Re: soliciting "human's" opinion -- RSQUBF discussion forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:29:51 02/11/05 Fri
Author: human
Subject: Re: soliciting "human's" opinion
In reply to: carbon-based lifeform 's message, "Re: soliciting "human's" opinion" on 00:54:13 02/06/05 Sun

Somehow I cannot access the website. So my opinion is not going to be about the testimony. I would like to give my opinion about "change." How should the term be understood? And in what context? It seems that in some religious organizations a change is not considered a genuine change unless the change is accompanied by the change in one's mind set shifted to their organizational mind set. So it is possible that a change has not been occurred in terms of the organizational mind set even though the change that has already taken place could be genuine if the organizational criteria is not applied to the change. Then it is also possbile that a genuine change has not been occurred even though the change meets the organizational criteria. So what do we mean by a change? It must be understood in sound biblical context instead of in the context of organizational mind set. If an organization has obtained the enormous power to dictate what counts as a genuine change, it is detrimental not only to its memebers but also to the organization itself because what the organization is trying to achieve at this point is not a genuine change based on sound teaching but a conditioned change according to its own dogma. A person changed in this way has been already conditioned to follow the organizational dogma blindly without any question. It can be also called control. One can raise a question though. So what? What's so wrong about control as long as it brings what is desired and what is dictated in the Bible? One can argue that it is wrong because controlling a human being is not treating him or her as ends in himself/herself but as means. I believe that Bible also supports the argument. However this kind of argument is based on Western thought. Many organizations originated in the Orient don't seem to have this kind of mind set of treating a human as ends in himself/herself in their fundamental theories. So their administraion style tends to become authoritative. I have no intention to criticize their theories and practices as a whole because it requires more careful study to evaluate all these. But I believe that the Bible tells us controlling a human being is wrong and unspiritual because every human being bears the image of his/her Creator. A human being must be respected, loved and trusted and should be given any necessary help to bring about a change to pursue his/her own ends accorging to the Creator's desires.

>>hey guys
>>read my testimony at www.xhirl.com
>>and tell me if you think it is bad if I stay in ubf?
>
>If he's (or she's) willing, I'd like the poster known
>as "human"
>to comment on this UBF member's "testimony."
>
>My comments:
>
>* I am supposed to read a supposed Christian "life
>testimony" and use it to judge whether you should stay
>in a certain group? The poster's gist seems to be that
>UBF has "changed the kid". I know that the UBF
>reflexive response will be something like, "Christ
>changed me THROUGH UBF," but by tying your supposed
>life change to UBF so closely, you have already
>allowed UBF to steal credit that should be given to
>Christ alone.
>
>* There are probably many, much more compelling
>radical life-change testimonies out there, e.g.
>stories of alcolholic wife abusers and horrendous
>addicts turning their lives around, credited to all
>kinds of "-isms": Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses-ism,
>Moon-ism, AA-ism, Islam-ism, 12 Step-ism. A life
>change itself is not enough to validate a movement or
>group by Christian standards.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

A change... -- Mike K., 13:46:31 02/12/05 Sat
- Re: A change... -- Chris, 16:03:05 02/12/05 Sat