You are really confused.
Romans 9:8New Living Translation (NLT)
8 This means that Abraham’s physical descendants are not necessarily children of God. Only the children of the promise are considered to be Abraham’s children.
If you are an "OTHER" you are not my brother
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
You are really confused.
Romans 9:8New Living Translation (NLT)
8 This means that Abraham’s physical descendants are not necessarily children of God. Only the children of the promise are considered to be Abraham’s children.
Because my screen name was already in your signature when you posted this previous post to me, on the previous page of this thread, which says:
Just wanted to make sure that we were on the same page in that you had judged me without having a clue what I believe. I really could not believe it at first but I suppose now we both know for sure.
Why am I not surprised that the conversation has turned in this direction? :crackup:
Romans 9:16 KJV - Romans 9:24 KJV - Romans 9:30 KJV -
Romans 9:31-32 KJV -
Romans 9:33 KJV -
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Dear Robert........
Dear Robert........
First of all know the history behind the 'Other' category. Some time ago I asked Knight to expand the list of 'religious affiliations' to include some more 'options',...I believe I asked to include at least "Unitarian-Universalist' among the list, because I at that time could 'identify' within that 'umbrella'. Instead, Knight decided to make the 'Other' category, a sort of generic 'all-inclusive' slot for those who didn't want to identify with the extant options available. This was a compromise of sorts, but still shorted us in having other options like 'Unitarian-Universalist'.
Choosing 'Other' does not mean that the person is a member of any 'cult' necessarily (but to be fair, you have chosen or been conditioned to believe in your own religious cult, so using the 'cult' word as a 'polemic' doesn't hold water, you're in the same boat so to speak, just sporting a different 'brand'). It would be cool if Knight put up a 'Theosophist' category too (I'd nab it at this juncture in my journey),...but only few people might choose it,....my gesture was to be more 'all-inclusive' offering more options for people.
Your thread-title in itself is a bit presumptuous, since its just a 'label', just like the one you choose to associate with or identify as. Its just a thought, a concept. It would be narrow-minded to assume that an 'Other' is not your brother, or a child of 'God', since we are all children of God, whether your 'pet-theology' assumes otherwise. We are what we are. "I am that am", and am not ashamed of that truth of being.
I think you're making this more than it is. A tree is know by its fruit, you can enjoy a cornicopia of goods, just recognize its all from one universal source. For instance, any are free to look up my bio, thread-history, blog-archive, post-archive, the extent of my commentaries, websites, articles to see what kind of 'religionist' I am, and of course the more you dialogue with a person, the more you see where they are coming from (their past religious history, studies, dispositions, philosophical outlook, etc.) - apart from the essence of who you ARE,...this is all just 'cosmetics'.
I suppose the advantage belongs to those who identify as "Other" as a kind of positive rebellion against the 'status quo', cookie-cutter molds, or limited religious affiliation options which make up the list at present. While I'm not thrilled over the category-term (vague as it is), its kind of a sweet 'smack' back at the so called 'orthodox', - I could just as sure choose 'Pagan', and I did for a short season, - see here.
I've given my reason for not using 'Christian' elsewhere (if it concerned anyone), since I did originally identify as a 'Christian(Other)', but now no longer choose that 'label', because of its definitions and misconceptions about the 'term' by some who affiliate as such here, having 'sullied' it IMO. I don't choose to associate with that 'brand' of 'Christainity' at any rate. The label 'Christian' can be just as arbitrary as 'biblical',...as debates can flair over who and what is a 'christian', or what qualifies as 'biblical' (cherry-pick as you please).
Now if you want to still assume that I'm not your 'brother', because of my current 'affiliation' (just a 'label' remember), there are problems with that, but you're welcome to your misconception.
Dear Robert........
First of all know the history behind the 'Other' category. Some time ago I asked Knight to expand the list of 'religious affiliations' to include some more 'options',...I believe I asked to include at least "Unitarian-Universalist' among the list, because I at that time could 'identify' within that 'umbrella'. Instead, Knight decided to make the 'Other' category, a sort of generic 'all-inclusive' slot for those who didn't want to identify with the extant options available. This was a compromise of sorts, but still shorted us in having other options like 'Unitarian-Universalist'.
Choosing 'Other' does not mean that the person is a member of any 'cult' necessarily (but to be fair, you have chosen or been conditioned to believe in your own religious cult, so using the 'cult' word as a 'polemic' doesn't hold water, you're in the same boat so to speak, just sporting a different 'brand'). It would be cool if Knight put up a 'Theosophist' category too (I'd nab it at this juncture in my journey),...but only few people might choose it,....my gesture was to be more 'all-inclusive' offering more options for people.
Your thread-title in itself is a bit presumptuous, since its just a 'label', just like the one you choose to associate with or identify as. Its just a thought, a concept. It would be narrow-minded to assume that an 'Other' is not your brother, or a child of 'God', since we are all children of God, whether your 'pet-theology' assumes otherwise. We are what we are. "I am that am", and am not ashamed of that truth of being.
I think you're making this more than it is. A tree is know by its fruit, you can enjoy a cornicopia of goods, just recognize its all from one universal source. For instance, any are free to look up my bio, thread-history, blog-archive, post-archive, the extent of my commentaries, websites, articles to see what kind of 'religionist' I am, and of course the more you dialogue with a person, the more you see where they are coming from (their past religious history, studies, dispositions, philosophical outlook, etc.) - apart from the essence of who you ARE,...this is all just 'cosmetics'.
I suppose the advantage belongs to those who identify as "Other" as a kind of positive rebellion against the 'status quo', cookie-cutter molds, or limited religious affiliation options which make up the list at present. While I'm not thrilled over the category-term (vague as it is), its kind of a sweet 'smack' back at the so called 'orthodox', - I could just as sure choose 'Pagan', and I did for a short season, - see here.
I've given my reason for not using 'Christian' elsewhere (if it concerned anyone), since I did originally identify as a 'Christian(Other)', but now no longer choose that 'label', because of its definitions and misconceptions about the 'term' by some who affiliate as such here, having 'sullied' it IMO. I don't choose to associate with that 'brand' of 'Christainity' at any rate. The label 'Christian' can be just as arbitrary as 'biblical',...as debates can flair over who and what is a 'christian', or what qualifies as 'biblical' (cherry-pick as you please).
Now if you want to still assume that I'm not your 'brother', because of my current 'affiliation' (just a 'label' remember), there are problems with that, but you're welcome to your misconception.
beloved57
Well-known member
And?
Nice post, ehem, brother . . .
And thanks for the info concerning the origins of the title "other" as to how it came about. And for the Paulines herein this might just be the Lukan-Pauline perspective on the brotherhood of man:
Acts 17:24-29 KJV
24. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25. Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26.And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27. That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28. For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
And Paul says this to, ehem, "non-believers" at Areion-Pagon, (Areopagus). :chuckle:
Right Divider
Body part
So God created one man and one woman and everyone is descended from them. Fascinating!Nice post, ehem, brother . . .
And thanks for the info concerning the origins of the title "other" as to how it came about. And for the Paulines herein this might just be the Lukan-Pauline perspective on the brotherhood of man:
Acts 17:24-29 KJV
24. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25. Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26.And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27. That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28. For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
And Paul says this to, ehem, "non-believers" at Areion-Pagon, (Areopagus). :chuckle:
Well, actually Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth. So Seth was born in the image and likeness of Adam, and later came Noah and the flood. So the one blood comes through Noah because his three sons obviously came through him. But as for brothers according to the Master there is much more if you are serious about this topic. Yeshua clearly tells us what are the two great commandments:
Mark 12:29-31 KJV
29. And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
But one may say, "Yeah, but who exactly is my neighbor?"
Here is perhaps the Lukan-Pauline perspective on the neighborhood of man:
Luke 10:25-37 KJV
25. And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26. He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27. And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30. And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34. And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37. And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
Does it appear to matter whether or not a person lives next door to you?
I mean, you know that the Jews had no dealings with Samaritans, right?
Think about what Yeshua is saying to this lawyer who is clearly a Jew.
good post
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Expanding the list.....
Expanding the list.....
Yes,....I stand for 'inclusion'
Knight apparently doesn't think we need anymore catagories, unless anyone can try to convince him again of this. A few of my PM's have been unresponded to, in the past, ....not all, but a few as I recall. I just let it go.
Currently there are only these options -
Christian
Protestant Christian
Catholic Christian (Other)
LDS -
Mormon
Jehovah's Witness
Jewish
Messianic Jew
Muslim
Hindu
Buddhist
Agnostic
Atheist
Wiccan
Satanist
Pagan
Other
Some other possible category suggestions -
- Unitarian-Universalist
- Deist
- Theosophist
- Spiritualist
- Gnostic
- Humanist
- Eclectic
- Can u think of others?
Expanding the list.....
Yes,....I stand for 'inclusion'
Knight apparently doesn't think we need anymore catagories, unless anyone can try to convince him again of this. A few of my PM's have been unresponded to, in the past, ....not all, but a few as I recall. I just let it go.
Currently there are only these options -
Christian
Protestant Christian
Catholic Christian (Other)
LDS -
Mormon
Jehovah's Witness
Jewish
Messianic Jew
Muslim
Hindu
Buddhist
Agnostic
Atheist
Wiccan
Satanist
Pagan
Other
Some other possible category suggestions -
- Unitarian-Universalist
- Deist
- Theosophist
- Spiritualist
- Gnostic
- Humanist
- Eclectic
- Can u think of others?
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
Cobblers. Try looking at the definition of Old Catholic in Wikipedia before commenting further. As well there as many Christians within the RCC as there are in any other church (vanishingly few.)
Yes,....I stand for 'inclusion'
Knight apparently doesn't think we need anymore catagories, unless anyone can try to convince him again of this. A few of my PM's have been unresponded to, in the past, ....not all, but a few as I recall. I just let it go.
Currently there are only these options -
Christian
Protestant Christian
Catholic Christian (Other)
LDS -
Mormon
Jehovah's Witness
Jewish
Messianic Jew
Muslim
Hindu
Buddhist
Agnostic
Atheist
Wiccan
Satanist
Pagan
Other
Some other possible category suggestions -
- Unitarian-Universalist
- Deist
- Theosophist
- Spiritualist
- Gnostic
- Humanist
- Eclectic
- Can u think of others?
Have you been a satanist ?
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
'Old Catholic 'is NOT the same as RCC. I am not under the Pope's jurisdiction.
brewmama
New member
In the haters' eyes we are all the same.
PureX
Well-known member
The problem for me was that we can only choose one option from a list. The 'binars' that set the site up can't conceive of how anyone could believe in more than one philosophical paradigm at a time. Yet I am equally adhered to both philosophical taoism and non-religious Christianity, simultaneously. And I find they mesh with each other, seamlessly. So I chose the best of a list of constricting choices.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
purex, unable to conceive that the good folk who set up this site might have been dealing with constraints he's never imagined, uses the only lens he has to analyze them and comes up with this bit of self-convicting nonsense:
good one! :thumb:
good one! :thumb:
Right Divider
Body part
The topic for this thread was not "should we treat everyone nice".Well, actually Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth. So Seth was born in the image and likeness of Adam, and later came Noah and the flood. So the one blood comes through Noah because his three sons obviously came through him. But as for brothers according to the Master there is much more if you are serious about this topic. Yeshua clearly tells us what are the two great commandments:
Mark 12:29-31 KJV
29. And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
But one may say, "Yeah, but who exactly is my neighbor?"
Here is perhaps the Lukan-Pauline perspective on the neighborhood of man:
Luke 10:25-37 KJV
25. And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26. He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27. And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30. And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34. And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37. And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
Does it appear to matter whether or not a person lives next door to you?
I mean, you know that the Jews had no dealings with Samaritans, right?
Think about what Yeshua is saying to this lawyer who is clearly a Jew.
You are doing what is called "mixing apples and oranges".
Pate was concerned about people hiding their aberrant beliefs behind a "label" 'other'.
Last edited:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Never, - my philosophical disposition and orientiation would not resonate with it. However,..perhaps a topic for its own thread, there are various 'brands' of 'satanism'.
Now the 'Lucifer' issue or 'Luciferian' philosophy is another issue, addressed elsewhere. See my sharings on the Church of Lucifer here.
Learn to read if you are worried about "aberrant beliefs" hiding behind labels. If only you could read no one could pull the wool over your virgin eyes no matter how hard they try. Oh, those evil apples who poisoned our orange brother so long ago. By the way YOU are not an apple pretending to be an orange are you? :think:
:sherlock: Watching you from here on out . . .