Posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2014, at 19:38:15
In reply to Lou's reply-what-different-faiths-teach » pontormo, posted by Lou Pilder on September 18, 2014, at 18:36:20
> > I believe that Scott focused on a post in which you suggested that unless one repented, one would perish. You explained that unless one returned to the God that you served, which is the Jewish God, they would perish, because the wrath of God is so great that only those who return to him will not perish.
> >
> > Scott had felt that this was parallel and similar to the statement in the old post that you want to have sanctioned, which states that unless people return to God through Jesus, they will not reach the Kingdom of Heaven.
> >
> > I too had wondered about this similarity, although I had pointed out that it is inevitable that all religions will have some such exclusionary belief that their God and their way of reaching god (ie their religion) is necessary for reaching Heaven, or eternal life, etc.
> >
> > Scott asked if you also saw the similarity between your statement and the older statement that you wanted Bob to sanction.
> >
> > I was hoping you could pursue your thinking on that question: is your statement similar to the statement that you want sanctioned?
>
> pontormo,
> The question here is of as if statements posted here are allowed or not {according to Mr. Hsiung's TOS}. There are some in question that I want sanctioned that are allowed to be seen as civil and supportive where they are originally posted. There are posts by me that Scott and maybe others think fall into the same category that are allowed to stand.
> The question here is; {what say the rules?}.
> Mr. Hsiung has addressed this many years ago. It comes in different parts as the statement being examined as to see if it passes the muster for being allowed to stand.
> The first part is to examine the statement and see if it is not in accordance with the TOS/FAQ in relation to the stated part concerning what Mr. Hsiung means by being civil. If it is not, then we go to the exceptions.
> One exception is to be allowed to post {what different faiths teach}. That is a very broad area open for members to post about. It is also so broad, that there needs to be some restrictions. And what is meant by what different faiths teach could be what the doctrines of those faiths purport as put forth by their scriptures and even the interpretation of those by the denomination leaders. We will see those restrictions and examples next.
> LouFriend,
There are two principle precedents that give guidance to determine if a statement concerning faith is permissible here. One, I will call, ISO vs Pilder and the other, Hsiung vs Pilder
Let us look at ISO vs Pilder: This is allowed to stand:
[...He (Jesus) became the author of our eternal salvation for all those that obey him...].
For allowing the statement here by Mr. Hsuing is first that the statement is in the category of what faiths teach. The faith that is teaching it is in the doctrines of Christiandom and in their scriptures.
Now the dissenting opinion is that the statement puts down those of other faiths on the basis that the part,{for all those that obey him} would exclude those that do not obey Jesus, and hence will not have eternal salvation. but in order for that reasoning to apply,:
THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A DIRECT STATEMENT TO THAT, *not* an implication. This is exemplified by Mr. Hsiung by him stating that the poster did not say that all had to obey Jesus, or *must* obey Jesus, to have eternal salvation. It is just one way to have eternal salvation, BUT NOT THE ONLY WAY. (emphasis mine)
The dissenting opinion , by me, is that the statement is analogous to what Mr. Hsiung says is not permissible, even though the word {must} or {only} is not there. Mr. Hsiung prevailed and the post stands today.
Next, Hsiung vs PIlder
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1070482
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1071284.html