How far will you go to be "INCLUSIVE"?

[Space Commander Travis]

Read Matthew 23.

So the middle and upper classes didn't need saving? Sounds like prejudice to me.

What do people mean by "saving"? saving from being cast into the Pit of Despair, or something more sophisticated than that? Jesus certainly intended his message for the ordinary people, he really didn't have much time for the smug privileged who constantly boasted about how devout they were and how loudly and publicly they prayed, so of we were talking about "Saving" in the sense of showing people the error of their ways and turning them to God, I'd have thought that he'd have concentrated on those people. I think the reason he concentrated on the ordinary and underprivileged people was that he sawthem as being the ones that would understand his message, not because they were the ones that needed Saving.

[+DieChecker]

And I am hated by some of my own family members for being non-Christian, which seems to me to be a very un-Christianlike attitude on their part.

I believe you are right in that this is very un-Christ like behavior. The occational, "Do you want to go to church this week?", is going to have to be expected, but hatred and negative talk is counterproductive.

[Beany]

Pretty soon they're going to start wearing garlic necklaces when they see me coming. My point is, though, that Christians aren't the only ones being attacked or disrespected because of their faith. I'm pagan, the Catholic priest told me, because I've never been baptized. I don't follow any particular faith, but find most of them interesting and try to keep myself informed. My love is really the spiritual traditions of indigenous peoples, maybe because the theology isn't so complicated. I don't mind complicated, usually, but when it comes to my own private spirituality, I tend to stay away from dogma, follow my heart, and let myself be guided. Guided by what I still haven't decided, but it can be called God, I suppose. It's just God without the dogma, closer to a direct experience of the divine.

I've discovered that what works for me is staying out of my head and being grounded in heart medicine.

[SpiritWriter]

Pretty soon they're going to start wearing garlic necklaces when they see me coming. My point is, though, that Christians aren't the only ones being attacked or disrespected because of their faith. I'm pagan, the Catholic priest told me, because I've never been baptized. I don't follow any particular faith, but find most of them interesting and try to keep myself informed. My love is really the spiritual traditions of indigenous peoples, maybe because the theology isn't so complicated. I don't mind complicated, usually, but when it comes to my own private spirituality, I tend to stay away from dogma, follow my heart, and let myself be guided. Guided by what I still haven't decided, but it can be called God, I suppose. It's just God without the dogma, closer to a direct experience of the divine.

I've discovered that what works for me is staying out of my head and being grounded in heart medicine.

[Omnaka]

To the OP, because wr are all children of God, I dont think its about being inclusive, or going with the flock. Jeasus said none is good but God, and he refered to people as brother. He even said, something to the effect, the things I do, so will you, even better.

I can understand why many have a hard time believing this, simply because of how they abuse freewill.

How can one believe that their father *God* loves them if they dont love them self. And I've always thought that using jesus as a scape goat, or the grace of God to absolve ones self for hurting others is weak and dumping my responsibility and consequenses on the innocent. But its ok if it helps some to be more loving. Not judgin just saying why I could not ever align myself with something like that 200 years ago or today in my daily life.

Just does not make sense, and I'm glad it doesn't.

[DeWitz]

No-thingBornPassion, in post #39 above, made a good point: The Lord is there for all, but not all are for the Lord,": to paraphrase. This blends well with the long-term Roman Catholic idea of "anonymous Christians" (Karl Rahner, I believe; well before Pope Francis) as those people living lives in union with Christ even if not professed Christians. Also, we should call to mind theologian Clyde P. Fesmire's old adage: "In the End we will be judged not on the core of our convictions but on the measure of our mercy." Sure, this is broad, but I believe any one whose faith is grounded on how stridently they can quote or unilaterally interpret scripture has sand underneath his/her stance.

To address the OP, I'd verbally and rhetorically argue, for a while, my own Christian socialist-mystic positions (see Acts 4:33-37 & Luke 17:21), but if my debate partners disagreed with my heterodox opinions, I'd let it go. For what aspects of the faith would I remain unmovable? Perhaps a formidable movement to call Jesus "Satan" would need to be intellectually opposed in the strongest terms, and I might even bear arms if people were being arrested and jailed (sans habeus corpus) solely for being Christian. Ecumenism and--perhaps--some degree of syncretism (such as in this so-called 'Chrislam,' news to me) can, for the foreseeable future, be checked effectively in the arena of free speech.

As for more Christian representation in that bastion of horrible pop culture called "The Grammys," I fail to see the point. Churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of religious gathering are for preaching; let the godless Grammys--a part of American Babylon--be, and turn the channel to repeats of Gilligan's Isif you are bothered by such execrable excesses.