• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

How should I go about this?

PolyDoc said:
Nicola,

You said:
The point I am making is that NOT ONE RELIGION has it (it being the answer to all)
Click to expand...
You are right about that.

But true Christianity is not about religion. It is all about having a personal relationship with our Creator. The Bible is the only Book that tells us how to have that relationship. The Koran does not. The Book of Mormon does not. The teaching of Ghandi did not.

Any "holy" book other than the Bible, and any teaching not based completely on Biblical Truth, will lead one down the broad way to destruction. It does not matter how much so-called peace, harmony, and let's-just-all-get-along the book or false prophet might teach, if the Prince of Peace is not the Head, it will lead you to hell.

A born-again Believer is not "the body of Christ." Rather, all born-again believers are members of the Body of Christ. To use the Apostle Paul's metaphor (but my own terminology :lol: ), some of us are eyeballs, some eardrums, some toenails, some hair follicles, etc. To say "I am the body of Christ" as you did shows a basic misunderstanding of Christianity.

You said:
Christ is the Son of God, a prophet, a healer, a mediator...all fulfilling the Word!
Click to expand...
But you did NOT say that God has come in the flesh. Read 1 John 4:1-3. You did not say that Jesus of Nazareth is 100% God and 100% man, as Dr. Allen said, and I also say - and more importantly, as the Bible teaches. To say that He is the Son of God is correct, but then, all born-again believers are adopted sons (or daughters) of God.
Click to expand...
The first thing that comes to my mind is "OUCH"!! You have thrown some darts my way, my brother! Forgive me for not saying that Christ was God in the flesh! I did not know I was on trial here. Also,
nicola said:
Believe me when I say, I am of the Body of Christ. I base everything in my life on the Word of God, preferably the KJV.
Click to expand...
I stated that I was of the Body of Christ, not that I was the Body of Christ. And even if I or anyone else did, I do not believe that they would be wrong for stating that. "We are of God" 1John 4:6 My brother, I think we may be getting off here, so "Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another." Rom. 14:19

Isabella said:
I would not use any such description and I don't really have any view per se, my only opinion was regarding what you said regarding Gandhi in hell.

Like I said, if this (the whole Hell thing described above) is a part of Christianity (which I know very little about) then that is fine.

Is it?

B
Click to expand...

I'm not to sure if Ghandi is in hell, but one thing I do know is his life led the way for many to found peace.
 
I'm not to sure if Ghandi is in hell, but one thing I do know is his life led the way for many to found peace.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps it led the way for people to "march to hell" with greater pace, having gained confidence and plugged there ears to warnings.

Did you ever see the episode of way of the master, where they showed that if you give a blind man a Walkman playing enjoyable and soothing music, you can make him unable to hear warnings about a cliff he will walk off and that it is better to shout at him than to be concerned about him having an enjoyable walk off a cliff, or even tackle him so that he does not calmly and peacefully march off the cliff.

Or there was another example where you should not give someone a parachute because it will make the plan ride more enjoyable, but because the plan might crash. If you have the parachute knowing the plan will crash it will make the ride more enjoyable when you are mistreated by people who mock you for wearing a parachute on a safe plan but if you are not given that information, everyone will ridicule you for having the parachute and it will make the ride less enjoyable and cause you to take off the parachute and perish.

I do not know if I explained it accurately a picture is worth a thousand words.

But people who reject the truth should not be given inner peace and tolerant words, but rather instead be given a troubled conscience that can find no inner peace, until they get right with God.
 
I suggest that people read the whole Bible and the whole Quran and other major religious books.

If a book really was written by God and God was really serious about people knowing if it was true, they should be able to figure that out by reading the book and examining external evidence.

For example I read a major Budhist book in translation and it contained no evidence that it's claims about the afterlife are true. When compared with the Bible, which is a book loaded with prophetic evidence to it's truth, which book would make more sense to follow was self-evident. Although since both agreed that we should not live for this life there was some useful overlap, yet the Budhist application was slightly off and just enough off to have very dangerous results, much like a surgeon being three inches off can kill a patient.
 
DiscussingTheTopic said:
But people who reject the truth should not be given inner peace and tolerant words, but rather instead be given a troubled conscience that can find no inner peace, until they get right with God.
Click to expand...

Words fail me.
 
Isabella said:
DiscussingTheTopic said:
But people who reject the truth should not be given inner peace and tolerant words, but rather instead be given a troubled conscience that can find no inner peace, until they get right with God.
Click to expand...

Words fail me.
Click to expand...

If someone is an alcoholic, you do not want to tell them it is ok, God forgives you for getting smash drunk every night, do not try to stop drinking, you are a good Christian. Likewise they should not be told as long as you feel calm and peaceful inside your past drunkeness is ok and you do not need to seek God's forgiveness and it is ok to continue to get drunk so long as you feel inner peace and tranquility.

Instead you should make them feel uncomfortable about drunkeness so they will both seek God's forgiveness and try to stop drinking. Not by work's righteousness but by God enabling them to do God works.

Share

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

[a]. 1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NIV 2010

You do not want to comfort them to continue drinking. Nor do you want them to rely on their good works and self-righteousness to get to good eternal life or "heaven."

Law for the proud and grace for the humble.

You do not want people to feel comfortable about sinning and you do not want people to think that they have no need for forgiveness.

The law is like a needle to put throw the thread of the gospel

False religions sometimes numb people with a false sense of "inner peace" so they do not notice the symptoms showing they need to get treatment, with the result of not getting treatment. It is like convincing someone who has a heart disease not to go to the hospital and or not to eat healthy depending on how close they are to the heart attack.

Did I explain this adequately?
 
The brand of rat and mouse poison, DECON has approximately 2% poison and 98% good grain. However, the 2%poison completely permeates and negates the good grain. Jesus said a little leaven leaveneth the whole loaf. Can we be just a little off on the matter of salvation and still be ok? I do not want either, my or your eternal destiny to rest on any measure of uncertainty.
 
John Whitten said:
The brand of rat and mouse poison, DECON has approximately 2% poison and 98% good grain. However, the 2%poison completely permeates and negates the good grain. Jesus said a little leaven leaveneth the whole loaf. Can we be just a little off on the matter of salvation and still be ok? I do not want either, my or your eternal destiny to rest on any measure of uncertainty.
Click to expand...

So if the terms for Ghandi's peace was feeding everyone Decon in turn for putting down the guns he may have actually killed more people eternally then he saved for a few days on this short earth.

I have heard that Ghandi went to a Church believed that what Jesus taught was true then left because the Church was racist and taught something else then Christianity even though from the knowledge he had Christianity was true. Unfortanately I know very little about Ghandi to know if it is true.

I heard once he lay in a bed with a bunch of naked women just to show that he can do that without....

So everyone thinks wow Ghandi what a self-controlled man he had the opportunity to .... but did not

Does anyone know if this is true?

Granted the Church folk were racist but just because a murderer says murder is wrong does not mean you should assume it is ok to murder, if you know murder is wrong, the same would apply to stealing, lying or even teaching false religion
 
So if the terms for Ghandi's peace was feeding everyone Decon in turn for putting down the guns he may have actually killed more people eternally then he saved for a few days on this short earth.
Click to expand...

John 14:6 NKJV Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
Click to expand...

So if Ghandi steered his followers away from Jesus, the answer is yes.
 
PolyDoc said:
So if the terms for Ghandi's peace was feeding everyone Decon in turn for putting down the guns he may have actually killed more people eternally then he saved for a few days on this short earth.
Click to expand...

John 14:6 NKJV Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
Click to expand...

So if Ghandi steered his followers away from Jesus, the answer is yes.
Click to expand...

But (as if when I posted this comment) I do not know if he actually steered his followers away from Jesus, I really am quite ignorant of Ghandi

It is good I used the word "if"
 
Bah, Ghandi has been built up and is overrated anyway. He's no 'man of peace', he was the backbone of rebellion in both South Africa and India, he only gets the 'man of peace' title because he was non-violent. He was still a man of conflict, and while his work in Africa is commendable, he's still a rebel. Civil disobedience worked by making holding India unprofitable and more difficult to maintain. He robbed his opponent of its holdings rather than attacking him directly. Some Hero. Worse is the timing of his move for independence. Smack dab in the Middle of WWII. To be fair to the guy he did help recruiting soldiers for WWI and still wanted to give Brittan 'moral support' (for what its worth) in WWII. Its ultimately the Nazis, not Ghandi, that secured India's independence. While Indians did not attack the Brittan's directly it was through war and killing that India won its independence. He's the kind of guy that lets someone else do the killing for him so he can keep his moral high ground. He's an icon to his people and he did accomplish some very valuable things in Africa in his early life, but it's annoying when people go doey eyed over him. 'Oh, he didn't directly kill for freedom, he just effectively stole by organizing economic discord and killed indirectly by refusing to help against the Nazis' Ohh, Ahh. Whatever... He's better than most rebels, but he's still a rebel and not a peacemaker.

Not a bad guy all and all, but really not a 'man of peace' in any but the most rosy pictures of him. You want men of peace you look at Canadian independence, we neither used violence nor disobedience, but secured our freedom and independence though legitimate, non-rebellious channels.
 
Tlaloc said:
Not a bad guy all and all, but really not a 'man of peace' in any but the most rosy pictures of him. You want men of peace you look at Canadian independence, we neither used violence nor disobedience, but secured our freedom and independence though legitimate, non-rebellious channels.
Click to expand...

How did you do that. Maybe we will have to discuss it over email. If it is as long a conversation as I suspect it will be.
 
I am sorry but considering the situation in India at the time, what he managed to do, through non violent means is admirable. You wouldn't have wanted to be a native Indian under British rule, it was VASTLY different from Canada, sorry, no comparison.

And considering the amount of Indians who fought and died in the war, the idea that Gandhi hindered the war effort is just ludicrous. He just thought it was hypocritical for Britain to call on oppressed Indians to fight for them.

Nazis never bothered Indians but the British did!

B
 
Isabella said:
Nazis never bothered Indians but the British did!
Click to expand...

Did you know that Indians are considered Aryans and that Nazi's visited India to support their Aryan cause, at least that is my understanding of propaganda on the history channel.

I heard they looked for certain items and remains of animals and or animals in India.

Indiana Jones might not be that far fetched after all if you believe the history channel propaganda.
 
What he manadged to do is certainly admirable, but the war itself weakened England so they where more ready to make concessions. Gandhi was non-violent, but violence was instrumental in accomplishing Gandhi's goal. Just because he didn't do it himself does not mean his means where not achieved and aided by force and violence.

Ghandi did think calling on India for help was hypocritical, but he was also wise enough to see the Nazi threat, from what I've read his non-support of the WWII war effort was derived from bowing to local anti-British sentiment rather than acting on his own convictions.

And of course his situation was vastly different than Canada's, my point is not that Ghandi is horrible, but that he achieved his ends via sedation and dissonance, and was not a man of peace but of active rebellion. I'm not even saying that is a bad thing. I am saying that while he choose not to use physical force, he was adept at doing violence in the broadest sense to his opponents in other ways. Canada actually gained independence without intending to harm Brittan in any way. There are other ways to gain freedom, and I strongly doubt Brittan today would treat Indians so badly even if Gandhi never existed. Culture changes, its not unlikely that India would have gained independence organically by now if it did not force the issue 60ish years ago.

To be fair, I believe his work in Africa was quite pivotal, and he was necessary to accomplish the changes he made there. In that case he pretty well created the change.
 
DiscussingTheTopic said:
Isabella said:
Nazis never bothered Indians but the British did!
Click to expand...

Did you know that Indians are considered Aryans and that Nazi's visited India to support their Aryan cause, at least that is my understanding of propaganda on the history channel.
.
Click to expand...

Hummm, they went to the Middle East also and bonded with them over shared Anti-Semitism.....those people were vile and tried to get support from anywhere they could, using any means they had! There were Nazi groups in the US and the UK.

That's politics!

However, I still maintain that Peaceful is as Peaceful does. There is no way I would have wanted to live as a Native Indian under the Brits and I wouldn't give a hoot if they were weakened because I decided I wasn't going to work on their tea plantation for pennies.

In a certain part of London there is a place called an Ayah house, it was a charity house for Indian Nannies. What used to happen was families that worked in India hired a Nanny (called locally, an Ayah) when they were called back to the UK, you could imagine how long the journey was on the ships, they used to bring the Ayah on the journey with them and then promptly leave them at the Quayside to fend for themselves. It was such a common practice that they needed a charity to help these women.

As laudable as Canada was in gaining it's independence without harming the UK, India was considered the Jewel in the Crown, the Sovereign of Great Britain was the Imperial ruler of India...they were not going to give it up without a fight.....and there were people who fought, they did not like the non peaceful ways, but I consider any man living in the hotbed of resentment and entitlement that was India at that time, who was able to achieve peace a good man.

After India the joy of rampant imperialism seemed to wane from the British Crown and that is why there now exists a Commonwealth, which is much better don't you think?

B
 
Okay so pardon the Messianic Jew for a moment. I am Messianic Jew and I believe that Yeshua of Nazareth is God's only Son. With that said Islam,Jews, and Christians together would not be a great idea at all. For traditional Jews and Christians and Muslims to be in the same place would be filled with arguments and conflict rather than peace and harmony and that is just the way I see it.
 
Right, but I'm neither saying that he was a bad man nor that he shouldn't have done, I'm saying he was not peaceful. He archived independence though opposition to those in control, not peace, even today India is rife with internal struggles. Of course to say what would have happened is always going to be subject to speculation, but I would note that British Imperial ambition had been waning for a lone time before they lost India, even the American war for Independence was quite a blow to it. Crown Jewel or not Great Brittan was heading in the direction of a commonwealth weather or not India revolted, if it wasn't Canada itself would not have made such strides towards independence in the decades preceding these events. Even as things happened they DID give up India without a military struggle against them, they where all ready tending to give up control of their other colonies without a fight. That's why it seems to me that Gandhi only sped up the inevitable. If Brittan was strong and still Imperious they would have cracked down and he would have failed, their imperial power was already quickly slipping from their grip and Gandhi just pulled on their fingers to make it slip faster.
 
I accually hang around people of every walk of life and faith. (Not that I believe in any thing they do)Though I wouldn't recomend just any one too meet at the same time though. You would really need to find others who can bring that medium, but it wouldn't do you any good too discuss your faiths together as a means of making a whole new religion. If you did you may have a fight from all 3 faiths on your hands. If it is more just like for all of them to have respect and unity then go for it. Like I said though you would need a select few to start up with then grow slowly cause it wouldn't take, but one person who dislikes the others persons beliefs to break that group up quick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top