Jump to content

Inclusivity


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Again, this is why I said you'd have to throw out 98% of the New Testament to hold such a view.  If Jesus did not set up his church with apostles who held his authority and should be taken seriously, then why did Jesus say (when he was sending out his apostles): 

"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." (Matt 10:40).  

And to his seventy:

"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." (Luke 10:16)

To "hear" one of his apostles or the seventy he sent out was the same as hearing him and his Father.  And to "despise" one of them is the same as "despising" Jesus and his Father.  That sounds like a serious need to listen to and follow them to me. 

The 98% of the New Testament I was talking about has to do with the authority of these apostles and their directions to the church.  None of the epistles, none of their teachings and ministry matters at all if it is "Jesus only".

From my readings, it says the original twelve not others. https://www.versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/do-the-office-of-apostles-and-prophets-still-exist But like everything else this could indeed be wrong. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Why does a church have to be true, why not just Jesus only. It's not in any brick or mortar. https://relevantmagazine.com/faith/remember-bible-never-mentions-building-called-church/

Because "God hath set some in the church." (1 Corinthians 12:28) "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." (Acts 2:47) Sounds like two good reasons to look for such a church.

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

From my readings, it says the original twelve not others. 

Do you believe that id did not apply to Matthias who was selected to take the place of Judas Iscariot or to Paul who was an apostle but not one of the twelve?

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Because "God hath set some in the church." (1 Corinthians 12:28) "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." (Acts 2:47) Sounds like two good reasons to look for such a church.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2014/08/28/what-is-the-bible-definition-of-church-what-is-the-biblical-view-of-church/

"The word church in the Bible comes from the Greek word ecclesia, which means a called out company or assembly. Wherever it is used in the Bible it refers to people. It can be a mob (Acts 19:30-41), the children of Israel (Acts 7:38), and the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 5:25, 32)."

Link to post
3 hours ago, Calm said:

I greatly enjoyed your post in the other thread, 3DOP.  I think it framed the issue very well.  This one does as well.  It is not important to me for my faith to be known as inclusive or exclusive.  I simply want what it is to be understood as it is and not altered to be something it is not because of mistaken assumption.

This.

  • Like 2
Link to post
53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

From my readings, it says the original twelve not others. https://www.versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/do-the-office-of-apostles-and-prophets-still-exist But like everything else this could indeed be wrong. 

Of course it's wrong.  :)   

The article references the mention of apostles in Eph 4:11 as an "active" office, but they didn't read it in the context, which says that the offices of apostles and prophets are to continue in the church until "all come to a unity of the faith" for the very purpose of leading the church so that it's not "tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine".  Doesn't that last part sound like modern day Christianity in the lack of such leaders?

Here are the verses in context:

Eph 4:11  "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"

Why were they given?

Eph 4:12  "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:"

For how long were they given?

Eph 4:13  "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:"

And what do they prevent?

Eph 4:14  "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive";

It seems pretty clear to me, and I'm pretty sure we're all still working on the "all coming to a unity of the faith" part, which is an indication that apostles and prophets are still part of the plan.

By the way, Tacenda, I hope you don't ever get the idea that I am ever picking on you.  I appreciate your contributions to this board and you post some good thoughts for consideration (you posted a video or audio link one time in response to something I asked that was very helpful to me, thank you).   But you've probably also seen that I'm not one to let something go by that seems to me to be a view contrary to scripture.  Please don't take it personally. I can't help it, that's just the way I am.

Edited by InCognitus
redundant word elimination
  • Like 3
Link to post
47 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Of course it's wrong.  :)   

The article references the mention of apostles in Eph 4:11 as an "active" office, but they didn't read it in the context, which says that the offices of apostles and prophets are to continue in the church until "all come to a unity of the faith" for the very purpose of leading the church so that it's not "tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine".  Doesn't that last part sound like modern day Christianity in the lack of such leaders?

Here are the verses in context:

Eph 4:11  "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"

Why were they given?

Eph 4:12  "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:"

For how long were they given?

Eph 4:13  "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:"

And what do they prevent?

Eph 4:14  "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive";

It seems pretty clear to me, and I'm pretty sure we're all still working on the "all coming to a unity of the faith" part, which is an indication that apostles and prophets are still part of the plan.

By the way, Tacenda, I hope you don't ever get the idea that I am ever picking on you.  I appreciate your contributions to this board and you post some good thoughts for consideration (you posted a video or audio link one time in response to something I asked that was very helpful to me, thank you).   But you've probably also seen that I'm not one to let something go by that seems to me to be a view contrary to scripture.  Please don't take it personally. I can't help it, that's just the way I am.

I don't know why but this made me choke up. I don't ever want to feel excluded on this board. ;) Thanks!

Link to post
Just now, Tacenda said:

I don't know why but this made me choke up. I don't ever want to feel excluded on this board. ;) Thanks!

Well, I like you, and I felt bad because it seemed to me that I've made some rather harsh responses to some of your posts.  I really don't mean it personally. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't know why but this made me choke up. I don't ever want to feel excluded on this board. ;) Thanks!

I hope you never have, and never will, feel excluded. You’re family. ❤️

  • Like 4
Link to post
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I like my own authority, and not to be beholden to an apostle's authority. That's not how Jesus set up the church. 

Actually, that is how he set up his church.  The 12 were the authority for the church.

Their authority over the institution of the church in no way diminishes your own authority to personal revelation.  You are not asked to blindly follow.

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2014/08/28/what-is-the-bible-definition-of-church-what-is-the-biblical-view-of-church/

"The word church in the Bible comes from the Greek word ecclesia, which means a called out company or assembly. Wherever it is used in the Bible it refers to people. It can be a mob (Acts 19:30-41), the children of Israel (Acts 7:38), and the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 5:25, 32)."

Agreed. In the Biblical case it surely seems to be referring to an organized body of people.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

I hope you never have, and never will, feel excluded. You’re family. ❤️

I feel this place is like family, or friends either way!! Thanks! 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2014/08/28/what-is-the-bible-definition-of-church-what-is-the-biblical-view-of-church/

"The word church in the Bible comes from the Greek word ecclesia, which means a called out company or assembly. Wherever it is used in the Bible it refers to people. It can be a mob (Acts 19:30-41), the children of Israel (Acts 7:38), and the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 5:25, 32)."

This quote comes from an Evangelical. No surprise he is against the actual position that Jesus set up a church and ordained men to lead that church; to seal both on earth and in heaven. Why would there be a need for such sealing powers? This area is completely blank to an Evangelical because it has no role in their theology. Their theology is extremely shallow and excludes much of what the NT states clearly. If it were not so, they would either be Catholic or LDS - there is no real middle ground.

I appreciate that you read other Bible scholars, but I strongly suggest that you avoid Evangelicals and those which have no ground to stand upon. Continue to read scripture and search out of the best books for truths wherever truth can be found. I studied the scriptures so much in my youth and young adult years (those years under 50 years of age) that it is very hard for me to read an Evangelical scholar. They have little to offer of interest to me. On the other hand, I do enjoy reading a number of scholars within Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and related groups. I at least fill spiritually fed after I have studied their writings.  

My counsel may sound harsh, but it is really just my opinion and nothing more. I think you may find a straighter path without so much confusion. I am just not a big fan of Protestantism. 

Link to post
7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

. They set the precedent. 

What precedent?

Link to post
6 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Again, this is why I said you'd have to throw out 98% of the New Testament to hold such a view.  If Jesus did not set up his church with apostles who held his authority and should be taken seriously, then why did Jesus say (when he was sending out his apostles): 

"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." (Matt 10:40).  

And to his seventy:

"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." (Luke 10:16)

To "hear" one of his apostles or the seventy he sent out was the same as hearing him and his Father.  And to "despise" one of them is the same as "despising" Jesus and his Father.  That sounds like a serious need to listen to and follow them to me. 

The 98% of the New Testament I was talking about has to do with the authority of these apostles and their directions to the church.  None of the epistles, none of their teachings and ministry matters at all if it is "Jesus only".

Well for the record, it's not as if Christ himself released the books of the New Testament, is it?

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It’s not just a belief. It’s incontrovertibly true that, at least according to the New Testament, Jesus Christ established his earthly Church and personally called twelve apostles to serve as the presiding council of that Church organization; with Simon Peter being called by Christ himself to serve as the presiding officer within that presiding council of twelve, and upon whom Christ conferred the keys of his earthly kingdom’s presiding priesthood power.

The only way your belief can be supported is if the Christ of the New Testament is a false Christ who had words put into his mouth that the authentic Christ never actually said. But why would someone come to believe Jesus is the Christ through the witness of the Bible and simultaneously reject many of the most critically important things the same Bible testifies he said?

People chose what to put in the New Testament, right?

Similarly, a person can evaluate what others have chosen to record and then others have chosen to include in the New Testament, and then decide for themselves what they've found valuable. The Bible need not be authoritative in the way you describe to be valuable.

 

Link to post
11 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I am wondering where any of us here are told, by authority we accept, that we can identify the true religion by the standard of which religion is most inclusive. 

There are atleast two sides of inclusivity:

1) One is the way we believe God will include us (or in my personal terms, the closest way to approach Truth and Goodness), for example:

Quote

 

John 7

37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man athirst, let him come unto me, and bdrink.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

 

2) The other is the way we believe God would have us include others (or, again in my personal terms, the best way to treat people), for example:

Quote

 

Matthew 25

33 And he shall set the sheep on his aright hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his aright hand, Come, ye bblessed of my Father, cinherit the dkingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an ahungred, and ye bgave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a cstranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye avisited me: I was in bprison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee asick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have adone it unto one of the bleast of these my cbrethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the aleft hand, bDepart from me, ye ccursed, into everlasting dfireeprepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an ahungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the aleast of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into aeverlasting bpunishment: but the crighteous into dlife eeternal.

 

Your post does not seem to be addressing either of these, but I will assume that doing so was not your intent. However, I think it would be relevant to ponder your initial question before proceeding. 

11 hours ago, 3DOP said:

At most, we know that the most inclusive religion is the one we hope is true if we are in the wrong religion. 

It really depends upon how one views religion and spirituality, doesn't it? Adherence to "the right" group or lack thereof isn't really a guarantee of righteousness or integrity, is it?

In other words, the way you've approached it here focuses more upon our personal group association and less on the actual association with God or how we as human beings include or don't others.

Link to post
15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I mean, can't our current apostles in the LDS church just be disciples instead?

Is not a disciple someone who follows their leader?  If Christ calls someone to be an apostle, is it the disciple who says no or someone who isn't a disciple?

  • Like 1
Link to post
22 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Is the truth to be determined by its inclusivity?

Not sure what you had in mind when asking this question.  All truth should be in agreement with itself, and there is only one truth, but that doesn't mean all that is true should agree with what is not true.  Believing what is not true is what gets a lot of people in trouble, but I suppose believing all that is true can get some people in trouble with other people too.

22 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I could argue that the Catholic faith is inclusive. Truly.

I could argue that all of the Star Wars stories are inclusive, too, but that would not make all of those stories true.  By inclusive I mean in agreement and in harmony with each other.  What do you mean when you say inclusive?

22 hours ago, 3DOP said:

While there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, we are also instructed with all earnestness that we cannot know that any particular person is in Hell.

Uh, objection.  Excuse me.  You just said something that isn't true when you said that.  And I think this is where I will bow out of this discussion.

 

Link to post
19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Middle men scare the life out of me now. 

Are you that confident in your own abilities to see people’s needs and know what is right to do about them?

Link to post
3 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you that confident in your own abilities to see people’s needs and know what is right to do about them?

Not overly confident, I will trust those that know more than I do, certainly. But not blindly follow someone. I have major trust issues with religious leaders, so it may not be them, unless I feel strongly otherwise.

Link to post
9 hours ago, Calm said:

Is not a disciple someone who follows their leader?  If Christ calls someone to be an apostle, is it the disciple who says no or someone who isn't a disciple?

Can't Christ be the leader? If they are apostles than they actually know and have seen Him and He communicates with them. That is the stipulation on if someone is an apostle stated in the Bible. But I'm not so sure everything written in the Bible is true, so this could definitely be wrong.

Also, you asked about what precedent, Christ set the rules or guidelines for the apostles to tell the world. And then it was put in the New Testament. Just found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commission#:~:text=And Jesus came and said,that I have commanded you.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
8 hours ago, Ahab said:

Not sure what you had in mind when asking this question.  All truth should be in agreement with itself, and there is only one truth, but that doesn't mean all that is true should agree with what is not true.  Believing what is not true is what gets a lot of people in trouble, but I suppose believing all that is true can get some people in trouble with other people too.

I could argue that all of the Star Wars stories are inclusive, too, but that would not make all of those stories true.  By inclusive I mean in agreement and in harmony with each other.  What do you mean when you say inclusive?

Uh, objection.  Excuse me.  You just said something that isn't true when you said that.  And I think this is where I will bow out of this discussion.

 

Ahab...a Clark County AmBoy! We lived just north of Battle Ground Lake for a long time (Bell Mountain, up Basket Flat Rd.). We had a dairy farm when I was a boy and grandpa and my dad were on the Evergreen Schoolboard for decades. Maybe you don't know anything about things closer in to town and forty years ago, but Mc____ Stadium was named after Grandpa. You don't need to comment. I am just glad to talk to somebody from my "neck of the woods". 

Were you not paying attention when N______ made a thread in "honor" of you with a quote from Martin Luther? I started this thread for those who were following that one which was prematurely shut down. Inclusivity as used in this thread, has to do with my perception of N_____'s claim that LDS are exclusive...It is about his complaining that he goes to LDS meetings but feels outside...If I understand him correctly, he ultimately feels like a fifth wheel because they don't respect his plain Christianity, his having been ordained a Mennonite, and their views on priesthood authority. His desire for full acceptance in an LDS or Catholic community is folly. You should be on my side this time Ahab. Trying not to name names, I thought to oppose N______. Not that he and I wouldn't agree in other matters against you. But in an essential point, the value of exclusivist priesthood authority that Protestants/Mennonites/Anabaptists lack, you should agree with me, unless you just don't want to agree with a Catholic...just because. I think LDS and Catholics should agree against any non-Catholic/Orthodox Christian that we do not claim to be as inclusive as they, who like N______, seem to think that God recognizes and honors layings on of hands that have no link with the Apostles, or any link with a Restored priesthood. I do not think that is an inclusivism that Catholics or LDS should desire. Be assured...that you and I can find many points where you and I should disagree...but this is not one of them. 

And then there are those...Hi Jane Doe...Hi Tacenda...who misunderstand me to be advocating a kind of religion that is perhaps rude. NO......Its okay...In reading your reply...Jane Doe...I DO understand how you get a wrong impression. You were not following the other thread. I am saying that it seemed like there was a contest going on in the other thread to see whose religion was the least offensive...inclusive. I didn't think it was necessary for Mormons to be trying to placate the sentimental Protestant in their midst. That is what I meant when I spoke against the best religion seeming to be necesarily the "nicest". It isn't nice to say that N______'s "ordination" is worthless. But what else can a Catholic or LDS eventually say? We can water it down...and I tried, for the sake of being NICE, to avoid being blunt. And I was a little misunderstood by some. All I am saying is that neither the nicest, nor the most inclusive of the churches, is necessarily true. But I advocate being personally nice, whatever religion or non-religion one adopts.

I took my now 29 year old boy to the barber once when he was 3 or 4 years old. I guess we had admonished him for not being "nice". This little boy cracked up the barber when for some reason he said, "I am learning to be nice". See, I have believed in being nice for a long time!

Tacenda...I will try to devote some time to your question about "true". Others already have. God love you. I don't endorse all that has been said against your comment. Give me a few days. 

Rory

Edited by 3DOP
  • Like 3
Link to post
22 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

This quote comes from an Evangelical. No surprise he is against the actual position that Jesus set up a church and ordained men to lead that church; to seal both on earth and in heaven. Why would there be a need for such sealing powers? This area is completely blank to an Evangelical because it has no role in their theology. Their theology is extremely shallow and excludes much of what the NT states clearly. If it were not so, they would either be Catholic or LDS - there is no real middle ground.

I appreciate that you read other Bible scholars, but I strongly suggest that you avoid Evangelicals and those which have no ground to stand upon. Continue to read scripture and search out of the best books for truths wherever truth can be found. I studied the scriptures so much in my youth and young adult years (those years under 50 years of age) that it is very hard for me to read an Evangelical scholar. They have little to offer of interest to me. On the other hand, I do enjoy reading a number of scholars within Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and related groups. I at least fill spiritually fed after I have studied their writings.  

My counsel may sound harsh, but it is really just my opinion and nothing more. I think you may find a straighter path without so much confusion. I am just not a big fan of Protestantism. 

Everyone should believe as they feel will help them be their best. LOVE is where it's at! I'm sorry if this offends, but the titles given men in the Catholic/LDS bother me now. It didn't before my faith crisis though. I can't put my thumb on it. I wonder if the EV's are right when they say Jesus is the only High Priest though. 

Link to post
On 9/13/2020 at 8:07 PM, Tacenda said:

Can't church be among a group of friends, or anywhere, like the beautiful mountains, or gardens or ? Why a building? How many have had a wonderful few months by having church in their homes? And have you heard members of the LDS church say, members are only practicing on Sundays, and the rest of the week not so much?

Church can be anywhere.  However people like to meet in buildings because they offer a secure environment from distractions, weather, and other things.  I believe the current state of things regarding COVID show we can have family church outside of an official church building.  Some things however require a building such as temple ordinances.  The Lord only offers very limited exceptions to that.

  • Like 2
Link to post
16 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Ahab...a Clark County AmBoy! We lived just north of Battle Ground Lake for a long time (Bell Mountain, up Basket Flat Rd.). We had a dairy farm when I was a boy and grandpa and my dad were on the Evergreen Schoolboard for decades. Maybe you don't know anything about things closer in to town and forty years ago, but Mc____ Stadium was named after Grandpa. You don't need to comment. I am just glad to talk to somebody from my "neck of the woods". 

Clark County?  Me?  No, I live in Cowlitz county Washington.  It is just north of a county called Clark county in Washington, though.  I don't understand why you referred to me as a Clark County Amboy, or any kind of  Amboy. ?

I also don't know the stadium you refer to as Mc___ Stadium.   I live in SW Washington if that's the neck of woods you are talking about and I am pleased that you talked to me too.

Quote

Were you not paying attention when N______ made a thread in "honor" of you with a quote from Martin Luther?

Yeah I was, but I still may not know what you are thinking about in regards to that thread.  I was forthright when sharing my views though, as I usually am, so I think you should have caught on to what I thought of Navidad's comments if you read what I wrote to him.

Quote

I started this thread for those who were following that one which was prematurely shut down. Inclusivity as used in this thread, has to do with my perception of N_____'s claim that LDS are exclusive...It is about his complaining that he goes to LDS meetings but feels outside...If I understand him correctly, he ultimately feels like a fifth wheel because they don't respect his plain Christianity, his having been ordained a Mennonite, and their views on priesthood authority. His desire for full acceptance in an LDS or Catholic community is folly. You should be on my side this time Ahab. Trying not to name names, I thought to oppose N______. Not that he and I wouldn't agree in other matters against you. But in an essential point, the value of exclusivist priesthood authority that Protestants/Mennonites/Anabaptists lack, you should agree with me, unless you just don't want to agree with a Catholic...just because. I think LDS and Catholics should agree against any non-Catholic/Orthodox Christian that we do not claim to be as inclusive as they, who like N______, seem to think that God recognizes and honors layings on of hands that have no link with the Apostles, or any link with a Restored priesthood. I do not think that is an inclusivism that Catholics or LDS should desire. Be assured...that you and I can find many points where you and I should disagree...but this is not one of them. 

I think you and I do agree a lot about our perspective on this, even though we do not agree on which church is the one true church of Jesus Christ.  But at least we both believe there is only one true church of Jesus Christ and it does not include any church which is not that one.  So yeah, sure, we agree on this much.  And it wouldn't surprise me to hear that Navidad agrees with us on this idea too.  I think he just thinks about the one true church of Christ differently than we do, thinking it includes every church which claims to be a church of Jesus Christ... whether that church calls itself a Baptist church, or a Mennonite church, or whatever other name it may be called or known by.  

Quote

And then there are those...Hi Jane Doe...Hi Tacenda...who misunderstand me to be advocating a kind of religion that is perhaps rude. NO......Its okay...In reading your reply...Jane Doe...I DO understand how you get a wrong impression. You were not following the other thread. I am saying that it seemed like there was a contest going on in the other thread to see whose religion was the least offensive...inclusive. I didn't think it was necessary for Mormons to be trying to placate the sentimental Protestant in their midst. That is what I meant when I spoke against the best religion seeming to be necesarily the "nicest". It isn't nice to say that N______'s "ordination" is worthless. But what else can a Catholic or LDS eventually say? We can water it down...and I tried, for the sake of being NICE, to avoid being blunt. And I was a little misunderstood by some. All I am saying is that neither the nicest, nor the most inclusive of the churches, is necessarily true. But I advocate being personally nice, whatever religion or non-religion one adopts.

I took my now 29 year old boy to the barber once when he was 3 or 4 years old. I guess we had admonished him for not being "nice". This little boy cracked up the barber when for some reason he said, "I am learning to be nice". See, I have believed in being nice for a long time!

Tacenda...I will try to devote some time to your question about "true". Others already have. God love you. I don't endorse all that has been said against your comment. Give me a few days. 

Rory

I think even devils can be nice if by nice you mean polite or having good manners.  People who are nice to others are not necessarily seeking to improve the welfare of others. Hannibal Lecter was portayed as a nice guy.

I say what I say to try to help people.  Truly I do.

Edited by Ahab
  • Like 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...