• Persecution vs. Proselytization

    From course zealot@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 12 18:00:17 2019
    Please read entirety through before passing judgement. It comes around.

    Christians persecuting Christians is outrageous service to the spirit of adversity. There are many Christian Churches, and Christ is the head of them all.
    And doesn't A Course in Miracles say "I must found my church on you?"

    The world is in need of _leaders_, who proselytize, and serve the truth.

    It should be noted that persecution is not proselytization - which seeks to educate, enlighten, enrich, and lead to salvation. But persecution is the ministry of satan and seeks to condemn and destroy, to insult and attack. Those
    who persecute "have what judges them," so if anyone has persecuted, let him repent, and "go and sin no more.

    If someone wants to advocate another religion on this board it is perhaps off topic, and yet on the other hand, perhaps of interest to the people of this board.
    But it is not persecutory to be an _advocate_, and say "Hi, join the Jewish/Hindu/Mormon/Muslim religion, etc." But, persistence on off-topic subjects
    may, of course, become annoying.

    Yet that is not the same as denigrating the topic of this board. Nor is denigrating the topic of this board the same as merely posting FACTS about one's
    experience of the topic religion which perhaps were negative, such as "it didn't
    work for me," or even which may bring the religion into questionable light: SUCH
    AS: L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer. Thetford and Shucman worked with
    some programs in their time in the psychiatric department possibly connected to the CIA. Edgar Cayce predicted Atlantis would rise from the ocean, and it never
    did so.

    Saying Cayce, or Scientology, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or another Christian Church, such as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, or another denomination, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Catholic, are religions of
    the Devil, is at least something that ought to be done, pointedly, scientifically,
    _limitedly_, based on FACTS, and on certain points, unless you have direct experience with the religion. "THE RELIGION IS A CULT." Why? Do you think that
    any of the previous named religions never benefited anybody? Can you study one of
    them and move onto another? How is the religion dangerous?

    Would it not make more sense to say, "hi, this other religion has benefited me I
    think more than yours might, for these reasons." Rather than to say inflammatory
    possibly hurtful things that may be perceived as insulting and offensive.

    Yet, let us read what the Urtext has to say about Cayce, of whom Pat Robertson, once said of his readings were "the work of the devil (full urtext citation will
    follow in followup post to this post):"


    "Cayce’s notes, too, could have been much shortened. Their excessive length is due
    to two factors. The first involves a fundamental error which Cayce himself made,
    and which required constant undoing. The second is more related to the attitude of
    his followers. They are unwilling to omit anything he said. This is respectful enough, but not overly-judicious. I would be a far better editor, if they would allow me this position on their staff." -
    - "I am heartily supportive of the ARE’s endeavor to make Cayce’s singular contributions immortal, but it would be most unwise to have them promulgated as a
    faith until they have been purged of their essential errors. This is why there have been a number of unexplained set backs in their explication. It is also one
    of the many reasons why the Cayce material, a major step in the speedup, must be
    properly understood before it can be meaningfully validated.
    Cayce’s son has been wise in attempting to deal with reliability, which in Cayce’s
    case is very high. There is a way of validating the material, and Hugh Lynn is perfectly aware that this must be done eventually. He is also aware of the fact that he is unable to do it. In the present state of the material, it would be most
    unwise even to attempt it. There is too much that IS invalid. When the time comes
    that this can be corrected to the point of real safety, I assure you it will be accomplished. In tribute to Cayce, I remind you that no effort is wasted, and Cayce’s effort was very great.
    It would be most ungrateful of me if I allowed his work to produce a generation of
    witch doctors. I am sorry that Cayce himself could not rid himself of a slight tendency in this direction. But fortunately I have a fuller appreciation of him than he had.
    I am repeating here a Biblical injunction of my own, already mentioned elsewhere,
    that if my followers eat any deadly thing it shall not hurt them. This is what Cayce could NOT believe, because he could not see that, as a Son of God, he WAS invulnerable."
    ("And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they
    drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the
    sick, and they will recover.” - Jesus Christ, Mark 16:17-18)
    - A Course in Miracles, Urtext, pages 76-79, Combined Verson, pages. 132-136


    Isn't it the job of the intelligent to make everything clear and simple to us? Is
    Jesus just having a hard time speaking with the Holy Spirit, or can he find no sufficient channels outside of Cayce and Shucman et al? Any ideas why he doesn't
    just *manifest* and write a book, or why he never wrote a Gospel himself? On the
    other hand, unlike Cayce, A Course in Miracles seems _absolutely composed_. It could be more clear and comprehensive... though perhaps the return to the self merely requires someone to go on and on for 1250 pages... not sure about this. But
    the point about if the above stuff about Cayce is valid channeling, then what is
    the essential message Jesus is trying to get across - why edit Cayce? Why not just write a clear book? If Cayce is a "major step in the speed up?" Why not just tell us what we need to know?
    Also, furthermore, as far as drinking poison goes, this is just like acid, so this
    is just like cutting oneself with a knife, and the cut healing immediately. It's
    all just movement is what I'm saying. Just saying. This material was edited, supposedly by Jesus, out of the official version of A Course in Miracles, but it
    is in the Bible.

    Anyway, the point is, if one is going to criticize another's faith/religion/creed,
    what have you, perhaps one needs to use clear points. Perhaps Pat Robertson needs
    to as well be more clearer as to what about Cayce "is the work of the devil." Analogously, for instance, from what I know of Scientology, it is a very dubious
    religion. I would caution anyone away from it. Is appears to be either in league
    with aliens, or infiltrated by them. Scientology apparently will posses you with
    a Grey alien and then make you _pay_ to get rid of it, I think. When people try
    to leave the church of Scientology they are harassed and harangued, and stalked.
    Many who join Scientology are in earnest however, which is why they should maybe
    study A Course in Miracles, rather than join "_that cult_." Perhaps the Church should be prohibited from charging to maintain its tax-exempt status.

    These are negative reports. We have negative reports of abuse from former Scientologists. We probably have former Scientologists who say it helped them, but how many? Scientology is a group. An organization. A Course in Miracles is
    a book. Self-study. Incorporate into your own organization if you please.

    Catholicism. Is this a cult?

    Are there negative reports from Edgar Cayce followers? I haven't read any. Has
    Pat Robertson? Why according to him is the material "the work of the devil?" Is
    it merely blinkered or full of errors and perpetrations as the "Course in Miracles
    Unedited Urtext" suggests?

    Even if someone was an Edgar Cayce follower or a Jew or a Scientologist I would not say anything to their face about something they may identify with or find important. Insulting the book of Mormon is another outrage. You have to be able
    to criticize correctly, to the right degree in the right forum. Not insult perpetually by picketing outside the Mormon church. That is inflammatory and desecration and not the place for it. Are people who point to fraud in the book
    of Mormon valid, or apologists? Whichever the case, it is insult to perpetually
    picket outside of a Mormon church saying these things when you have not been outrageously offended yourself. This is a clue, right?

    Okay, maybe people insult Cayce because it's easy to point to so many material errors, like Atlantis not rising from the ocean, it makes him seem like a joke. His followers should maybe compile a "best of Cayce," text to see if his writings
    have any actual merit.

    There are some people who study both A Course in Miracles and Cayce. The two are
    certainly not mutually exclusive, It may as well be noted on this board. Though,
    at that rate, for the individual, neither is ACIM mutually exclusive with any denomination of Christianity: https://www.edgarcayce.org/events/event-listings/hq-visitor-center/other-groupsmeetings-(nonare)-on-campus/a-course-in-miracles-study-group/

    So saying Jews are of the Devil and their religion is a sin, in the wrong place with the wrong tact, to the wrong people, without constructive criticism and critical merit; and in a limited fashion; becomes abhorrent reprehensible insulting racist hate speech which should be condemned everywhere and has what condemns it. The whole point when making such criticisms ought to be to lead and
    proselytize, not to persecute and offend, but to hopefully set people in a more right direction.

    For, "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
    To become all things to all men, does not mean to accept their evils, but lead them.

    "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to
    those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law
    toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without
    law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."

    Paul notes "to the Jews I became a Jew." If to the Christians he became a Christian, his words found throughout the Bible, nevertheless prove that he's a Saint. While you need not agree with all things he wrote, if you corroborate him,
    he corroborates you, and if you read his writings, you will no doubt find benefit
    in some or much of them.

    But as back to what I was discussing as to saying "Jews are of the devil;" Pure insult, without explanation is baseless, offensive, and the same as racism. Such
    hate speech lead to the Holocaust. Such hate speech lead to prohibition of drugs,
    weapons, willful sexuality, and tent and vehicle dweller rights in the United States today. This is denigration, impoverishment, and taxation, upon our poor American people, of which 25 million *children* are insufficiently fed.

    You might as well crucify Christ. He would drink wine in public if he could. Communion, and the blood of the new covenant anyone?

    In other words, such hate speech is anti-Christ. And so are the actions of those
    who follow it.

    So, whoever you are who post here or anywhere, from now until forever. Learn to
    proselytize and advocate, and learn to not insult and persecute. Learn to be a true preacher. Please, now and forever. Thank you.


    Paul the Apostle:
    "For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am,
    and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they
    all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore, whether it was
    I or they, so we preach and so you believed." - 1 Corinthians 15:9-11

    "For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away." - 1 Corinthians 13:9

    "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and
    they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, and one shepherd."
    - Jesus Christ, John 10:16

    "28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28

    "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."

    But, "this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
    - Jesus Christ, John 3:17,19

    For, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
    - Jesus Christ, Luke 5:32

    "God wills no one suffer. He does not will anyone to suffer for a wrong decision,
    including you."
    - A Course in Miracles, Chapter 8, Section 3

    "I will with God that none of His Sons should suffer."
    - Jesus Christ, A Course in Miracles, Chapter 6, Section 1

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From course zealot@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 7 18:13:54 2020
    Why would you read someone's hate messages? Why would you want to read horror? People come to this board, probably seeking God. They are not interested in reading arguments. People on this board are interested in God already. Yet someone was saying that if you don't believe in God in their own particular way,
    you will be cast into the lake of fire, and not exist again. This is ludicrous.
    At the least if you were going to say such things, you would say it about those outside the church "for there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ,
    for everyone in Christ is a new creation." The thing is, those outside the Church
    probably don't even care. You're trying to use coercion, and then persecuting those who are already in their own church, rather than proselytizing your own Church. When Christ himself, said he had other sheepfolds.

    If you were going to jack, or suggest God jacks, you'd be very pointed and precise. But even the Jews already concluded that, "the just shall live by faith." Two wrongs don't make a right. But there is right and wrong. Freedom is
    right, and doing something against somebody else's will is wrong. And our unfair
    economic system (beyond the absolute blasphemy of prohibition, as a solution to admittedly legitimate social grievances) is the cause of all kinds of evil.

    If there's a negative argument, it probably doesn't go further than:

    "Do not be deceived. Sinners will by no means inherit the kingdom of God.

    or Karma, like someone else could want to jack you.

    But really the analytical argument that doing something against someone else's will is a contradiction in your own mind is both positive and negative. To choose
    2+3=5, and not anything else under the sun. People are good at heart and don't have a heart of darkness. If someone wants to hurt others because they've been hurt by others they need to know they're only hurting themselves more if they ever
    come to their right minds (not that they necessarily ever will in their current lifetime), but sadists have been made sad. Otherwise, poverty is the root of all
    kinds of evil. Overpopulation is the cause of this. Economic inequality and economic unfairness are also the issue. While stealing from those who have the same or less than you is immoral, and stealing a poor man's horse is capital, an
    unfair system justifies even robbery, and how can one but acquit. Withholding being as wrong as robbery, and robbery being as right as withholding. Socialism
    has merit, and Marxism has none being a worse solution than Capitalism. Libertarian Laissez Faire economics is as bad as Marxism. Why does the State need
    to own all of the means of production, why not just some of the means of food production. And if the Government is going to wither away into Utopia as Karl Marx says, then why not say no one owns anything unless they're carrying it today?
    Anyway, so much for the government owning the means of production, small businesses are 50% of the American economy. Marxism fell in 1989. Really all it
    comes down to is savings, so we don't eat the whole factory, but save some of the
    fruits of our capital and labor, which are mostly the results of our capital. No
    one would be earning much trying to play in the NBA in Chad, Central Africa. No
    one would be earning much without the U.S. (or a first world) economy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From course zealot@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 7 18:15:21 2020
    So you execute someone for insulting a religion. Do you really think God is with
    you, and not with the person you executed? That is, Blasphemy laws themselves are
    blasphemy to God indubitably. True, some people sometimes say offensive inflammatory insulting impolite things, but is it your legal right to murder them
    (in other words the government's)? Criminal punishment is always akin to murder.

    So ultimately restrictions on hate speech would come down to a restriction on all
    insults, including your right to insult or criticize the Government.

    It's surprising how many nations have blasphemy laws today. I wonder if a Jew wanted to reform his religion in Germany if he would be effectively executed.

    Can we really say what we want? And of any issues, how are we to know the legal
    wrangle jangle from one city to another city, or one State to another State, much
    less from one country to another country. How can we live abroad? Or the 10,000+
    pages of the Federal Title code? Not even a lawyer can or does know the law. What
    we really need, more than a Geneva Convention, is a Convention on the treatment of
    all prisoners, regardless, including a limit on the things one can be arrested (read executed) for.

    For starters, if something is not a sueable offense, and nor is one indicted for
    it, the Constitution indicates one can't be arrested. Yet cops have been violating this every day. So violating another's body or property would be all legal and illegal would at most come down to. Perhaps endangering. Yet in an economically unfair system, who can blame others for stealing? While stealing from those who have the same or less than you is immoral, and stealing a poor man's horse is capital as mayhem or murder (if not insured), but I guess stealing
    from the rich or taking a penny from everybody is no different than the IRS or Robin Hood in an absolutely unfair economic system as ours. Such robbery is as rightful as withholding, and withholding is as wrongful as robbery. How will you
    not join me, in acquitting robbery, as well as all things, until our civilization
    as well as criminal justice system is absolutely reformed and corrected. How could you convict and be an accessory to what amounts to unrighteousness? Many want to turn you to evil and to the devil. Many want to turn you to the cult they
    have made America into. And the United States criminal justice system is a cult.
    It is a false and unholy religion. While we define America as the country which
    begins with us, we say down with the United States criminal justice system. There
    is $1 trillion in fraud yearly in the United States. With the average Fraud estimated at $130,000. If the average fraud was $100,000 this would be 10 million
    cases of fraud. Would you throw all these people in prison?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law
    https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/

    We claim the land and the equal right to govern it. We encourage all good Americans to claim the same. We claim to be the head of any government which perpetrates to govern this land. We encourage all good Americans to claim the same. Your country begins with you, and only you can be the foundation of your country. This is one nation under God, which means one nation under you and me,
    because we are under God, and not under this nation, and I am not under you, and
    you are not under me.

    Demand. Grievance. Target. Objective. Four terms to keep in mind when contemplating war. This is not an advocation nor threat of war, but an advocation
    for peaceful reform.

    ...

    You have to think, what if we had blasphemy laws in the United States. How much
    of what is written on this board would be safe? Would you be free to say anything
    new at all? What kind of a chilling effect might this have on free speech?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)