian gov't base your hypothetical law?" And this has nothing to do with my personal feelings; it's about counting your non-responses. I am confused. I did answer that question. I don't understand why you think that I did not. Check post #15 again please. I'm sure you will see that I directly answer your question. I do not wish to be combative with you. Please remain calm and non-accusatory.

Thank you for two awesome answers!

That sounds like a topic for a new thread. This one has run its course, don't you think? Indeed I do!

The term Christian was originally a term of derision given to followers of Christ by the Romans. Some say it meant 'Little Christ', others that it meant 'Slaves of Christ'. Either way it was a term of derision which those who chose to follow the teachings of Christ decided to embrace and wear with pride. Today the term Christian is applied to a great many people of diverse beliefs and backgrounds. Some people claim the name Christian because they were raised in a family with Christian traditions, though they are agnostic or atheist in their beliefs. Some people claim the name Christian because they passionately believe in the standard Creeds. Some people claim they are Christian because they believe they are in relationship with God through Jesus Christ. When some people think of Christians, they think of people like Mother Teresa, who gave her all for the poor. Or they think of a person in their lives who exemplified a Christ-like spirit. When some people think of Christians they think of gossips, and back biters, and people who picket soldiers funerals, or worse - a spiritual leader who broke their trust. What definition of Christian do you believe is worthy of the title, 'Little Christ' or 'Slave of Christ'? What does such a Christian look like? What behaviours and attitudes do you believe exemplify the life of Jesus Christ? What do you believe a Christian does not look like? What behaviours and attitudes, if any, do you believe would mean that a person is not worthy of the title? Does the modern broadness of the term, in your opinion, reduce or alter the relevance of the term?

If that is true, why is it mentioned in Revelation people will be given robes to wear? The Lamb is not literal. We understand that the Lamb is Jesus Christ who was sacrificed for our sins, the palm branches represent worship, the white robes represent being clothed in righteousness. I think the number of people who believe that Jesus Christ reincarnates as a literal sheep are very few indeed! Why would we think the white robes are literal? So, do you believe Jesus is nude or covered? I believe that question isn't addressed in scripture so anything I thought would be useless conjecture at best. I believe that doctrinal questions can not and should not be answered with prophetic, symbolic, writings. The Book of Revelations will not answer any questions about modesty or nudity, or any other questions of scriptural law. There was a claim that we would stand naked before God. So what is the Scriptural support for this claim? If there is support, the next question is how far does this nakedness go? Either the ones in Heaven are covered or they are nude. This includes Jesus. S which isit? We will stand spiritually naked before God. You are seeking an answer as to whether we will be literally naked before God. There is no answer to that. There is not even an answer to what kind of bodies we will have, other than 'like the angels'. We may not even have genders in heaven. Let's say that there are genders in Heaven. Will there be lust in Heaven, or will we be made without sin in Heaven? Were not Adam and Eve naked when they were without sin? Will we suffer from hot or cold in Heaven? Wasn't suffering from the elements also a result of the fall? If there is no lust in Heaven, and we are not attacked by the elements in Heaven, then why would we need clothes in Heaven? Most importantly we will have ultimate spiritual intimacy with God in Heaven. We will be one with each other and be one in Him. Why would it matter what we were wearing or if we were wearing anything? Adam and Eve did not notice their nakedness until after they ate the fruit. When mankind is restored into right relationship with God will we be in a state to notice our nakedness then and be ashamed? If we did notice our nakedness and were ashamed and needed to be covered then would that not mean that sin has not been defeated and we had not been remade? When I was a little girl my Sunday School Teacher told me that God can see us everywhere. My eyes went wide and I said, 'Even when I'm going to the bathroom?!' She said yes. For a little while after that I prayed to God before I went to the bathroom and asked Him to please avert his eyes for a few minutes. Of course that was silly, and I gradually grew into a desire for God to see my all, and have my all, and learned that I didn't need to be ashamed before Him. We have to trust Him with all the things that shame us so that He can take them and mould us into what He intended us to be. To God, our whole selves are laid bare and He loves us and takes us as we are. But for Him to take us as we are, when we stand before Him we have to be as we are - then we can grow in Him and through Him. Being embarrassed about being naked in Heaven is not really different from being embarrassed about God seeing us in the bathroom. Being embarrassed about being naked in Heaven is not really different from being embarrassed about God seeing us in the bathroom. Yes,that is true.It is a human emotion.Although I personally do not think we will be naked in heaven. I think there is a lot of room for speculation. It's an interesting topic to think about. What do you think our bodies/form will be like in heaven?

Well, there's another question you didn't answer. That's the first as far as I am aware. What other questions do you feel I did not answer? I am sorry if you feel I've been ignoring you this whole time. It was not my intention. =o)

Are you asking this because you are against calling what these Christians are going through "persecution"? Or are you asking because you think Christians are being selfish for only thinking of their brothers and sisters in this? Or are you asking because you think we Christians are guilty of persecuting others and want to make a point of that? Or . . . what? I'm asking because lamenting over the persecution of ourselves is only reasonable if we would also lament over the persecution of others who are not Christians around the world. Anything less is indeed selfish and a hypocrisy. Do we love our neighbours as ourselves? Do we love our enemies? If Christianity were to become the dominant religion in any of these countries that currently persecute Christians - and then the new Christian dominated government passed a law that sent Muslims to prison for spreading their faith ... On exactly what verses in the New Testament could a so-called Christian gov't base your hypothetical law? Islamic states easilly legislate the persecution of non-Muslims because they base their authority for this and other forms of persecution from the verses of their own Quran as well as the hadith. Not long ago a sheik in Saudi officially approved of the destruction of Christian churches in Arabia based solely on the authority of a hadtih of Muhammad who said there "shall not be two religions on the peninsula of the Arabs". You shall not suffer a witch to live... as well as numerous other Old Testament laws which have been abused to recent history and in some cases present day ... ... are not a part of the New Testament. As I already posted, "On exactly what verses in the New Testament could a so-called Christian gov't base your hypothetical law?" BTW, the only time that mosques are destroyed today is when Sunni and Shia Muslims bomb each others' funerals. It is my belief that if these people actually read their New Testament, the whole thing, and understood it, they wouldn't be left with a violent leg to stand on. And yet, there remains people, not only today but throughout history that have read the whole Bible, believe they have understood it, and are still violent. I think that these people just aren't getting it. It remains that they identify themselves as Christian. The civil war between Muslims and Christians in Africa has been ongoing. If you google Christian terrorists and Christian Militia, or Christian Armies, you will find most of them today are in Africa - kidnapping and training up child soldiers in the name of Christ no less. I am sure that you must know that there are many people who identify themselves as Christian ... Do you identify yourself as a Christian? Your profile gives no clue as to what religion you are, but you have complained so much about my fellow Christians on this Worthy News forum that I am begining to suspect you're a Muslim posting under a cute Japanese cartoon avatar. Perhaps your avatar should be a wolf in sheep's clothing? Read all of my recent posts, particularly ones referencing Jesus and what it means to be in relationship with Him, then tell me if you think that I am a Christian. Thank you for the compliment on my avatar! I've hardly looked at my profile. Perhaps I should. I don't usually bother with them. You haven't answered any of my questions yet. If you answer mine then I will answer more of yours. I think that's fair. =o) Don't you?

Are you asking this because you are against calling what these Christians are going through "persecution"? Or are you asking because you think Christians are being selfish for only thinking of their brothers and sisters in this? Or are you asking because you think we Christians are guilty of persecuting others and want to make a point of that? Or . . . what? I'm asking because lamenting over the persecution of ourselves is only reasonable if we would also lament over the persecution of others who are not Christians around the world. Anything less is indeed selfish and a hypocrisy. Do we love our neighbours as ourselves? Do we love our enemies? If Christianity were to become the dominant religion in any of these countries that currently persecute Christians - and then the new Christian dominated government passed a law that sent Muslims to prison for spreading their faith ... On exactly what verses in the New Testament could a so-called Christian gov't base your hypothetical law? Islamic states easilly legislate the persecution of non-Muslims because they base their authority for this and other forms of persecution from the verses of their own Quran as well as the hadith. Not long ago a sheik in Saudi officially approved of the destruction of Christian churches in Arabia based solely on the authority of a hadtih of Muhammad who said there "shall not be two religions on the peninsula of the Arabs". You shall not suffer a witch to live... as well as numerous other Old Testament laws which have been abused to recent history and in some cases present day ... ... are not a part of the New Testament. As I already posted, "On exactly what verses in the New Testament could a so-called Christian gov't base your hypothetical law?" BTW, the only time that mosques are destroyed today is when Sunni and Shia Muslims bomb each others' funerals. It is my belief that if these people actually read their New Testament, the whole thing, and understood it, they wouldn't be left with a violent leg to stand on. And yet, there remains people, not only today but throughout history that have read the whole Bible, believe they have understood it, and are still violent. I think that these people just aren't getting it. It remains that they identify themselves as Christian. The civil war between Muslims and Christians in Africa has been ongoing. If you google Christian terrorists and Christian Militia, or Christian Armies, you will find most of them today are in Africa - kidnapping and training up child soldiers in the name of Christ no less. I am sure that you must know that there are many people who identify themselves as Christian who focus more on the Old Testament than on the New Testament - and as justification for this they point to New Testament verses which state that Jesus came to fulfill these laws, not erase them. To do this they conveniently ignore all the other verses about the law that point to a new and better covenant that supersedes the old, or the verses pointing out the impossibility of being saved by the old law or the fact that it is written that many of the old laws were impossible to live under and the impossibility of them proved further the need for Christ. Even Christians in America do this. I can only give you a dim understanding of what drives people who identify themselves as Christian to be violent. But these are not the extreme circumstances I'm asking you to comment on. I am confident that you and anyone else here would be quick to distance yourselves from supporting such acts of violence. At least I hope you would. I have heard a number of Christians in North America calling for the removal of Mosques from American soil. Would you rebuke them? I have also heard a number of Christians in North America declaring that the laws in Russia which were passed to imprison homosexuals for 'propoganda', are a very good thing which ought to be mirrored in North America - and that Russia is truly a more Christian nation than either Canada or the United States for doing this. Would you agree with them? If not, then why complain when Christians are imprisoned for 'propoganda', or Churches are removed in other nations? Thank you for asking for clarification. I feel like I've answered your questions to the best of my ability. Will you answer mine as well?

Are you asking this because you are against calling what these Christians are going through "persecution"? Or are you asking because you think Christians are being selfish for only thinking of their brothers and sisters in this? Or are you asking because you think we Christians are guilty of persecuting others and want to make a point of that? Or . . . what? I'm asking because lamenting over the persecution of ourselves is only reasonable if we would also lament over the persecution of others who are not Christians around the world. Anything less is indeed selfish and a hypocrisy. Do we love our neighbours as ourselves? Do we love our enemies? If Christianity were to become the dominant religion in any of these countries that currently persecute Christians - and then the new Christian dominated government passed a law that sent Muslims to prison for spreading their faith ... On exactly what verses in the New Testament could a so-called Christian gov't base your hypothetical law? Islamic states easilly legislate the persecution of non-Muslims because they base their authority for this and other forms of persecution from the verses of their own Quran as well as the hadith. Not long ago a sheik in Saudi officially approved of the destruction of Christian churches in Arabia based solely on the authority of a hadtih of Muhammad who said there "shall not be two religions on the peninsula of the Arabs". You shall not suffer a witch to live... as well as numerous other Old Testament laws which have been abused to recent history and in some cases present day - to subjugate women, outlaw homosexuality, murder occult practitioners and people falsely accused of occult practice, and outlaw mixed race marriages. There are whole village slums of elderly women in Africa whom have had to flee accusations of witch-craft from family members who simply wanted their wealth. In Christian nations such as Uganda and Russia homosexuals fear for their lives. Would you defend the homosexuals being imprisoned in Russia? Would you speak out for them if it meant you would go to prison too? In Russia a teenage boy held up a sign saying that murdering homosexuals is a crime. He was beaten by his parents and turned over to the police. That is a Christian state. Many here would say that they are not true Christians if they would do such a thing. But the persecution watchlists count as Christian any person who identifies as a Christian - however unorthodox their beliefs, however loose their definition of Christian is, whether they attend Church once a year and call themselves Christian because their parents, and grand parents, and great grand parents were always Christian. Many Muslims would say that the violence, and the terrorism, and the government oppression does not represent true Islam. By these definitions, if Saudi Arabia is a Muslim state, then Russia is a Christian state, and Uganda is a Christian State. The destruction of those Churches in Saudi Arabia is a terrible terrible thing. Would you stand against the destruction of a Mosque?

Are you asking this because you are against calling what these Christians are going through "persecution"? Or are you asking because you think Christians are being selfish for only thinking of their brothers and sisters in this? Or are you asking because you think we Christians are guilty of persecuting others and want to make a point of that? Or . . . what? I'm asking because lamenting over the persecution of ourselves is only reasonable if we would also lament over the persecution of others who are not Christians around the world. Anything less is indeed selfish and a hypocrisy. Do we love our neighbours as ourselves? Do we love our enemies? If Christianity were to become the dominant religion in any of these countries that currently persecute Christians - and then the new Christian dominated government passed a law that sent Muslims to prison for spreading their faith, would we cry out for their chains? And yes, I do point out that very few are calling it an outrage when there are nations that imprison homosexuals for 'propaganda'. Why then are we surprised that there are nations that imprison Christians for what those nations also deem 'propaganda'? Would it be ok if these people were allowed to BE Christians as long as they didn't TALK about being Christians, as long as they didn't attempt to influence or recruit any children? Is it acceptable if all they get is a prison sentence, and if they only get it for not keeping their beliefs to themselves? Would it not be the fault of the State when it turned a blind eye to public violence done to the Christians, because the the State itself is not doing it? I think that it's terrible when these things happen to anyone. Most people seem to only think it's terrible when these things happen to their own kind.

The way I see it, saving lives by legal means is better than allowing murder to continue. You are absolutely right about that. I agree wholeheartedly. Do you equate legality with morality? And your point is..............? You tell me. When is murder a moral, legal act? I think the decline of "illegally" murdering the unborn in the name of "choice" is due to a great awakening by Americans all over the country from all walks of life, Christian and otherwise, who are saying no more murdering of the unborn., and the prospective victim (mother) enough is enough. The great lie of murdering the unborn and calling it "choice" has been exposed for what it is. Pro "choice" women will have to find another way to murder their babies. excerpt from The Huffington Post, from which the OP article was taken The murder trial of Kermit Gosnell, the abortion provider in Pennsylvania who performed illegal, late-term abortions and allegedly "snipped" the spines of fetuses born alive, has fueled the drive to regulate abortion clinics even further. A group of House Republicans wrote letters to the health departments and attorneys general of all 50 states in May, citing the Gosnell trial and asking what exactly states are doing to "protect the civil rights of newborns and their mothers." A great awakening would be super nice, but if that were the case it wouldn't be necessary to be underhanded to achieve a closure of clinics. If there were such a great awakening then the abortion clinics would close all on their own from simple lack of customers. Passing a law stating that all clinics must have transfer agreements with hospitals, and then passing a law preventing hospitals from having transfer agreements with clinics is simply a tasteless bit of legal trickery that has no lasting effect on the will of the people and risks galvanizing the pro-choice movement even further. A few weeks ago a video was posted of a gentleman minister who waits outside a local clinic and offers alternatives to women - begs them in the most loving way possible to choose life, tells them that they are loved and that their unborn baby is loved and will be cared for if they choose life. If they accept his help he takes them to his church and remains a part of their life. That is an effective ministry, achieving the right results the right way.