NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that when the media and others talk about or quote "Christians", they often refer primarily to the right side of that faith's spectrum: Those who call themselves Evangelical, Conservative, Traditional or Fundamentalist.

What about the other kinds of Christians - like Unitarians, Quakers, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans and so forth?

Some of these Christian churches even accept same-sex unions, individual choice re abortion, and contraception. Many welcome feminism, social justice and fair distribution of wealth. They seem to focus less on each person "gettin' saved" and more on Christ's message of ministering to the large numbers of the poor and sick.

Sometimes it seems like these churches were once more mainstream and have now become "passe" within much of the Christian community.

So why do we seem to hear so little about these Liberal Christian churches and their members? Why do they seem to be less-well politically connected within North America?

And do other Christians even consider them to be fully "Real Christians"?

What I want to know is, is a dead chicken still a chicken? And while we're at it, is a dancer still a dancer when they're not dancing?

We hear less about them mainly because they don't have a political agenda linked to their religious beliefs. They're that part of Christianity that is moving away from a millennialistic view that they are the sole way to salvation.

The evangelicals aren't doing that--they still believe that they're the sole path to salvation, and thanks to groups like the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition, they've been a group with a political message since the 80s. Unfortunately, their message seems to be that abortion and homosexuality are abominations that must be eliminated from the face of the earth, and depending on the individual group, that a woman's place is in the home, barefoot and pregnant.

Liberal Christians not only are 'real' Christians, they are more deserving of the title than the vocal Christian Coalition and other politically similar groups. After all, if Christ was alive today he would be percieved as a left wing radical.

No, they're too nice. Real Christians are rude, pushy, arrogant, grumpy, old assholes, but they'll get into heaven!

what I want to know is why they called pople in favour of abortions "Pro-choice".it sounds like they're trying to disguise the horror of killing a child, or stopping one before it even becomes a child.

Liberal Christians not only are 'real' Christians, they are more deserving of the title than the vocal Christian Coalition and other politically similar groups. After all, if Christ was alive today he would be percieved as a left wing radical.

Absoultely. A revolutionary, almost. Just think about how a person who advocated the things he did would be treated in today's society.

Isn't the "Bible belt" notoriously conservative? I don't particularly think liberal values and the bible go well together, you get a lot of bible-quoting to back up far right-wing views (on gays, etc).

EDIT: typo

what I want to know is why they called pople in favour of abortions "Pro-choice".it sounds like they're trying to disguise the horror of killing a child, or stopping one before it even becomes a child.Because it's entirely plausible to oppose abortion personally and yet feel that the state has no business imposing its will on a woman's body. I don't like abortion. I wish there were fewer of them. but I'm never going to tell a woman she can't have one because it makes me queasy. The issue is one of choice at its heart, and thus, those who support the rights of women to choose whether or not they can receive an abortion are pro-choice.

I tend to concur. I myself would be considered a "liberal Christian" to a great degree, as I find "turn or burn" theology not only disturbing... but unbiblical. I won't go off on a rant about flaws in their basic beliefs on "salvation" here, but I don't feel I need to.
I'd like to put something clearly though, having come from a more evangelical background: these people are mainly misguided. Their hatred for homosexuals and other sorts is based mainly off of Old Testimate Law (which the New Testimate says we're no longer obliged to follow), and letters written to the early church by a missionary, Paul, intent on making Christianity a distinct, isolated religion during its early stages in the middle of a "Pagan" culture.
Both can be seen for what they are: first, health concerns (now invalid, as is the ban on eating certain, more disease prone, foods that was made law for the early Hebrew nation), and second a method of isolation from the Romans (I do believe that it was 9 out of 10 of the first emperors that practiced homosexuality).
None the less, this group of people should not be hated as they hate others, but should be gently corrected. I should warn, seven out of eight of these people will generally not listen to what you have to say. Anything you say against them has been hardwired into their brain as a personal attack, not a way to provoke thought. As a rule, if you're willing to dive into Christ's teachings, it's more than worth your time not only for your own enrichment, but to put a lid on some of the extremists that are portraying themselves as the "only true Christians."

A liberal Christian is far more prone to be a useful, productive, and all-around Christ-like Christian. I encourage any evangelical to take a closer look at what they're reading, and to stack that up not against what they've been hand-fed by the powers that be, but against what is consistant, and right.

May the radicalism of Christ be continued forever and ever. Amen.

what I want to know is why they called pople in favour of abortions "Pro-choice".it sounds like they're trying to disguise the horror of killing a child, or stopping one before it even becomes a child.Because it's entirely plausible to oppose abortion personally and yet feel that the state has no business imposing its will on a woman's body. I don't like abortion. I wish there were fewer of them. but I'm never going to tell a woman she can't have one because it makes me queasy. The issue is one of choice at its heart, and thus, those who support the rights of women to choose whether or not they can receive an abortion are pro-choice.

Don't bother. I've tried explaining that exact stance to him a thousand times and it never works.

And rarely will it work.... *sigh*

what I want to know is why they called pople in favour of abortions "Pro-choice".it sounds like they're trying to disguise the horror of killing a child, or stopping one before it even becomes a child.Because it's entirely plausible to oppose abortion personally and yet feel that the state has no business imposing its will on a woman's body. I don't like abortion. I wish there were fewer of them. but I'm never going to tell a woman she can't have one because it makes me queasy. The issue is one of choice at its heart, and thus, those who support the rights of women to choose whether or not they can receive an abortion are pro-choice.

I see. It still doesn't seem right to call it that though. But, I guess I can see why some would call it that. I prefer pro-infanticide.

what I want to know is why they called pople in favour of abortions "Pro-choice".it sounds like they're trying to disguise the horror of killing a child, or stopping one before it even becomes a child.Because it's entirely plausible to oppose abortion personally and yet feel that the state has no business imposing its will on a woman's body. I don't like abortion. I wish there were fewer of them. but I'm never going to tell a woman she can't have one because it makes me queasy. The issue is one of choice at its heart, and thus, those who support the rights of women to choose whether or not they can receive an abortion are pro-choice.

I see. It still doesn't seem right to call it that though. But, I guess I can see why some would call it that. I prefer pro-infanticide.

And I prefer to call Christians "Anti-thinking-for-yourself".

Now now, let's not be testy. I'd have to say that most "mainline" Christians quite definately fit that mold, but don't lable ALL of us, that makes you as bad as them!

Now now, let's not be testy. I'd have to say that most "mainline" Christians quite definately fit that mold, but don't lable ALL of us, that makes you as bad as them!

Mainline is, of course, quite relative to how you look at it all.

To me it goes a little like this.

Jesus comes back today:

The pro-choice crowd says, "Teacher, tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "People who commit murder, then ask to be upheld to mankind, as being correct, in the action of directly breaking one of my father's commandments."

The homosexual community comes to Him and ask, "Teacher tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "Weren't you told that for a man to lie with a man as he lies with a woman, was a sin? Here you have asked to be upheld to mankind as being correct. I might as well tell mankind, that the more sinful you can chose to be, the closer it brings you to my father's home."

I just believe that if either of these issues, were put to the full religious test, they would not be met with raving approval. So let the liberal thinking person claim to be Christian. I will wait to see Christ Jesus claim the liberal views on these two issues.

Haha... true indeed... I tend to be forced to throw that definition on the larger Charismatic organization springing up, as well as *shudder* Focus on the Family... appologies for confusion that may have been caused by my previous statement... or current one. :D

As for the comments about Christ in relation to pro-choice or homosexuality, I would agree that an abortion of a concious child, as in a partial-birth abortion, is barbaric, as would be the killing of any other concious human being. Before that... it's simply the possibility of life. But so is a vasectomy (sp?) As for homosexuality, I challenge you to provide a passage, NOT written by Paul or in the Old Testimate, condeming the practice for its own sake.

Now now, let's not be testy. I'd have to say that most "mainline" Christians quite definately fit that mold, but don't lable ALL of us, that makes you as bad as them!

I know. I don't actually think that. I'm just pointing out how inflammatory Seph's comment was. It may seem like pro-choicers are pro-infantcide to someone who doesn't understand them, but to think that is why they are for abortion, because they support killing babies, is ludicrous.

Perhaps I should say that I prefer to call pro-lifers anti-women's rights, because they oppose a woman's right to decide what happens to herself.

To me it goes a little like this.

Jesus comes back today:

The pro-choice crowd says, "Teacher, tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "People who commit murder, then ask to be upheld to mankind, as being correct, in the action of directly breaking one of my father's commandments."

The homosexual community comes to Him and ask, "Teacher tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "Weren't you told that for a man to lie with a man as he lies with a woman, was a sin? Here you have asked to be upheld to mankind as being correct. I might as well tell mankind, that the more sinful you can chose to be, the closer it brings you to my father's home."

I just believe that if either of these issues, were put to the full religious test, they would not be met with raving approval. So let the liberal thinking person claim to be Christian. I will wait to see Christ Jesus claim the liberal views on these two issues.

Of course, then there's that thing about seperation of church and state that Jesus liked so much (render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's, ay?), opposition to the blending of mercantilism and religion, pro-love and peace, not judging others, ignoring the plank in your eye and criticizing the dust speck in the other's eye, not flaunting your faith...

I see. It still doesn't seem right to call it that though. But, I guess I can see why some would call it that. I prefer pro-infanticide.

And I prefer to call Christians "Anti-thinking-for-yourself".I would think that you would prefer to argue the point and not attack the person. You seem to be able to tell others that this is inappropriate.

I see. It still doesn't seem right to call it that though. But, I guess I can see why some would call it that. I prefer pro-infanticide.

And I prefer to call Christians "Anti-thinking-for-yourself".I would think that you would prefer to argue the point and not attack the person. You seem to be able to tell others that this is inappropriate.

What?

He was commenting that your statement that Christians don't think for themselves was a personal attack upon the people involved in the faith.

Taking it a bit too personally, it's the group dynamics you have to watch out for.

He was commenting that your statement that Christians don't think for themselves was a personal attack upon the people involved in the faith.

Taking it a bit too personally, it's the group dynamics you have to watch out for.

Do you agree that calling pro-choicers "pro-infantcide" is a direct attack on their moral fiber?

Liberal Christians are wolves in sheepskins.

By supporting gays, which is outlawed by the bible in both OT and NT, they have become a bad influence on the church. Their personal opinions have caused chaos in the US Anglican church with the appointment of an openly gay bishop, when the bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin.

There is plenty of NT evidence stating that homsexuality is a sin. (But I'm too lazy to support it with quotes)

I would say calling pro-choicers murders of children to be a horrible stereotype, and an untrue one!

Liberal Christians are wolves in sheepskins.

By supporting gays, which is outlawed by the bible in both OT and NT, they have become a bad influence on the church. Their personal opinions have caused chaos in the US Anglican church with the appointment of an openly gay bishop, when the bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin.

There is plenty of NT evidence stating that homsexuality is a sin. (But I'm too lazy to support it with quotes)

What I want to know is: Did Jesus, specifically, ever say a thing about homosexuality?

Liberal Christians are wolves in sheepskins.

By supporting gays, which is outlawed by the bible in both OT and NT, they have become a bad influence on the church. Their personal opinions have caused chaos in the US Anglican church with the appointment of an openly gay bishop, when the bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin.

There is plenty of NT evidence stating that homsexuality is a sin. (But I'm too lazy to support it with quotes)

Taiwan, please... don't come at as with cliches and laziness, it doesn't do you well. You've shown no evidence, and failed to so much as consider my last challenge. Show it to me, and not from Paul (a simple missionary to seperate the early chruch from the romans) or the outdated Old Testiment, as a sin for its own sake, not relating to sex out of marriage or permiscuity.

To me it goes a little like this.

Jesus comes back today:

The pro-choice crowd says, "Teacher, tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "People who commit murder, then ask to be upheld to mankind, as being correct, in the action of directly breaking one of my father's commandments."

The homosexual community comes to Him and ask, "Teacher tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "Weren't you told that for a man to lie with a man as he lies with a woman, was a sin? Here you have asked to be upheld to mankind as being correct. I might as well tell mankind, that the more sinful you can chose to be, the closer it brings you to my father's home."

I just believe that if either of these issues, were put to the full religious test, they would not be met with raving approval. So let the liberal thinking person claim to be Christian. I will wait to see Christ Jesus claim the liberal views on these two issues.

Of course, then there's that thing about seperation of church and state that Jesus liked so much (render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's, ay?), opposition to the blending of mercantilism and religion, pro-love and peace, not judging others, ignoring the plank in your eye and criticizing the dust speck in the other's eye, not flaunting your faith...Rendering unto God that which is God's, is support for the pro-life side. The child is a thing of God's. Curtailing of the process of growth is throwing away that which is God's.
Pro-love of course, Love thy neighbor and all that. Not have sex with them.
Peace? Wasn't it Jesus who said there will be wars. This peace is more to the actions you are to show to each other. War and peace are not direct opposites in the text of the bible.
Judgement? I did not judge anyone in what I wrote. I stated my belief, as it deals with these two issues. No more than I would have done if the issue had been theft, child abuse, gang killings, I am personally against all three of those things as well and would state so. But I have not personally judged anybody.
Ignoring the plank. Where you may feel that you have thrown a verse out there that supports your claim, look over what I said, show me one place where I said that I was above sin. I will even make this easier for you, show one place where I said I was any better than anyone else. I will be judged, by God, just like everyone else is. Could be there is sin enough in me to be condemned. I just try to follow my faith, the way it is written.

Whether or not someone is Christian depends on whether or not they, as the Apostles, Paul and the other early Christians, have made a life-changing committment to follow Jesus Christ - to embrace Him as Lord and Redeemer, to bear His cross and serve others in love and humility and strive to become more and more like Him. It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, evangelical or main-line, etc.

As for the two big issues that everyone seems to raising as a litmus test for Christianity - abortion and gay-rights - let me say the following:

My belief is that following the example and techings of Christ lead inevitably to a belief in the sanctity of human life. For this reason, I do not believe abortion is moral justifiable choice, just as I do not believe captial punishment is a moral justifiable choice. Now, the question of whether the State can impose capital punishment or restrict the ability of women to obtain abortions is a different debate that touches not only on matters of faith, but also on politics, human rights, etc.

In His ministry on Earth, Jesus concentrated on person morality not on politics - He never called on His followers to change the system, but to change how they live.

Similarly, I believe that homosexuality is an issue that is primarily between an individual and God. I do not see any standing for me to comment on whether or not a gay man or woman can be a Christian. I can say, though, Jesus would sees all people as equal and equally in need of His love and redemption.

To me it goes a little like this.

Jesus comes back today:

The pro-choice crowd says, "Teacher, tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "People who commit murder, then ask to be upheld to mankind, as being correct, in the action of directly breaking one of my father's commandments."

The homosexual community comes to Him and ask, "Teacher tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "Weren't you told that for a man to lie with a man as he lies with a woman, was a sin? Here you have asked to be upheld to mankind as being correct. I might as well tell mankind, that the more sinful you can chose to be, the closer it brings you to my father's home."

I just believe that if either of these issues, were put to the full religious test, they would not be met with raving approval. So let the liberal thinking person claim to be Christian. I will wait to see Christ Jesus claim the liberal views on these two issues.I don't know--I think if Jesus were to come back today, he'd probably tell people in general that abortion should be a last resort and that we ought to work together as human beings to reduce the call for it. But that's because I see Jesus as a person who tries to take a bad situation and make it work for the greater good, not a condemner of behavior.

And as far as homosexuality is concerned, I'm almost certain Jesus would be in support of people loving each other, regardless of whether or not they're the same sex. Jesus himself never condemned homosexuality, and as many others have pointed out, he fulfilled the law, so there is no realistic Christian opposition to same sex relationships. Jesus would be down with loving couples; I'm pretty sure of that.

The Old Testament isn't outdated. In general terms, the Law is, but the rest is still good. You wouldn't dismiss Psalms, Proverbs, the lessons in Daniel, Job, and so on, would you? Marriage was laid down way back in Genesis, before the Law, Moses, even Abraham. I believe personally that homosexuality shouldn't be discriminated against (consonant with
Christ's teachings on tolerance), but that a homosexual couple isn't a marriage. If governments want to permit civil unions for the sake of non-discrimination, fine, but don't expect me to call it "marriage".

As for abortion, much as I shudder at the propaganda machines that produced the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice", I must concede that they're both apt. Pro-choice means advocating the woman's right to choose, regardless of personal views on abortion. Pro-life means advocating the unborn child's right to life. (It's not "anti-women's rights" as one post suggested. The only "right" opposed is the "right" to choose an abortion, and to criticise pro-lifers for "taking away" that right is begging the question. The pro-life position denies that the woman has such a right to choose that is greater than the child's right to life. The pro-choice position denies that the child has a right to life that is greater than the woman's right to choose.) And a vasectomy differs from an abortion in that it prevents conception.

I see. It still doesn't seem right to call it that though. But, I guess I can see why some would call it that. I prefer pro-infanticide.

And I prefer to call Christians "Anti-thinking-for-yourself".I would think that you would prefer to argue the point and not attack the person. You seem to be able to tell others that this is inappropriate.

What?Seph only stated the term he prefers to think of pro-choice as. You said you prefer to call Christians "Anti-thinking-for-yourself"
Infanticide is an appropriate definition of the word abortion.
"Anti-thinking-for-yourself" can only be looked at as a personal attack on the mental capacity of the person. (yourself being a singular word, makes it an attack on the person you were talking to)

I see. It still doesn't seem right to call it that though. But, I guess I can see why some would call it that. I prefer pro-infanticide.

And I prefer to call Christians "Anti-thinking-for-yourself".I would think that you would prefer to argue the point and not attack the person. You seem to be able to tell others that this is inappropriate.

What?Seph only stated the term he prefers to think of pro-choice as. You said you prefer to call Christians "Anti-thinking-for-yourself"
Infanticide is an appropriate definition of the word abortion.
"Anti-thinking-for-yourself" can only be looked at as a personal attack on the mental capacity of the person. (yourself being a singular word, makes it an attack on the person you were talking to)

No, I said I prefer to call Christians "anti-thinking for yourself". All Christians. Not just Seph.

Whether infantcide is an appropriate definition for the word abortion is very debatable, but let's not pretend Seph said he prefers to call pro-choicers "pro-infantcide" for any other reason than to offend them.

He was commenting that your statement that Christians don't think for themselves was a personal attack upon the people involved in the faith.

Taking it a bit too personally, it's the group dynamics you have to watch out for.Has absolutely nothing to do with group dynamics nor with taking things personally. Notice you use "themselves" which would have made it a group dynamic thing he used the singular form of the word which made it a personal attack on just one person.

He was commenting that your statement that Christians don't think for themselves was a personal attack upon the people involved in the faith.

Taking it a bit too personally, it's the group dynamics you have to watch out for.Has absolutely nothing to do with group dynamics nor with taking things personally. Notice you use "themselves" which would have made it a group dynamic thing he used the singular form of the word which made it a personal attack on just one person.

Should I have said "Anti-Thinking-For-Themselfers"???

Liberal Christians are wolves in sheepskins.

By supporting gays, which is outlawed by the bible in both OT and NT, they have become a bad influence on the church. Their personal opinions have caused chaos in the US Anglican church with the appointment of an openly gay bishop, when the bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin.

There is plenty of NT evidence stating that homsexuality is a sin. (But I'm too lazy to support it with quotes)

What I want to know is: Did Jesus, specifically, ever say a thing about homosexuality?Yes.

Liberal Christians are wolves in sheepskins.

By supporting gays, which is outlawed by the bible in both OT and NT, they have become a bad influence on the church. Their personal opinions have caused chaos in the US Anglican church with the appointment of an openly gay bishop, when the bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin.

There is plenty of NT evidence stating that homsexuality is a sin. (But I'm too lazy to support it with quotes)

What I want to know is: Did Jesus, specifically, ever say a thing about homosexuality?Yes.

I'd like to see a quote of that.

To me it goes a little like this.

Jesus comes back today:

The pro-choice crowd says, "Teacher, tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "People who commit murder, then ask to be upheld to mankind, as being correct, in the action of directly breaking one of my father's commandments."

The homosexual community comes to Him and ask, "Teacher tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "Weren't you told that for a man to lie with a man as he lies with a woman, was a sin? Here you have asked to be upheld to mankind as being correct. I might as well tell mankind, that the more sinful you can chose to be, the closer it brings you to my father's home."

I just believe that if either of these issues, were put to the full religious test, they would not be met with raving approval. So let the liberal thinking person claim to be Christian. I will wait to see Christ Jesus claim the liberal views on these two issues.

And there's the difference right there.
A liberal would never presume to speak with God's voice.

Liberal Christians are wolves in sheepskins.

By supporting gays, which is outlawed by the bible in both OT and NT, they have become a bad influence on the church. Their personal opinions have caused chaos in the US Anglican church with the appointment of an openly gay bishop, when the bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin.

There is plenty of NT evidence stating that homsexuality is a sin. (But I'm too lazy to support it with quotes)

Taiwan, please... don't come at as with cliches and laziness, it doesn't do you well. You've shown no evidence, and failed to so much as consider my last challenge. Show it to me, and not from Paul (a simple missionary to seperate the early chruch from the romans) or the outdated Old Testiment, as a sin for its own sake, not relating to sex out of marriage or permiscuity.By asking for examples but denying two sources for the very example you are asking for shows you have been shown the examples before and chose not to believe them. How many examples do you want people to give you before you will except that it is in the bible, which is where you are looking, for the examples, in the first place?

To me it goes a little like this.

Jesus comes back today:

The pro-choice crowd says, "Teacher, tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "People who commit murder, then ask to be upheld to mankind, as being correct, in the action of directly breaking one of my father's commandments."

The homosexual community comes to Him and ask, "Teacher tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "Weren't you told that for a man to lie with a man as he lies with a woman, was a sin? Here you have asked to be upheld to mankind as being correct. I might as well tell mankind, that the more sinful you can chose to be, the closer it brings you to my father's home."

I just believe that if either of these issues, were put to the full religious test, they would not be met with raving approval. So let the liberal thinking person claim to be Christian. I will wait to see Christ Jesus claim the liberal views on these two issues.

And there's the difference right there.
A liberal would never presume to speak with God's voice.

There are many liberal Christians who would prove you wrong. And there are many conservative Christians who would agree that that's presuming too much. "Presuming to speak with God's voice" is, in effect, equivalent to "claiming to have the right interpretation". And both sides do it. Liberals may or may not be less prone to it - they certainly have that appearance, since they emphasise the "tolerance" side of things, but I wonder if it's not just an illusion. Not tolerating intolerance, as it were. :wink:

On the contrary, I've been shown Old Testiment Law, which you cannot deny we are no longer under, I've been shown people attempting to show me that the loving relationships based on Old Testiment Law are "the only way to go," and I've been shown Paul's letters, tools of seperation of the early church from the Romans.

What I want you to show me is evidence, from the Bible, preferably stated by Christ himself.

To make a clear list:
1) I do not want laws stated to be unapplicable to NT Chirstians
2) I do not want "proof" from politically motivated letters.
3) I do not want vague examples based on Old Testiment characters, especially those functioning on Old Testiment law.

I hope this has brought some clarity... I would like to say I appreciate your concern for my scriptural basis, but I have yet to see a man build a fence around the roof of his home, as was stated in OT law, or for that matter begin preaching prophesy of what's actually to come with 100% accuracy as a "spiritual gift" supposedly posessed in the early church. Times and climates have changed, and the Bible was made to that end.

After all, if Christ was alive today he would be percieved as a left wing radical.

in fact, there are a number of christians who think a proper understanding of jesus would demand that you be rather far to the left. for example, http://www.jesusradicals.com/index.php

Why ignore Paul's letters?

Anyway, what are the thoughts of Liberal Christians on genetic engineering?

Why ignore Paul's letters?

Anyway, what are the thoughts of Liberal Christians on genetic engineering?Two reasons: First--the original question that started this little side discussion was if Jesus had said anything condemning homosexuality. Jay said yes and has of course not cited any specific verses to back himself up, and that's likely because he doesn't have any.

Second--at its core, Christianity is the study and adherence to the teachings of Jesus, not of Paul.

As for homosexuality, I challenge you to provide a passage, NOT written by Paul or in the Old Testimate, condeming the practice for its own sake.

That's a bit like saying, "Show me where in this Astronomy Textbook it says the sky is blue. Except the chapter about Earth."

As for homosexuality, I challenge you to provide a passage, NOT written by Paul or in the Old Testimate, condeming the practice for its own sake.

That's a bit like saying, "Show me where in this Astronomy Textbook it says the sky is blue. Except the chapter about Earth."

Why would an astronomy textbook say the sky is blue?

Anyway it is not like that. Some Christians reject the OT and embrace the Gospels (not the letters). The OT and the Letters would be no more authoritive than the Koran (sp?), the Sutra or the Vedic texts.

IMHO, anyone who believes that Jesus was sent by the Father so that we may all come to know of Him and who has taken the time to learn the principles of His ministry could identify themselves as Christian despite an ideological leaning.

And though the written accounts of Jesus did promote many concepts that would fit in with today's "liberal", there is just as much evidence to suggest that he would not have forced His belief systems on others unless of course people were using a place of worship to do things other than to worship.

Jesus did happen to drive home the point that an individual's current existence doesn't really matter - in fact the harder that existence the better off one would be - because it's the "life" that one "lives" in heaven that really matters. It's to the extent in which politicians try and impersonally meddle into the affairs of others and impersonally try their hands at benevolence without truly getting to know one's needs and motives which taint our critical thinking about The Christ when we try and politicize.

I also think that Jesus would be quite angry at the way the some clergy of the churches have perverted the intentions of Jesus' ministry; through their backbiting, lack of character, and thirst for power & the large tithe. It's in this way that "The Good News" has been unfairly been getting its bad name.

I would say they are Christians. I would consider myself a progressive Catholic and just because you are progressive within it does not mean that you are not a Catholic/Christian.

To me it goes a little like this.

Jesus comes back today:

The pro-choice crowd says, "Teacher, tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "People who commit murder, then ask to be upheld to mankind, as being correct, in the action of directly breaking one of my father's commandments."

The homosexual community comes to Him and ask, "Teacher tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "Weren't you told that for a man to lie with a man as he lies with a woman, was a sin? Here you have asked to be upheld to mankind as being correct. I might as well tell mankind, that the more sinful you can chose to be, the closer it brings you to my father's home."

I just believe that if either of these issues, were put to the full religious test, they would not be met with raving approval. So let the liberal thinking person claim to be Christian. I will wait to see Christ Jesus claim the liberal views on these two issues.

It is quite possible that the some of the scripture found in the books of Leviticus, Dueteronomy, and Numbers was not inspired by God but were instead people created policies that made sense for the day. Obviously, the leaders realized that the only way to continue a society was for procreation to be emphasised and for anything that ran counter to that goal to be frowned upon (or worse!).

If you can explain this better than perhaps I'll buy you a seafood (shellfish) dinner. Of course that would mean I'd have to get a sitter for my kids - God help them if I find out that they've been misbehaving lest they be stoned to death in the town's center!

You said you prefer to call Christians "Anti-thinking-for-yourself"
Infanticide is an appropriate definition of the word abortion.


only in the OPINION of certain pro-life persons. medical science and most pro-choice persons are still waiting for you to show that a fetus is an infant. so Seph's use of "pro-infanticide" is just as editorial and unfounded as "anti-thinking-for-yourself." in fact, many of us feel there is far more evidence for the second than for the first :).

only in the OPINION of certain pro-life persons. medical science and most pro-choice persons are still waiting for you to show that a fetus is an infant. so Seph's use of "pro-infanticide" is just as editorial and unfounded as "anti-thinking-for-yourself." in fact, many of us feel there is far more evidence for the second than for the first :).

Yes, I would have to agree that there is far more "evidence" that suggests that a fetus is really just an inert piece of tissue and that an almost 2000 year old faith - one that inspired an historical timeline - is just a trumped up and widely repeated myth :wink:

Good job on the critical thinking skill's; what's in that "bottle" anyway? :P

Liberal Christians are wolves in sheepskins...they have become a bad influence on the church.

So are Liberal Christians actually a tool of Satan meant to damage Christianity from within?

No doubt others might say the exact same thing about extremist Conservative elements within Christianity however.

I wonder who's right?

And I prefer to call Christians "Anti-thinking-for-yourself".

That's not fair, Sdaeriji. Just because you identify as a Christian doesn't mean you give up your ability (and your duty) to think for yourself. That type of generalization is just as hurtful and destructive as the bunk that comes out of the Religious Right.

After all, if Christ was alive today he would be percieved as a left wing radical.

in fact, there are a number of christians who think a proper understanding of jesus would demand that you be rather far to the left. for example, http://www.jesusradicals.com/index.php

aww, no one wants to discuss christian anarchism or the communistic leanings of much of jesus' teachings? there's a reason that communism has been called a christian heresy.

What is really sad is that we create these divisions in the church over rather puny issues.

Should we hold services on Sunday? or Monday?

Should we use real wine or juice during communion?

Should Christians be pro-choice? or pro-life?

Did Adam have a belly button?

No one really has the answer to these questions. But Christianity was created so that on some issues, people can disagree and still be Christians.

For some issues we should take a stand.

For homosexuality, it does say in Paul's letters that homosexuality is wrong. If you want to discuss the legitimacy of these letters then why not just discount the entire Bible, I mean, if you take that view on it then everything in the Bible is open game and we don't have to accept the parts of the Bible that we don't like.

Homosexuality is as wrong as telling that white lie is, or hating your brother, or commiting (heterosexual) adultery. God does not have a list of what the worse sins are (with one exception but I won't go there), all sins are equal in their damning effect. We all need the salvation of Christ.

For the idea that there are 'many ways to get to heaven', the Bible states this is not true. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me". For Christians this should be a done deal, a direct order by God. If you don't accept the Bible, then, well... what are you doing calling yourself a Christian?

-my opinion on abortion-

A fetus feals pain, medical studies show, and fetuses become humans beings. Medical studies show that fetuses are as much human as you or I are (genetically speaking), and that yes, they are alive, not an "inert piece of tissue".

As any mother if their 'fetus' was 'inert' during the whole pregnancy.

Whether or not someone is Christian depends on whether or not they, as the Apostles, Paul and the other early Christians, have made a life-changing committment to follow Jesus Christ - to embrace Him as Lord and Redeemer, to bear His cross and serve others in love and humility and strive to become more and more like Him. It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, evangelical or main-line, etc.

As for the two big issues that everyone seems to raising as a litmus test for Christianity - abortion and gay-rights - let me say the following:

My belief is that following the example and techings of Christ lead inevitably to a belief in the sanctity of human life. For this reason, I do not believe abortion is moral justifiable choice, just as I do not believe captial punishment is a moral justifiable choice. Now, the question of whether the State can impose capital punishment or restrict the ability of women to obtain abortions is a different debate that touches not only on matters of faith, but also on politics, human rights, etc.

In His ministry on Earth, Jesus concentrated on person morality not on politics - He never called on His followers to change the system, but to change how they live.

Similarly, I believe that homosexuality is an issue that is primarily between an individual and God. I do not see any standing for me to comment on whether or not a gay man or woman can be a Christian. I can say, though, Jesus would sees all people as equal and equally in need of His love and redemption.

I agree completely.

perhaps the financially left to some extent but not to the point of say communism I guess socialists and liberals fiscally can be. Now on morals I think you have to stick to those if your immoral you got issues. Really all you have to do is believe and strive to do right and follow the bible and teachings and accept christ as savour

To me it goes a little like this.

Jesus comes back today:

The pro-choice crowd says, "Teacher, tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "People who commit murder, then ask to be upheld to mankind, as being correct, in the action of directly breaking one of my father's commandments."

The homosexual community comes to Him and ask, "Teacher tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "Weren't you told that for a man to lie with a man as he lies with a woman, was a sin? Here you have asked to be upheld to mankind as being correct. I might as well tell mankind, that the more sinful you can chose to be, the closer it brings you to my father's home."

I just believe that if either of these issues, were put to the full religious test, they would not be met with raving approval. So let the liberal thinking person claim to be Christian. I will wait to see Christ Jesus claim the liberal views on these two issues.

And there's the difference right there.
A liberal would never presume to speak with God's voice.How many examples are there in this thread alone of liberals claiming these two topics would meet with approval from God? I paraphrase what I can invision as happening. I do not presume to speak with God's voice. Just because I state that I can see John Kerry saying. "I am a homosexual." Does not mean I presume to speak with Kerry's voice.

How many examples are there in this thread alone of liberals claiming these two topics would meet with approval from God? I paraphrase what I can invision as happening. I do not presume to speak with God's voice. Just because I state that I can see John Kerry saying. "I am a homosexual." Does not mean I presume to speak with Kerry's voice.

Yes, it also presumes you have no idea what John Kerry might say and, frankly, are completely unrelated to John Kerry and don't really know anything about him personally except what you might have heard from written sources and from what the other side would like you to believe about John Kerry.

The point is, who knows what God's opinion on homosexuality and abortion really is? He hasn't said anything directly about either, regardless of what some people might like you to believe. If they were such big issues to him, don't you think he'd put out a press release or something?

However, in the abscence of a direct opinion from God on either of these topics, I prefer to err on the side of caution and use what Jesus said about love and what my Grandmother said about God not making trash and what I feel to be politically and morally right about both, regardless of what God's real feelings are on the subject. If he has an issue with that, he can jolly well tell me himself. :D

He was commenting that your statement that Christians don't think for themselves was a personal attack upon the people involved in the faith.

Taking it a bit too personally, it's the group dynamics you have to watch out for.Has absolutely nothing to do with group dynamics nor with taking things personally. Notice you use "themselves" which would have made it a group dynamic thing he used the singular form of the word which made it a personal attack on just one person.

Should I have said "Anti-Thinking-For-Themselfers"???"Themselves" would have done to express your opinion about the entire group.

Once again I am astounded by the intolerance of those claiming to follow the teachings of a man who embraced the outcast and oppressed of his day. My theory that religious fanaticism and cranial capacity are inversely proportionate gets more data to support it every day.

DP

Isn't the "Bible belt" notoriously conservative? I don't particularly think liberal values and the bible go well together, you get a lot of bible-quoting to back up far right-wing views (on gays, etc).
God didn't make us liberals or conservatives, we do that on our own. I believe that many liberals have good Christian values. They tend to care more for their fellow citizens, are less likely to back wars, and are more open to sharing the wealth. On the other hand, many conservative Christians put the dollar above all else, and you know what it says in the Bible about rich people......

On the other hand, many conservative Christians put the dollar above all else, and you know what it says in the Bible about rich people......

well, their leaders at least. and a lot of them - leaders and followers alike - are reactionary first, christian second (if at all; in a lot of cases it looks to me like religion just makes for a quick excuse to be an asshole).

Liberals act Christian in the sense that Jesus said to love your neighbor as you would be loved yourself. Conservatives act Christian in the sense that he also said anyone who does not believe what he believes goes to hell... That's how I see it, maybe I'm missing something?

Leviticus shuns homosexuality, as I'm sure we're all aware. It also shuns consumption of shellfish, and other limits we would today describe as unnecessary, or have completely overlooked. Where do we draw the line?

Leviticus shuns homosexuality, as I'm sure we're all aware. It also shuns consumption of shellfish, and other limits we would today describe as unnecessary, or have completely overlooked. Where do we draw the line?

that and the previous point were actually intelligent. way to go, m'boy!or girl!

Leviticus shuns homosexuality, as I'm sure we're all aware. It also shuns consumption of shellfish, and other limits we would today describe as unnecessary, or have completely overlooked. Where do we draw the line?

and oddly enough, exodus plainly says that killing a fetus is not equal to murder.

Why ignore Paul's letters?

Anyway, what are the thoughts of Liberal Christians on genetic engineering?Two reasons: First--the original question that started this little side discussion was if Jesus had said anything condemning homosexuality. Jay said yes and has of course not cited any specific verses to back himself up, and that's likely because he doesn't have any.

Second--at its core, Christianity is the study and adherence to the teachings of Jesus, not of Paul.You know you just might want to look back at the question that was asked of me.

What I want to know is: Did Jesus, specifically, ever say a thing about homosexuality?

In the days of Jesus' life, homosexuality was a definite topic of discussion.
Jesus spoke of the old laws often. The old laws stated that it was a sin for a man to lie with a man as he does a woman. It would be the closed mind that would think that Jesus never talked about homosexuality. The odds are very high that He would have.

Was this written in the bible? Yes the topic was, but not as a quote from Jesus. Was every word that Jesus ever spoke written in the bible? No. As a matter of fact, comparatively, few of the words he spoke were. Does this mean He didn't have conversations about the topics of the time? I don't think so. Most of the things that were quoted as being said by Him were on the topics of the times. Jesus used the terms of the time. Adulterer, sexually immoral, idolater were all term used in reference to sexuality.

So, in closing, the question asked of me wasn't did Jesus say anything condemning homosexuality. It was if he ever mentioned homosexuality.

Jesus also never said that it was wrong to post child pornography on the internet. Does that make it right?

Leviticus shuns homosexuality, as I'm sure we're all aware. It also shuns consumption of shellfish, and other limits we would today describe as unnecessary, or have completely overlooked. Where do we draw the line?

that and the previous point were actually intelligent. way to go, m'boy!or girl!

Thank you! Boy, for the record... male, anyway.

Leviticus shuns homosexuality, as I'm sure we're all aware. It also shuns consumption of shellfish, and other limits we would today describe as unnecessary, or have completely overlooked. Where do we draw the line?

and oddly enough, exodus plainly says that killing a fetus is not equal to murder.

Really? Which verse?

Why ignore Paul's letters?

Anyway, what are the thoughts of Liberal Christians on genetic engineering?Two reasons: First--the original question that started this little side discussion was if Jesus had said anything condemning homosexuality. Jay said yes and has of course not cited any specific verses to back himself up, and that's likely because he doesn't have any.

Second--at its core, Christianity is the study and adherence to the teachings of Jesus, not of Paul.You know you just might want to look back at the question that was asked of me.

What I want to know is: Did Jesus, specifically, ever say a thing about homosexuality?
In the days of Jesus' life, homosexuality was a definite topic of discussion.
Jesus spoke of the old laws often. The old laws stated that it was a sin for a man to lie with a man as he does a woman. It would be the closed mind that would think that Jesus never talked about homosexuality. The odds are very high that He would have.

Was this written in the bible? Yes the topic was, but not as a quote from Jesus. Was every word that Jesus ever spoke written in the bible? No. As a matter of fact, comparatively, few of the words he spoke were. Does this mean He didn't have conversations about the topics of the time? I don't think so. Most of the things that were quoted as being said by Him were on the topics of the times. Jesus used the terms of the time. Adulterer, sexually immoral, idolater were all term used in reference to sexuality.Nice try Jay, Unfortunately Jesus' words weren't actually written until some time after his death, so it's more likely your getting one man's personal interpretation of what he said (which acounts for the discrepancies in the various gospels). You still can't convince me that a man who would wash the feet of a beggar and embrace lepers would condone the shunning of someone for their sexual preference.

Jesus also never said that it was wrong to post child pornography on the internet. Does that make it right?

That's just silly. The framers of the US Constitution never wrote laws on it either, does that make it ok?

Given, the Constitution can be changed, while the Bible can't, although they both can, and have to be, interpreted in different ways.

Leviticus shuns homosexuality, as I'm sure we're all aware. It also shuns consumption of shellfish, and other limits we would today describe as unnecessary, or have completely overlooked. Where do we draw the line?Maybe I will just jump ahead to here, as this looks like a good place to start again. You are comparing two different things here. Both were shunned as sins, only one was directly countered by Jesus' words, as they were reported. In the gospel we find:

Matthew 15:11 - Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Now I would like to see a verse that counters Leviticus' statement about homosexuality.

and oddly enough, exodus plainly says that killing a fetus is not equal to murder.

Really?? Wow! Which verse?

exodus 21:22-25

its about men fighting and hitting a pregnant woman, causing her "to lose her offspring" (that's what the hebrew word in the original means). if that happens but the woman is ok, the offender has to pay a fine. if the woman isn't he has to pay eye for eye, tooth for tooth.

Nice try Jay, Unfortunately Jesus' words weren't actually written until some time after his death, so it's more likely your getting one man's personal interpretation of what he said (which acounts for the discrepancies in the various gospels). You still can't convince me that a man who would wash the feet of a beggar and embrace lepers would condone the shunning of someone for their sexual preference.And you would be correct in that. A person who has the desire to go out and murder someone, but does not do so, has committed no crime. Unless, of course, you look at it, through the view of the statement, even as the idea enters the mind, the sin is committed. That is one of Jesus' teachings as well.

Wash the feet of a beggar: Improve his outlook towards life.
Embrace the Lepers: Take away their disease.

Neither of these things, are things, that a person intentionally does to themself, that can cause harm to come to their bodies. Nor is either of these things directly mentioned as being a sin.

It's simple: Liberals Christians are not real Christians. They rework the Bible to suit their social prejudices. Everything to do with what they perceive as love and compassion in the Bible is exalted and everything that is exclusionary is deleted.

Trying to find a real Liberal Christian is like trying to find a real Liberal patriot - both constructions are oxymorons.

To me it goes a little like this.

Jesus comes back today:

The pro-choice crowd says, "Teacher, tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "People who commit murder, then ask to be upheld to mankind, as being correct, in the action of directly breaking one of my father's commandments."

The homosexual community comes to Him and ask, "Teacher tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "Weren't you told that for a man to lie with a man as he lies with a woman, was a sin? Here you have asked to be upheld to mankind as being correct. I might as well tell mankind, that the more sinful you can chose to be, the closer it brings you to my father's home."

I just believe that if either of these issues, were put to the full religious test, they would not be met with raving approval. So let the liberal thinking person claim to be Christian. I will wait to see Christ Jesus claim the liberal views on these two issues.
First off, abortion is not a crime yet, so "murder" is out of the question?

Second, are liberals not able to "claim to be Christian"?

Third, do you think Jesus will judge conservatives differently than liberals?

Fourth, in another thread you made the following statement:

"In case you missed it I do declare myself to be against the killing of humans at any stage of their life."

Is it ok for coalition troops to kill innocent men, women and children in Iraq?

It's simple: Liberals Christians are not real Christians. They rework the Bible to suit their social prejudices.

pot, kettle. black you say?

Jesus also never said that it was wrong to post child pornography on the internet. Does that make it right?

That's just silly. The framers of the US Constitution never wrote laws on it either, does that make it ok?

Given, the Constitution can be changed, while the Bible can't, although they both can, and have to be, interpreted in different ways.Nice way of pulling one comment out of context, but we will just look at your reply in it's entire form.

You are totally right, the Bible can not be changed. The Bible can also be interpreted differently. So when one thing is said, at any point in the Bible, and it is not later said that it no longer applies, it must be looked upon as a continuance of the original statement. Sorry but there is no interpretation that shows homosexuality to not still be a sin. As plainly as it was stated to be a sin in Leviticus.

Nice try Jay, Unfortunately Jesus' words weren't actually written until some time after his death, so it's more likely your getting one man's personal interpretation of what he said (which acounts for the discrepancies in the various gospels). You still can't convince me that a man who would wash the feet of a beggar and embrace lepers would condone the shunning of someone for their sexual preference.And you would be correct in that. A person who has the desire to go out and murder someone, but does not do so, has committed no crime. Unless, of course, you look at it, through the view of the statement, even as the idea enters the mind, the sin is committed. That is one of Jesus' teachings as well.

Wash the feet of a beggar: Improve his outlook towards life.
Embrace the Lepers: Take away their disease.

Neither of these things, are things, that a person intentionally does to themself, that can cause harm to come to their bodies. Nor is either of these things directly mentioned as being a sin.You still don't get it Jay, the man was a champion for the oppressed, he wouldn't have condoned the persecution of anyone, including homosexuals.

And don't try to use that AIDS/STD thing that you were implying with that 'cause harm to their bodies' quip, More people have died though the centuries from heterosexually transmitted STD than homosexual, even with the AIDS epidemic (smallpox killed alot, but the large pox of the middle ages was actually syphillis and rightly more feared).

ok, i've read some posts about the whole abortion & gay rights stuff. first of all, i once was pro-choice, until i learned more of the churchs' teachings and reasons for being pro-life. see, the thing w/ catholicism is that we have reason behind everything, and you can find it in the catechism. so, to qoute the catechism:
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. from the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person-among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. Jer 1:5 Job 10:8-12 Ps 22:10-11

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. Ps 139:15

then it goes on for another page & a half, but that is the first part taken from scripture, the rest was brought through councils over the years. the churhc has held this stance since the 1st century.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of great depravity, (Gen 19:1-29/Rom 1:24-27/Cor 6:10/Tim 1:10) tradition has alwaysdeclared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. *They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.* These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficultyies they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

that's why i think it is wrong to not give same-sex couples the sme rights as married couples. even if its not called 'marraige' they should be afforded such things as next-of-kin status and the ability to file joint-taxes. sorry this post is so long.

and oddly enough, exodus plainly says that killing a fetus is not equal to murder.

Really?? Wow! Which verse?

exodus 21:22-25

its about men fighting and hitting a pregnant woman, causing her "to lose her offspring" (that's what the hebrew word in the original means). if that happens but the woman is ok, the offender has to pay a fine. if the woman isn't he has to pay eye for eye, tooth for tooth.Wonder if that could have anything to do with the idea of not being able to compensate a dead person for the loss of the life within?

To me it goes a little like this.

Jesus comes back today:

The pro-choice crowd says, "Teacher, tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "People who commit murder, then ask to be upheld to mankind, as being correct, in the action of directly breaking one of my father's commandments."

The homosexual community comes to Him and ask, "Teacher tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "Weren't you told that for a man to lie with a man as he lies with a woman, was a sin? Here you have asked to be upheld to mankind as being correct. I might as well tell mankind, that the more sinful you can chose to be, the closer it brings you to my father's home."

I just believe that if either of these issues, were put to the full religious test, they would not be met with raving approval. So let the liberal thinking person claim to be Christian. I will wait to see Christ Jesus claim the liberal views on these two issues.
First off, abortion is not a crime yet, so "murder" is out of the question?

Second, are liberals not able to "claim to be Christian"?

Third, do you think Jesus will judge conservatives differently than liberals?

Fourth, in another thread you made the following statement:

"In case you missed it I do declare myself to be against the killing of humans at any stage of their life."

Is it ok for coalition troops to kill innocent men, women and children in Iraq?
I trust that you do have answers Jay?

exodus 21:22-25

its about men fighting and hitting a pregnant woman, causing her "to lose her offspring" (that's what the hebrew word in the original means). if that happens but the woman is ok, the offender has to pay a fine. if the woman isn't he has to pay eye for eye, tooth for tooth.Wonder if that could have anything to do with the idea of not being able to compensate a dead person for the loss of the life within?

if the man seriously injures the woman he will have to pay an eye for an eye. if she dies he will be killed. the fetus, however, is merely worth a monetary fine. surely you can see the different value scales being used.

A REAL christian is someone who believes that Jesus came to earth, was sinless, and died to save us. If he or she is gay, pro-choice, drug addict, democrat, republican, socialist, or fascist. Then they are living in sin, but they are still Christian. Labels like "Liberal" and "REAL Christians" just confuse people and create stereotypes. :wink:

To me it goes a little like this.

Jesus comes back today:

The pro-choice crowd says, "Teacher, tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "People who commit murder, then ask to be upheld to mankind, as being correct, in the action of directly breaking one of my father's commandments."

The homosexual community comes to Him and ask, "Teacher tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "Weren't you told that for a man to lie with a man as he lies with a woman, was a sin? Here you have asked to be upheld to mankind as being correct. I might as well tell mankind, that the more sinful you can chose to be, the closer it brings you to my father's home."

I just believe that if either of these issues, were put to the full religious test, they would not be met with raving approval. So let the liberal thinking person claim to be Christian. I will wait to see Christ Jesus claim the liberal views on these two issues.
First off, abortion is not a crime yet, so "murder" is out of the question?

Second, are liberals not able to "claim to be Christian"?

Third, do you think Jesus will judge conservatives differently than liberals?

Fourth, in another thread you made the following statement:

"In case you missed it I do declare myself to be against the killing of humans at any stage of their life."

Is it ok for coalition troops to kill innocent men, women and children in Iraq?
1.) I am not talking about the legal terms here. I am talking about what I can imagine happening, should Jesus return today.

2.) Christian is a person who follows Christ teachings. When they can show me a passage that condones abortion and/or homosexuality, then they will be following Christ. Until then, we can only wait and see.

3.) No everyone will be judged the same. In my opinion, that will be based on how well you do at not committing sin. Also, in my opinion, that will have to do with how well you did about not intentionally committing that which you have been told was a sin.

4.) I stand behind what I said. I am against the taking of human life at any stage. The Bible teaches that a person should defend themself from harm. So if placed in harms way, I would take the life of another, only to preserve mine. I would then ask for forgiveness for myself and the person I killed.
Jesus said there would be wars. Guess what, in wars, innocent people get killed. I don't know of any war in the history of man where there were no innocent lives lost. Do I feel as if it is right for soldiers to kill innocents? Not if it is intentional. If it is unintentional, then it isn't the same thing. Just the same as I feel about abortions. It is not right to kill intentionally.

The child is a thing of God's.

Here's compassion for you. What a horrible way of looking at what you insist is already a living being.

Frankly, I prefer to look at people as belonging to themselves. I also don't care for any ideology founded upon the notion of the soul as a separate and possibly pre-existing entity. If Christianity is right, then that would make the world a metaphysical 'factory' to create souls, through decisions and actions. We grow into people. Christianically, that could well be what the universe is 'for'. I don't think I've ever read another answer to "And God created the universe... Why?"

If the soul is something which arises out of thinking beings, rather than being rather unnecessarily implanted in, then terminating a foetus is not murder. It may be a regrettable decision, for the suffering it inflicts upon the potential mother, but it's better than condemning an unwilling parent and potential child to an unhappy life.

Yes, my mother was definitely considering abortion at one point. Yes, I still feel she would have done no wrong by going for that option, and no, I don't think she would have been 'taking' anything from me in the process- I wouldn't have been there at the time to have anything taken from.

Back to your regularly scheduled topic:

Of course liberal Christians are real. Jesus would have looked upon most compassionless Right Wingers in his church with utter horror and disgust.
Actually, rendering unto God that which is God's probably refers to moral judgement as opposed to legal- in other words, help people when they ask for it or need it, give advice, and obey just laws... but don't stomp around pointing at non-Christians or people you don't agree with and shouting "Sinner! Burn in hell!"

If homosexuals are sinners for having relationships that God disapproves of, then it's up to God to tell them so, not you. Personally, if he exists, and if he really is perfect and omnipresent, I'd be surprised to find him that petty-minded, wouldn't you?

Nice try Jay, Unfortunately Jesus' words weren't actually written until some time after his death, so it's more likely your getting one man's personal interpretation of what he said (which acounts for the discrepancies in the various gospels). You still can't convince me that a man who would wash the feet of a beggar and embrace lepers would condone the shunning of someone for their sexual preference.And you would be correct in that. A person who has the desire to go out and murder someone, but does not do so, has committed no crime. Unless, of course, you look at it, through the view of the statement, even as the idea enters the mind, the sin is committed. That is one of Jesus' teachings as well.

Wash the feet of a beggar: Improve his outlook towards life.
Embrace the Lepers: Take away their disease.

Neither of these things, are things, that a person intentionally does to themself, that can cause harm to come to their bodies. Nor is either of these things directly mentioned as being a sin.You still don't get it Jay, the man was a champion for the oppressed, he wouldn't have condoned the persecution of anyone, including homosexuals.

And don't try to use that AIDS/STD thing that you were implying with that 'cause harm to their bodies' quip, More people have died though the centuries from heterosexually transmitted STD than homosexual, even with the AIDS epidemic (smallpox killed alot, but the large pox of the middle ages was actually syphillis and rightly more feared).I do believe that it is you who is not getting it. I have not said that Jesus would condone the persecution of anyone. Nor did I say he would persecute anyone himself.

As for your AIDS/STD remark, I did not say anything towards those. Just for the record though if you care to compare, you will find that there is no comparison between something happening "over the centuries" to something that hasn't even been known for a century. My comment was only implying that a person is putting themself at a higher risk for harm. Tearing of the lining of the anus does not happen when things are not forced into it. Scratches, from the teeth, to the pubic area, does not happen if oral sex is not practiced. Thus the homosexual is at a higher risk of causing harm to their body.

Leviticus shuns homosexuality, as I'm sure we're all aware. It also shuns consumption of shellfish, and other limits we would today describe as unnecessary, or have completely overlooked. Where do we draw the line?Maybe I will just jump ahead to here, as this looks like a good place to start again. You are comparing two different things here. Both were shunned as sins, only one was directly countered by Jesus' words, as they were reported. In the gospel we find:

Matthew 15:11 - Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Now I would like to see a verse that counters Leviticus' statement about homosexuality.Well, there's the principles that Jesus replaced the law with, mentioned in Matthew 22:37-40. "You must love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this. You must love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Now if these two commandments are in essence the Law--if the Law and the Prophets hang upon these commandments--then the Levitical prohibitions are null and void, and Christians are only truly required to follow these. Christians must love God and love their neighbors. End of story. Now if Jesus said elsewhere that you should love God and love your neighbor unless he's a dirty gay, then I'd like to see it.

To me it goes a little like this.

Jesus comes back today:

The pro-choice crowd says, "Teacher, tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "People who commit murder, then ask to be upheld to mankind, as being correct, in the action of directly breaking one of my father's commandments."

The homosexual community comes to Him and ask, "Teacher tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "Weren't you told that for a man to lie with a man as he lies with a woman, was a sin? Here you have asked to be upheld to mankind as being correct. I might as well tell mankind, that the more sinful you can chose to be, the closer it brings you to my father's home."

I just believe that if either of these issues, were put to the full religious test, they would not be met with raving approval. So let the liberal thinking person claim to be Christian. I will wait to see Christ Jesus claim the liberal views on these two issues.
First off, abortion is not a crime yet, so "murder" is out of the question?

Second, are liberals not able to "claim to be Christian"?

Third, do you think Jesus will judge conservatives differently than liberals?

Fourth, in another thread you made the following statement:

"In case you missed it I do declare myself to be against the killing of humans at any stage of their life."

Is it ok for coalition troops to kill innocent men, women and children in Iraq?
I trust that you do have answers Jay?Sorry but as I explained earlier in this same thread I have a tendancy to answer questions in the order they come.

exodus 21:22-25

its about men fighting and hitting a pregnant woman, causing her "to lose her offspring" (that's what the hebrew word in the original means). if that happens but the woman is ok, the offender has to pay a fine. if the woman isn't he has to pay eye for eye, tooth for tooth.Wonder if that could have anything to do with the idea of not being able to compensate a dead person for the loss of the life within?

if the man seriously injures the woman he will have to pay an eye for an eye. if she dies he will be killed. the fetus, however, is merely worth a monetary fine. surely you can see the different value scales being used.Just as it is in our society today. If you are involved in a fight and strike a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry her baby, you face a fine. (Unless you live in one of the States that have fetus rights now). If you are in a fight and you hit a any woman, pregnant or not, and kill her then you can be facing the death penalty. If pregnant you may even be facing additional charges (if you live in one of the afforementioned States).

A REAL christian is someone who believes that Jesus came to earth, was sinless, and died to save us. If he or she is gay, pro-choice, drug addict, democrat, republican, socialist, or fascist. Then they are living in sin, but they are still Christian. Labels like "Liberal" and "REAL Christians" just confuse people and create stereotypes. :wink:Exactly. If they chose to live in sin, that is their right, as I have been saying all along. I have only stated that I believe the two main topics here to both be sins.

The child is a thing of God's.

Here's compassion for you. What a horrible way of looking at what you insist is already a living being.

Frankly, I prefer to look at people as belonging to themselves. I also don't care for any ideology founded upon the notion of the soul as a separate and possibly pre-existing entity. If Christianity is right, then that would make the world a metaphysical 'factory' to create souls, through decisions and actions. We grow into people. Christianically, that could well be what the universe is 'for'. I don't think I've ever read another answer to "And God created the universe... Why?"

If the soul is something which arises out of thinking beings, rather than being rather unnecessarily implanted in, then terminating a foetus is not murder. It may be a regrettable decision, for the suffering it inflicts upon the potential mother, but it's better than condemning an unwilling parent and potential child to an unhappy life.

Yes, my mother was definitely considering abortion at one point. Yes, I still feel she would have done no wrong by going for that option, and no, I don't think she would have been 'taking' anything from me in the process- I wouldn't have been there at the time to have anything taken from.

Back to your regularly scheduled topic:

Of course liberal Christians are real. Jesus would have looked upon most compassionless Right Wingers in his church with utter horror and disgust.
Actually, rendering unto God that which is God's probably refers to moral judgement as opposed to legal- in other words, help people when they ask for it or need it, give advice, and obey just laws... but don't stomp around pointing at non-Christians or people you don't agree with and shouting "Sinner! Burn in hell!"

If homosexuals are sinners for having relationships that God disapproves of, then it's up to God to tell them so, not you. Personally, if he exists, and if he really is perfect and omnipresent, I'd be surprised to find him that petty-minded, wouldn't you?Right you are. God shall do the judging, not man. I have told no one that they would burn in hell. Compassionless? If you have done this to the least of one of these, you have done it to me.
My opinion, an embryo is the least form of human life. Therefore it only makes sense not to kill it.

Leviticus shuns homosexuality, as I'm sure we're all aware. It also shuns consumption of shellfish, and other limits we would today describe as unnecessary, or have completely overlooked. Where do we draw the line?Maybe I will just jump ahead to here, as this looks like a good place to start again. You are comparing two different things here. Both were shunned as sins, only one was directly countered by Jesus' words, as they were reported. In the gospel we find:

Matthew 15:11 - Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Now I would like to see a verse that counters Leviticus' statement about homosexuality.Well, there's the principles that Jesus replaced the law with, mentioned in Matthew 22:37-40. "You must love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this. You must love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Now if these two commandments are in essence the Law--if the Law and the Prophets hang upon these commandments--then the Levitical prohibitions are null and void, and Christians are only truly required to follow these. Christians must love God and love their neighbors. End of story. Now if Jesus said elsewhere that you should love God and love your neighbor unless he's a dirty gay, then I'd like to see it.Your comment only makes sense if you interchange the word Love with the phrase "have sex with". The Levitican Law states that man who lies with man as he lies with woman is committing a sin. That is an action not a person. You can love the sinner and hate the sin.

Well, there's the principles that Jesus replaced the law with, mentioned in Matthew 22:37-40. "You must love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this. You must love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Now if these two commandments are in essence the Law--if the Law and the Prophets hang upon these commandments--then the Levitical prohibitions are null and void, and Christians are only truly required to follow these. Christians must love God and love their neighbors. End of story. Now if Jesus said elsewhere that you should love God and love your neighbor unless he's a dirty gay, then I'd like to see it.Your comment only makes sense if you interchange the word Love with the phrase "have sex with". The Levitican Law states that man who lies with man as he lies with woman is committing a sin. That is an action not a person. You can love the sinner and hate the sin.No no no no no. Jesus said that the two commandments that he there stated--love your god with all you have and love your neighbor as yourself--restated the law, which to a Jewish audience would have meant the Levitical law, including the dietary restrictions and the ancient customs including marrying your brother's wife in order to keep his bloodline going and, yes, all the many and varied sexual restrictions, including not only the homosexuality prohibition, but also the uncleanness surrounding the menstrual cycle and so on.

Jesus basically invalidated the Levitical law and replaced it with those dual principles--Love your God with everything and love your neighbor as yourself. All else is now superflous detail.

Who in the jevus what now?

Well, there's the principles that Jesus replaced the law with, mentioned in Matthew 22:37-40. "You must love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this. You must love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Now if these two commandments are in essence the Law--if the Law and the Prophets hang upon these commandments--then the Levitical prohibitions are null and void, and Christians are only truly required to follow these. Christians must love God and love their neighbors. End of story. Now if Jesus said elsewhere that you should love God and love your neighbor unless he's a dirty gay, then I'd like to see it.Your comment only makes sense if you interchange the word Love with the phrase "have sex with". The Levitican Law states that man who lies with man as he lies with woman is committing a sin. That is an action not a person. You can love the sinner and hate the sin.No no no no no. Jesus said that the two commandments that he there stated--love your god with all you have and love your neighbor as yourself--restated the law, which to a Jewish audience would have meant the Levitical law, including the dietary restrictions and the ancient customs including marrying your brother's wife in order to keep his bloodline going and, yes, all the many and varied sexual restrictions, including not only the homosexuality prohibition, but also the uncleanness surrounding the menstrual cycle and so on.

Jesus basically invalidated the Levitical law and replaced it with those dual principles--Love your God with everything and love your neighbor as yourself. All else is now superflous detail.The verse you so proudly have used, was a reply to a question. Master what is the greatest commandment? He listed the two that lead the pack. In now way does he say that all Levitican Law is overturned. As he did when he made the remark about nothing going into the mouth causes sin only that which comes out. That sets a presedent for how Jesus stated the overturning or nullifying of a Levitican Law. It isn't done for the whole slate.

Well, there's the principles that Jesus replaced the law with, mentioned in Matthew 22:37-40. "You must love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this. You must love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Now if these two commandments are in essence the Law--if the Law and the Prophets hang upon these commandments--then the Levitical prohibitions are null and void, and Christians are only truly required to follow these. Christians must love God and love their neighbors. End of story. Now if Jesus said elsewhere that you should love God and love your neighbor unless he's a dirty gay, then I'd like to see it.Your comment only makes sense if you interchange the word Love with the phrase "have sex with". The Levitican Law states that man who lies with man as he lies with woman is committing a sin. That is an action not a person. You can love the sinner and hate the sin.No no no no no. Jesus said that the two commandments that he there stated--love your god with all you have and love your neighbor as yourself--restated the law, which to a Jewish audience would have meant the Levitical law, including the dietary restrictions and the ancient customs including marrying your brother's wife in order to keep his bloodline going and, yes, all the many and varied sexual restrictions, including not only the homosexuality prohibition, but also the uncleanness surrounding the menstrual cycle and so on.

Jesus basically invalidated the Levitical law and replaced it with those dual principles--Love your God with everything and love your neighbor as yourself. All else is now superflous detail.You may just be hung up on that part about On these two commandments the whole law hangs. That just means that all the other laws are based upon these two. Not that they are nullified by these two.

The verse you so proudly have used, was a reply to a question. Master what is the greatest commandment? He listed the two that lead the pack. In now way does he say that all Levitican Law is overturned. As he did when he made the remark about nothing going into the mouth causes sin only that which comes out. That sets a presedent for how Jesus stated the overturning or nullifying of a Levitican Law. It isn't done for the whole slate.
"On these two commandments the whole Law hangs." In other words, the idea of the Levitical law could be summed up with "love god with everything and love your neighbor as yourself." All the rest is just window dressing, silly little rules that have little or no effect on whether or not God finds favor with you.

Assuming for a moment that the God of the Bible is the only Creator of all things and the only one through who eternal salvation can be attained--and that is a great assumption to be making--it would seem logical that were He concerned about such a thing as worship in the first place, He'd be more concerned that people were giving it their all than what they were doing in their every day lives. Certainly Jesus seemed to have that attitude if the Gospels are in any way accurate. The key to Jesus' message was love--love God, love your neighbor, but most importantly, love. Any doctrine that preaches hatred or condemnation over what may well be genetically influenced runs contrary to the nature and spirit of the teachings that Jesus espoused.

Very interesting argument that just because Jesus DIDN'T condone something, it's not allowed. He would get a lot of questions if he came back today:



"Jesus, is it a sin to burn lots of gas to drive my SUV to work every day?"

JESUS: "SUV...?"

"Jesus, do people who spam on the Internet go to Hell?"

JESUS: "Spam on the what now?"

"Jesus, is it a sin to do genetic engineering research with the hopes of treating neurological diseases?"

JESUS: "... ... um ... I can turn water into wine. Wanna see?"



The word of Jesus was applicable to the society that he lived in. It doesn't have much relevance in today's world. To only do things that Jesus specifically condoned would mean that we wouldn't be allowed to do very much at all.

Oh no, I eat Lobster, I live in sin, I'm going to hell..

That's in Leviticus too..

See how stupid it is? :?

Any doctrine that preaches hatred or condemnation over what may well be genetically influenced runs contrary to the nature and spirit of the teachings that Jesus espoused.So we find ourselves once again in the land of insinuations.

Have I shown hatred towards anyone? Nope even posted that I can love the sinner and hate the sin.

Have I condemned anyone? That is not in my power, nor would I want it to be.

Contrary to Jesus' teachings? I only follow what I believe to be true of what Jesus said and did not say.

Any doctrine that preaches hatred or condemnation over what may well be genetically influenced runs contrary to the nature and spirit of the teachings that Jesus espoused.So we find ourselves once again in the land of insinuations.

Have I shown hatred towards anyone? Nope even posted that I can love the sinner and hate the sin.

Have I condemned anyone? That is not in my power, nor would I want it to be.

Contrary to Jesus' teachings? I only follow what I believe to be true of what Jesus said and did not say.I wasn't speaking specifically of you, Jay--sorry if it came off that way. But there are many who claim to be Biblical absolutists and followers of Christ who teach that to be homosexual is an abomination and that they deserve to die. And since Jesus was first and foremost a preacher of love, then any doctrine that promoted hate must be necessarily in conflict with his teaching.

Oh no, I eat Lobster, I live in sin, I'm going to hell..

That's in Leviticus too..

See how stupid it is? :?Steph you should have looked back a little bit first. I have already posted the verse that changed that Levitican Law. It is the one that goes something like this. Nothing that is put into a man's mouth causes him to sin. Only that which comes out. The Lobster thing was over turned in full.

Any doctrine that preaches hatred or condemnation over what may well be genetically influenced runs contrary to the nature and spirit of the teachings that Jesus espoused.So we find ourselves once again in the land of insinuations.

Have I shown hatred towards anyone? Nope even posted that I can love the sinner and hate the sin.

Have I condemned anyone? That is not in my power, nor would I want it to be.

Contrary to Jesus' teachings? I only follow what I believe to be true of what Jesus said and did not say.I wasn't speaking specifically of you, Jay--sorry if it came off that way. But there are many who claim to be Biblical absolutists and followers of Christ who teach that to be homosexual is an abomination and that they deserve to die. And since Jesus was first and foremost a preacher of love, then any doctrine that promoted hate must be necessarily in conflict with his teaching.Ok just took things a little wrong there. And to top it all I agree with you on this. The preachers of hatred are not following the teachings of Jesus.

Oh no, I eat Lobster, I live in sin, I'm going to hell..

That's in Leviticus too..

See how stupid it is? :?Steph you should have looked back a little bit first. I have already posted the verse that changed that Levitican Law. It is the one that goes something like this. Nothing that is put into a man's mouth causes him to sin. Only that which comes out. The Lobster thing was over turned in full.

So, umm they just changed it did they. Just like that. "We don't like that part of the bible any more, lets change it" Cause that's what has been done since the book came out. So, to say any thing in the book can be taken "literally" is pure silliness. You don't know how many people over the ages have messed with that book, I assure it's been more then we can count though.

Wouldn't the real secret to life be living what you feel is right and wrong? Not taking a book that's been messed with more times then we can count too literally? Don't you think if there is a god, that's what you will be judged on, not how well you followed a book that may or may not even be true?

Oh no, I eat Lobster, I live in sin, I'm going to hell..

That's in Leviticus too..

See how stupid it is? :?Steph you should have looked back a little bit first. I have already posted the verse that changed that Levitican Law. It is the one that goes something like this. Nothing that is put into a man's mouth causes him to sin. Only that which comes out. The Lobster thing was over turned in full.

So, umm they just changed it did they. Just like that. "We don't like that part of the bible any more, lets change it" Cause that's what has been done since the book came out. So, to say any thing in the book can be taken "literally" is pure silliness. You don't know how many people over the ages have messed with that book, I assure it's been more then we can count though.

Wouldn't the real secret to life be living what you feel is right and wrong? Not taking a book that's been messed with more times then we can count too literally? Don't you think if there is a god, that's what you will be judged on, not how well you followed a book that may or may not even be true?That little change was a quote from Jesus. Being a believer I take a change like that seriously. Given the Bible has undergone many changes, but then again so has mankind. My opinion on what you will be judged on was stated before but I will state it here again. I believe that all will be judged equally by God, not by any man. I believe that the judgement will be based on how well a person did about not sinning. I also beleive that the judgement will be based on how well you did about not intentionally doing something after you have been told it is a sin. I don't think it has anything to do with what I "feel" is right and wrong. I do think it will have more to do with what I know, from my readings and other learning, to be right and wrong.

Oh no, I eat Lobster, I live in sin, I'm going to hell..

That's in Leviticus too..

See how stupid it is? :?Steph you should have looked back a little bit first. I have already posted the verse that changed that Levitican Law. It is the one that goes something like this. Nothing that is put into a man's mouth causes him to sin. Only that which comes out. The Lobster thing was over turned in full.

So, umm they just changed it did they. Just like that. "We don't like that part of the bible any more, lets change it" Cause that's what has been done since the book came out. So, to say any thing in the book can be taken "literally" is pure silliness. You don't know how many people over the ages have messed with that book, I assure it's been more then we can count though.

Wouldn't the real secret to life be living what you feel is right and wrong? Not taking a book that's been messed with more times then we can count too literally? Don't you think if there is a god, that's what you will be judged on, not how well you followed a book that may or may not even be true?That little change was a quote from Jesus. Being a believer I take a change like that seriously. Given the Bible has undergone many changes, but then again so has mankind. My opinion on what you will be judged on was stated before but I will state it here again. I believe that all will be judged equally by God, not by any man. I believe that the judgement will be based on how well a person did about not sinning. I also beleive that the judgement will be based on how well you did about not intentionally doing something after you have been told it is a sin. I don't think it has anything to do with what I "feel" is right and wrong. I do think it will have more to do with what I know, from my readings and other learning, to be right and wrong.

Well, I'm an atheist.. and I'm a good person. If I'm wrong and there happens to turn out to be some sort of big head dude/dudette.. I would think if the being is really all that enlightened.. it will understand why I didn't believe. But I don't believe I'm wrong..lol then again who ever does? ;)

Nothing that is put into a man's mouth causes him to sin.
I think it could be argued that this absolves gays, too...




'cause, you see...nevermind...

Oh no, I eat Lobster, I live in sin, I'm going to hell..

That's in Leviticus too..

See how stupid it is? :?Steph you should have looked back a little bit first. I have already posted the verse that changed that Levitican Law. It is the one that goes something like this. Nothing that is put into a man's mouth causes him to sin. Only that which comes out. The Lobster thing was over turned in full.

So, umm they just changed it did they. Just like that. "We don't like that part of the bible any more, lets change it" Cause that's what has been done since the book came out. So, to say any thing in the book can be taken "literally" is pure silliness. You don't know how many people over the ages have messed with that book, I assure it's been more then we can count though.

Wouldn't the real secret to life be living what you feel is right and wrong? Not taking a book that's been messed with more times then we can count too literally? Don't you think if there is a god, that's what you will be judged on, not how well you followed a book that may or may not even be true?That little change was a quote from Jesus. Being a believer I take a change like that seriously. Given the Bible has undergone many changes, but then again so has mankind. My opinion on what you will be judged on was stated before but I will state it here again. I believe that all will be judged equally by God, not by any man. I believe that the judgement will be based on how well a person did about not sinning. I also beleive that the judgement will be based on how well you did about not intentionally doing something after you have been told it is a sin. I don't think it has anything to do with what I "feel" is right and wrong. I do think it will have more to do with what I know, from my readings and other learning, to be right and wrong.

Well, I'm an atheist.. and I'm a good person. If I'm wrong and there happens to turn out to be some sort of big head dude/dudette.. I would think if the being is really all that enlightened.. it will understand why I didn't believe. But I don't believe I'm wrong..lol then again who ever does? ;)Hey Steph want to see a response that may surprize even you? Check this one out.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143221&start=20

It really is what I am all about.

Hey Steph want to see a response that may surprize even you? Check this one out.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143221&start=20

It really is what I am all about.

Good way to look at it, I certainly can't argue that.. every one has a right to believe as they wish.. :)

Hey Steph want to see a response that may surprize even you? Check this one out.
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143221&start=20

It really is what I am all about.

Good way to look at it, I certainly can't argue that.. every one has a right to believe as they wish.. :)See we can agree on somethings. Getting off here for tonight. Gotta check in on the site where I do the modding thing. Then to bed.

Nothing that is put into a man's mouth causes him to sin.
I think it could be argued that this absolves gays, too...




'cause, you see...nevermind...

i'm glad i wasn't the only one thinking it

That verse was a specific reply to a specific question about food, not homosexuality. In fact Jesus reaffirmed that things like adultery and fornication were wrong many times.

However, lets look at the story about the woman caught in adultery.

Jesus was presented with a woman who was caught in adultery, and was asked what they should do with her. Jesus, knowing the law, knew that they wanted him to condemn her to death (as the law commanded), thereby reaffirming the old law. Instead Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", then each of the men gathered left, their own hearts convicting them.

Does this mean that Jesus was sanctioning adultery? Of course not, next, he told the woman, "go, and sin no more". He reaffirmed that what she did was wrong but gave her another chance.

Jesus/God hates sin, but loves sinners. As Christians we are told to love people who hate and attack us, although this does not mean our persecuters are right.

In feudal Japan, people thought that the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" was full of crap. Does that mean that it is wrong? No, our social views should not determine what we think 'god really meant'. Let the Bible speak for itself.

Again, if you don't believe the Bible, what right do you have calling yourself a Christian?

God will punish sinners at the Judgement, our job here on Earth is to convict them of their sin by living as God wants us to live. A silent testimony of God's grace and mercy.

I would go so far as to say that "liberal" Christians are Christians more so than others.

I may be no biblical expert, but I'm pretty sure Jesus never said "Love thy fellow man as you love thyself, but only if he's a white, straight, conservative, and you will financially benefit from it".

I would go so far as to say that "liberal" Christians are Christians more so than others.

I may be no biblical expert, but I'm pretty sure Jesus never said "Love thy fellow man as you love thyself, but only if he's a white, straight, conservative, and you will financially benefit from it".

To me it goes a little like this.

Jesus comes back today:

The pro-choice crowd says, "Teacher, tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "People who commit murder, then ask to be upheld to mankind, as being correct, in the action of directly breaking one of my father's commandments."

The homosexual community comes to Him and ask, "Teacher tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "Weren't you told that for a man to lie with a man as he lies with a woman, was a sin? Here you have asked to be upheld to mankind as being correct. I might as well tell mankind, that the more sinful you can chose to be, the closer it brings you to my father's home."

I just believe that if either of these issues, were put to the full religious test, they would not be met with raving approval. So let the liberal thinking person claim to be Christian. I will wait to see Christ Jesus claim the liberal views on these two issues.
First off, abortion is not a crime yet, so "murder" is out of the question?

Second, are liberals not able to "claim to be Christian"?

Third, do you think Jesus will judge conservatives differently than liberals?

Fourth, in another thread you made the following statement:

"In case you missed it I do declare myself to be against the killing of humans at any stage of their life."

Is it ok for coalition troops to kill innocent men, women and children in Iraq?
1.) I am not talking about the legal terms here. I am talking about what I can imagine happening, should Jesus return today.

2.) Christian is a person who follows Christ teachings. When they can show me a passage that condones abortion and/or homosexuality, then they will be following Christ. Until then, we can only wait and see.

3.) No everyone will be judged the same. In my opinion, that will be based on how well you do at not committing sin. Also, in my opinion, that will have to do with how well you did about not intentionally committing that which you have been told was a sin.

4.) I stand behind what I said. I am against the taking of human life at any stage. The Bible teaches that a person should defend themself from harm. So if placed in harms way, I would take the life of another, only to preserve mine. I would then ask for forgiveness for myself and the person I killed.
Jesus said there would be wars. Guess what, in wars, innocent people get killed. I don't know of any war in the history of man where there were no innocent lives lost. Do I feel as if it is right for soldiers to kill innocents? Not if it is intentional. If it is unintentional, then it isn't the same thing. Just the same as I feel about abortions. It is not right to kill intentionally.
You seem to have more compassion for a child not yet born, than for the innocent child that has lost a mother, a father, a brother or a sister in a senseless immoral war, such as the war in Iraq. How can you feel jusification for judging others in this thread, when you support this bloody unnecessary war?

What does the Pope say about the war before it was launched? He said no to this war:

"And what are we to say of the threat of a war which could strike
Iraq, the land of the Prophets, a people already sorely tried by more
than 12 years of embargo?," he said.

"War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for
settling differences between nations," he said in a clear reference
to the military build-up for a possible U.S.-led war against Iraq.

"War itself is an attack on human life since it brings in its wake
suffering and death. The battle for peace is always a battle for
life," he said.

He said international law and diplomacy were the only means worthy of
resolving differences.

http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/6563.php

And what about Ramsey Clark's Letter to UN:

[i]"A military attack on Iraq is obviously criminal; completely inconsistent with urgent needs of the Peoples of the United Nations; unjustifiable on any legal or moral ground; irrational in light of the known facts; out of proportion to other existing threats of war and violence; and a dangerous adventure risking continuing conflict throughout the region and far beyond for years to come."

http://www.iacenter.org/rc_letter0902.htm

No matter what you may claim Jay, this is a war and innocent people are dying. Iraq was no threat to the US, and denial of the facts does not give you the right to stake out the moral high ground when it comes to "liberal" or "conservative" views of Christianity.

Some more voices against the war:

http://www.ippnw-europe.org/main/voices.htm

An interesting selection.

To me it goes a little like this.

Jesus comes back today:

The pro-choice crowd says, "Teacher, tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "People who commit murder, then ask to be upheld to mankind, as being correct, in the action of directly breaking one of my father's commandments."
I think part of this issue is of when is it murder? God doesn't say when life begins...maybe he left this out intentionally to give us some free room? (Note: Just for the record, I do believe abortion is immoral)

The homosexual community comes to Him and ask, "Teacher tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "Weren't you told that for a man to lie with a man as he lies with a woman, was a sin? Here you have asked to be upheld to mankind as being correct. I might as well tell mankind, that the more sinful you can chose to be, the closer it brings you to my father's home."
Christ warned about legalism, almost more than anything else. Anyway, I've never heard any Christian claim that homosexuality is "right". That would be a little...well, queer.[/quote]

I just believe that if either of these issues, were put to the full religious test, they would not be met with raving approval. So let the liberal thinking person claim to be Christian. I will wait to see Christ Jesus claim the liberal views on these two issues.
Your point is good: these two issues are pretty much the only two that the Bible disagrees with liberals on. I think the fact remains that if you follow Christ's teachings, you will most likely be labeled a liberal.

Contrary to Jesus' teachings? I only follow what I believe to be true of what Jesus said and did not say.
Good job! And that's how the Bible works! It's God's word as spoken to us. If he didn't want us to have different interepretations of what everything means, he wouldn't have made it like it is.

Christian is a person who follows Christ teachings. When they can show me a passage that condones abortion and/or homosexuality, then they will be following Christ.
Christ neither condemns nor condones either of those.

The Bible teaches that a person should defend themself from harm. So if placed in harms way, I would take the life of another, only to preserve mine.
GAAHHHH!! If this was true, Christ never would have died for our sins! This is exactly what the Bible does NOT teach!

Absolutely. I'm an extreme liberal and also a christian (I attend a Unitarian church). Christ's message was about love. Love for God, and love for your fellow human beings. He was about treating people as you would want to be treated. All people.

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24

Nuff said.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Oh no, I eat Lobster, I live in sin, I'm going to hell..

That's in Leviticus too..

See how stupid it is? :?Steph you should have looked back a little bit first. I have already posted the verse that changed that Levitican Law. It is the one that goes something like this. Nothing that is put into a man's mouth causes him to sin. Only that which comes out. The Lobster thing was over turned in full.

Okay, but what about Leviticus 19:19? It says you can't breed two species together, sow your field with two seeds, and wear clothes of blended fibers? Oh, you're a mule breeder who wears cotton/polyester blends and has a garden plot with tomatoes and squash in it? ROT IN HELL, SINNER!

No, seriously, you can't take one piece of the law and then ignore the rest.

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24

Nuff said.

now we need to get people holding up signs saying matt 19:24 at all public events...

Nothing that is put into a man's mouth causes him to sin.
I think it could be argued that this absolves gays, too...




'cause, you see...nevermind...And since the second part of that quote says "but that which comes out of the mouth is what defiles a body," then swallowing...

umm, never mind :oops:

With respect to the homosexuality debate. . .

No, Jesus never once, in all his teachings that we know of, whether from the Gospels, or from 3rd-person accounts that mention him like Josephus Flavius or Tacitus, ever mentions homosexuality in any form. The quotation: "It is not what goes into a mouth that maketh a man impure but what comes out of it," has been interpreted many ways, but I have never heard one where it makes any difference in the homosexuality debate (although I have heard an interesting theory that Jesus was attempting a double entendre involving scatalogical humor). He does mention sexual desecration, but is not especially specific on what exactly that is, so it would be foolish to point it out and say: "Aha! He must be talking about those dirty fags (pardon the vulgarity, I'm trying to make a point here)!"

Likewise, Paul also talks about sexual licentiousness, but again, it is not entirely clear whether homosexuality is the culprit or not. The verse in question is in Romans, where he talks about orgies in which women are with women and men are with men, and how God gives them up. The problem is that in this case, the behavior performed by the people that the Lord has given up is completely antithetitical to the behavior of homosexual couples today. If anything, what should be apparent is that the concept of homosexuality as we know it, comprised of two people of the same gender forming a lasting pair-bond, and what Paul was talking about, in this case a group of people of either same or opposite genders engaging in mad, meaningless monkey love, are two very different things.

As such, it's just as easy to interpret his attack not on sex with the same gender, as if these people might have been saved had their sex bender been purely hetero, but that the real attack was on engaging in rampant sex of any sort constantly and without any emotional attachment. That would accord quite nicely with both what Paul said, and the underlying Platonic/Aristotelian background that the young Christian church came out of. Saying its all about homosexuality is nothing more than applying contemporary mores to a text where he may well have not been talking about that at all.

I also beleive that the judgement will be based on how well you did about not intentionally doing something after you have been told it is a sin. I don't think it has anything to do with what I "feel" is right and wrong. I do think it will have more to do with what I know, from my readings and other learning, to be right and wrong.

Except the Bible specifically says that you won't be saved by works.

I would like to know what you think of slavery and some of the non-homosexuality OT laws. Leviticus says if I poke my slave's eye out I have to free him. If I kill him on purpose, it is murder but if I kill him by accident or he lives for a few days - he was just my property so it doesn't matter anyways. If I kill another's slave - I have to give him a cow. If I am raped in a rural area, I have not sinned - it was all the guy's fault. But if I am raped in a city and was not rescued - I obviously wanted it and deserve to be punished along with the rapist. Do you really think these were the words of God?

Leviticus shuns homosexuality, as I'm sure we're all aware. It also shuns consumption of shellfish, and other limits we would today describe as unnecessary, or have completely overlooked. Where do we draw the line?

that and the previous point were actually intelligent. way to go, m'boy!or girl!

Leviticus also says you should not wear clothes made of more than one kind of cloth, for that is a sin against god. Now, everyone who's wearing anything with both cotton and polyester, or maybe even two different kinds of cotton (blue jeans) is in violation of that. You're also not supposed to cut the hair on your temple, or your beard if you're a male.

I guess I'm going to hell, because I commonly wear blue jeans, cut the hair on my temple and I shave where my beard would go. Not to mention that I did lots of work over both days of this weekend, violating the sabbath rule.
I'm a sinner. Yep.

Except the Bible specifically says that you won't be saved by works. Actually, the Bible just says that you won't be saved by works alone. The book of James notes that "faith without works is dead."

Except the Bible specifically says that you won't be saved by works. Actually, the Bible just says that you won't be saved by works alone. The book of James notes that "faith without works is dead."

But works without faith would be equally dead. And Jay W stated that he thinks we will be judged on how well we do at not sinning. It would be very possible for someone to avoid sinning, but still not have faith.

Except the Bible specifically says that you won't be saved by works. Actually, the Bible just says that you won't be saved by works alone. The book of James notes that "faith without works is dead."

But works without faith would be equally dead. And Jay W stated that he thinks we will be judged on how well we do at not sinning. It would be very possible for someone to avoid sinning, but still not have faith.So..........what does that tell us? That it's the combination of the two that matters.

Look, I'm not a believer--just a schmo who was raised in a very bible-centric church. That's why I can quote scripture. But I'm not going to get into this kind of debate with anyone because, as my daddy used to say, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I'd be debating over something that has no real meaning to me. So I'm leaving this particular point where it is. Have fun if someone else wants to take this up with you.

I don't think it has anything to do with what I "feel" is right and wrong. I do think it will have more to do with what I know, from my readings and other learning, to be right and wrong.

I've been meaning to ask someone who believes this for a while now. Let us speak hypothetically. Am am in no way implying that I think anything like this would ever happen or anything like that. I just want to know what you'd do in this situation.

What would you do if for whatever reason you were convinced that God wanted you to kill a certain, sweet, innocent, four year old little God-loving girl at your church?

Please play along with the scenerio. I know that it in no way is going to happen, but I want to know what you would do. Thanks in advance, and sorry for asking such a strange and hard question.

EDIT: Assume that this is not some sort of test.

I don't think it has anything to do with what I "feel" is right and wrong. I do think it will have more to do with what I know, from my readings and other learning, to be right and wrong.

I've been meaning to ask someone who believes this for a while now. Let us speak hypothetically. Am am in no way implying that I think anything like this would ever happen or anything like that. I just want to know what you'd do in this situation.

What would you do if for whatever reason you were convinced that God wanted you to kill a certain, sweet, innocent, four year old little God-loving girl at your church?

Please play along with the scenerio. I know that it in no way is going to happen, but I want to know what you would do. Thanks in advance, and sorry for asking such a strange and hard question.
I would definitely have to refuse, and it wouldn't have to be a cute girl either. I would need medical care I am sure. I believe that by refusing, God would tell me that I had passed the test! :lol:

I believe that by refusing, God would tell me that I had passed the test! :lol:

i don't know, that god character is a tricky bastard.

Amending my previous question, assume that it is not a test or any sort.

Thanks Jay W, sorry if the snap about 'thing of God' got under my skin a bit- it's just the phrase irritated me.

I doubt we'll ever agree on this sort of issue- you've made your point about considering the foetus the "least of me", which you plainly sincerely believe, and I equally sincerely believe that it's an organic construct with the potential for life, but not something to which I'd ascribe rights or sentience.

We're unlikely to change each other's opinions on this at all- but then, I doubt many people are ever going to have their views altered significantly by the witticisms, arguments, flame-wars, or other remarks on a discussion site. What it is good for, though, is learning about other people's points of view.

For instance, I find it irritating that (in my view) many right-wing Christians seem unable to distinguish between their religion's ideal of an omnipotent, loving God, and Iain Paisley with superpowers. You, on the other hand, give the impression that you find it annoying (sorry to put words in your mouth, feel free to refute, I'm just constructing an example) that people 'use' religion to justify themselves, taking what they want of the message, and writing off or willfully reinterpreting the bits they find offensive. I would argue that's the whole point, and so on and so forth.

Amending my previous question, assume that it is not a test or any sort.
Then my life would be forfeited :cry:

But seriously, why would God ask such of an individual?

The verse you so proudly have used, was a reply to a question. Master what is the greatest commandment? He listed the two that lead the pack. In now way does he say that all Levitican Law is overturned. As he did when he made the remark about nothing going into the mouth causes sin only that which comes out. That sets a presedent for how Jesus stated the overturning or nullifying of a Levitican Law. It isn't done for the whole slate.

Look, Jay, it is quite possible that Jesus was sent by the Father to re-teach the people how to live their lives and live them in right manner by God's standards. And, one of the chief reasons could have been because the people had nothing but corrupt guidance from the "spiritual leaders" of the day - the "leaders" that had perverted the previous covenants God had made with the people's ancestors.

I think that politics were very much well and alive "in the day" and were largely responsible for Levitcan laws. I know that someone out there might use this as an opportunity to label me...but I believe what I'm writing is a plausible explanation. I also believe that Jesus, while he understands politics (and how could he not with infinite wisdom), would want no part in claiming a party affiliation; save maybe a thumbs up and a wink to the Libertarians while simultaneously scolding many of them for being deists.

So we find ourselves once again in the land of insinuations.

Have I shown hatred towards anyone? Nope even posted that I can love the sinner and hate the sin.

Have I condemned anyone? That is not in my power, nor would I want it to be.

Contrary to Jesus' teachings? I only follow what I believe to be true of what Jesus said and did not say.

On the other hand, Well Put!

Given the wide disparity in beliefs between members of the same Christian denomination (Mel Gibson and the Pope, say), let alone the huge gulfs in theology between the myriad different sects, it's hard to say who are the "real" Christians. Liberal Christians are easier to get along with, though, and the handful of Quakers I've met have been wonderful people, being more concerned with such excellent doctrines as are laid out in the Sermon on the Mount (extreme non-violence, dedication to others, and humility) and not at all bothered about conformity, rules or sins. Whereas the few reactionary Christians I've met -- Wee Frees from the Hebrides -- have been at best bizarre and at worst revolting in their Freudian obsessions with judgement and punishment.

It's something I've never been able to work out: why do people worship a god who they think will condemn at least some of his creations to everlasting torment? Everlasting torment? Doesn't that sound a bit... well... psychotically extreme? Eternal, infinite, perpetual suffering without end, ever and forever, even for Hitler or Pol Pot, is surely by definition too much. Do Christians who uphold a judgemental, fire-and-brimstone god bend the knee through simple fear? Because to me, such a deity seems more like a ravening monster than a Supreme Being.

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24

Nuff said.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
It's worth noting that current research has found that the "eye of a needle" actually refered to a side gate to the city (Jeruselum if I remember correctly).
A rather small side gate, but not a threading needle

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Matthew 19:24

Nuff said.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
It's worth noting that current research has found that the "eye of a needle" actually refered to a side gate to the city (Jeruselum if I remember correctly).
A rather small side gate, but not a threading needle

Specifically, a gate of such a size that only an unladen camel could pass through -- i.e. one which had given up all its possessions.

nah. that is just a bit of speculation contradicted by the reaction of the apostles in the next line. and by the fact that we know there was a saying from that time about an elephant and the eye of a needle which meant something impossible.

But seriously, why would God ask such of an individual?

who knows, god works in mysterious ways.

see gen 22

Mennonites consider themselves evangelical, and stress some very old fashioned virtues such as honesty, faithfulness in marriage, and hard work.

At the same time we work for peace, providing medicine and other physical relief for such groups as the Palestinians and Chechnyans. We will not carry anti-personnel weapons. We will not swaer an oath, including the pledge of allegiance. We do not support the death penalty. We support gender equity, including the use of gender neautral language to refer to God.

Sometimes the "liberal/conservative" division seems oversimplified.

No, they're too nice. Real Christians are rude, pushy, arrogant, grumpy, old assholes, but they'll get into heaven!

Wow. You just gave a accurate despription of yourself

Liberal Christians not only are 'real' Christians, they are more deserving of the title than the vocal Christian Coalition and other politically similar groups. After all, if Christ was alive today he would be percieved as a left wing radical.

That is very true. Christ was considered radiacly liberal in his times and if not he were the son of god he would be marked as a communist. You read your Bible well.

No, they're too nice. Real Christians are rude, pushy, arrogant, grumpy, old assholes, but they'll get into heaven!

Wow. You just gave a accurate despription of yourself

Liberal Christians not only are 'real' Christians, they are more deserving of the title than the vocal Christian Coalition and other politically similar groups. After all, if Christ was alive today he would be percieved as a left wing radical.

That is very true. Christ was considered radiacly liberal in his times and if not he were the son of god he would be marked as a communist. You read your Bible well.

To me it goes a little like this.

Jesus comes back today:

The pro-choice crowd says, "Teacher, tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "People who commit murder, then ask to be upheld to mankind, as being correct, in the action of directly breaking one of my father's commandments."

The homosexual community comes to Him and ask, "Teacher tell the world we are right."

Jesus replies, "Weren't you told that for a man to lie with a man as he lies with a woman, was a sin? Here you have asked to be upheld to mankind as being correct. I might as well tell mankind, that the more sinful you can chose to be, the closer it brings you to my father's home."

I just believe that if either of these issues, were put to the full religious test, they would not be met with raving approval. So let the liberal thinking person claim to be Christian. I will wait to see Christ Jesus claim the liberal views on these two issues.

Jesus was a liberal for his time, so what you said has no relevance. Remember, Mark Twain said that the radical [liberal] of one century is the conservative of the next.

Mennonites consider themselves evangelical, and stress some very old fashioned virtues such as honesty, faithfulness in marriage, and hard work.

At the same time we work for peace, providing medicine and other physical relief for such groups as the Palestinians and Chechnyans. We will not carry anti-personnel weapons. We will not swaer an oath, including the pledge of allegiance. We do not support the death penalty. We support gender equity, including the use of gender neautral language to refer to God.

Sometimes the "liberal/conservative" division seems oversimplified.

Excellent point, Collaboration.

he's omnipotent and omniscient, he knows better than to blindly side with any one party on every decision.

My thoughts are as follows. Jesus, though the son of god was also someone born into a particular time as were those who wrote the new testament. It seems to me that even they would have been influenced by the society and the attitudes around them so some things that are in the bible are not reflective of what Jesus would have said today.

Even if that is not the case, i feel that in the end God is meant to be forgiving so if you live a basically good life and in general don't harm anyone then he'll forgive us (assuming he exists) and if he's not like that and will condemn anyone who is gay or doesn't believe in him or whatever because he is so unforgiving then i don't really want to be in his heaven.

One last point, abortion. Only bad if you assume that something is living from the moment on conception. Also it can be argued that anyone who drives a car should not go to heaven as the pollution is damaging peoples health and killing people, therefore by driving you are committing murder. Or buying various products that exploit people in the third world and thus cause early deaths etc.

Concerning the Abortion issue within this thread....

1. I personally would try to disuade a Woman from having an abortion at the same time I would completely respect her right to choose to terminate her pregnancy.
a. Let us look at this from a purely medical perspective
-What is an embryo?
An organism (human based) that grows, feeds, and is sheltered
in an adult/adolescent female human while contributing nothing to
the survival of its host other then possibly emotional sensation
(asthetic need).
-There is another organism that is virtual identical in description.
Parasite - Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered
on or in a different organism while contributing nothing
to the survival of its host.
as such, Technically speaking an unborn organism is a parasite
upon it's biological mother.
Most people don't like to have parasites (lice, scabies, worms, etc.)
on or in them, and so I can understand why some women would
choose to have an abortion (rid themselves of an unwanted
parasite.)

I am Expecting to recieve a large amount of (flame) from this post.

However, I am a Liberal Christian, and from Reading the Bible one of the things most cherished to me other then my salvation, through Jesus, is the gift of free will (the right to make a choice) given to me, by my creator, God.

Christianity is not what it use to be. Most Christians are no longer really Christians. Most Christians do not believe that what is in the Bible is God's true words, and therefor its grown corrupt.

A woman's CHOICE on what happens to her body is her choice BEFORE sex. Multiple passages in the Bible depict life beginning in the womb at conception. Even modern day technology developed in England can show the face of an unborn baby in the wound in great video detail, and shows crying, sucking on the thumb, and other very human and ALIVE characteristics that an apparent "glob of tissue" is logically incapable of doing. Ergo, abortion is the legalized right of a woman to brutally slice up and decapitate their unborn child. It doesn't matter if the child already has a fully developed nervous system and nerves in weeks, ergo capable of feeling pain. It's still "their choice". Jesus, God, and Christianity would not condone the act of abortion at all -- ergo, in this concept, modern liberal Christians aren't very Christian.

Jesus never once brought up homosexuality in his sermons, except for condemning the homosexual acts of the citizens at Sodom and Gamorrah.

Liberals more than ever support the immoral agenda of mass media, sex before marriage (obviously not supported anywhere in the Bible), sick acts of abortion, and homosexuality. Liberals may believe they're Christians, but compared to how God views the world according to the Bible, and the preachings of Jesus, He would not condone the horribly immoral acts directly contradictory to His Word.

It's worth noting that current research has found that the "eye of a needle" actually refered to a side gate to the city (Jeruselum if I remember correctly).
A rather small side gate, but not a threading needle

And who most likely funded this research? Rich people. See my point. Even misogynistic cappies agree: http://www.debunker.com/texts/needleye.html

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Christianity is not what it use to be. Most Christians are no longer really Christians. Most Christians do not believe that what is in the Bible is God's true words, and therefor its grown corrupt.

A woman's CHOICE on what happens to her body is her choice BEFORE sex. Multiple passages in the Bible depict life beginning in the womb at conception. Even modern day technology developed in England can show the face of an unborn baby in the wound in great video detail, and shows crying, sucking on the thumb, and other very human and ALIVE characteristics that an apparent "glob of tissue" is logically incapable of doing. Ergo, abortion is the legalized right of a woman to brutally slice up and decapitate their unborn child. It doesn't matter if the child already has a fully developed nervous system and nerves in weeks, ergo capable of feeling pain. It's still "their choice". Jesus, God, and Christianity would not condone the act of abortion at all -- ergo, in this concept, modern liberal Christians aren't very Christian.

Jesus never once brought up homosexuality in his sermons, except for condemning the homosexual acts of the citizens at Sodom and Gamorrah.

Liberals more than ever support the immoral agenda of mass media, sex before marriage (obviously not supported anywhere in the Bible), sick acts of abortion, and homosexuality. Liberals may believe they're Christians, but compared to how God views the world according to the Bible, and the preachings of Jesus, He would not condone the horribly immoral acts directly contradictory to His Word.

While I tend to agree that many self-professed Christians are not true Christians, it is just as easy, if not more so, to see those who will come in Jesus' name only to have him reply that he does not know them as the ones that are currently advocating the abominable in his name. The fact that there is a God, and/or that he created each and every one of us, is the strongest possible argument for why all people should have the ability to make choices about their own destinies, not have it dictated to them, for that would be a desecration of God's own construction of an innately autonomous being. The ability to choose your own destiny, however, is precisely the thing those who most desperately cling to Christianity do not want. Ergo, they are desecrating God's intent when he created Man.

With respect to abortion, the logic drawn from the above paragraph should be patently obvious: God endowed people with the ability to choose, therefore, it is a good government's duty to best preserve that ability to choose, not stifle it. The only legitemate rationale for prohibiting choice is if it can be empirically proven that the results of the choice will cause empirically demonstrable harm to someone empirically capable of suffering from it. As abortion doesn't fit this criterion, then it should be legal, whether it actually constitutes a sin or no. Additionally, I challenge you to find a place in the Bible where it says that soul implantation occurs at conception. I have been unable to find anywhere in the Bible where it says that a fetus prior to the second trimester should be treated any differently than a part of a liver (sure it's alive, but it's also not immoral to cut it out so long as the person being cut is not unduly harmed).

********************************************************

*Sigh* Good God, not Sodom and Gamorrah again. Look, let me say this one more time: Sodom and Gamorrah was not about homosexuality. Never once in the Bible did it ever say "Sodom and Gamorrah got thrashed because of all the homos." What is mentioned is a) laziness (Isaiah), and b) sexual perversion. The funny thing about "sexual perversion", however, is that it's a remarkably pliable term, able to fit just about anything from pimping your daughters out (oh shit, that can't be right, because that's what our good "holy man" Lot did), to incest (well, crap, that can't be it either for the same reason).

So really, there are two possible ways of interpreting "sexual perversion". One is to say that it referred to the mob's willingness to copulate with what they took to be other men. This would effectively mean that God is perfectly fine with heterosexual rape, incest, prostitution/pimping, but by all that is Holy, if you're a butt pirate, then you've automatically got front-row seating to a fire-and-brimstone extravaganza. This is, quite obviously, rigoddamndiculous to even suggest. If that were what God was saying, then it is patently obvious that your God is really a sadistic monster that deserves to be cast down. This is unnacceptable.

The alternative is to suggest that what He was so offended by was the mob's willingness to violate the ancient and holy tenet of protection just for carnal pleasure. The fact that they were disguised as Men is incidental in this account, and the mob's real crime is a willingness to force themselves on others. This is far more in keeping both with logic and ethics, and with what Jewish and Christian scholars now believe was the message.

what I want to know is why they called pople in favour of abortions "Pro-choice".it sounds like they're trying to disguise the horror of killing a child, or stopping one before it even becomes a child.

Because they aren't pro-abortion, they're pro-letting women do as they wish with their bodies.

It's worth noting that current research has found that the "eye of a needle" actually refered to a side gate to the city (Jeruselum if I remember correctly).
A rather small side gate, but not a threading needle

And who most likely funded this research? Rich people. See my point. Even misogynistic cappies agree: http://www.debunker.com/texts/needleye.html

according to a bunch of things i've read, the gate interpretation is actually rather old (9th century at the very earliest, then again in the 15th century), but is a definite break from early christian thinking. it became popular again due to the calvinists and such who claimed that if you were rich it showed that god liked you and if you were poor you were a sinner. an idea that still runs around in america. goddamn puritans.

http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm

according to a bunch of things i've read, the gate interpretation is actually rather old (9th century at the very earliest, then again in the 15th century), but is a definite break from early christian thinking. it became popular again due to the calvinists and such who claimed that if you were rich it showed that god liked you and if you were poor you were a sinner. an idea that still runs around in america. goddamn puritans.

Aren't the Calvinists also the guys who think that your future is predetermined and that there is no free will?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Aren't the Calvinists also the guys who think that your future is predetermined and that there is no free will?

yep, predetermination. god chose who goes to heaven at the begining of time. however, people who are chosen will act good and be well off, because otherwise god wouldn't have chosen them. and they hated fun. goddamn fucking puritans

regardless of how big the eye of a needle might be, that comment came after jesus told the rich but very religious man to take everything he had, sell it, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow him.

after you do that, you wont be rich anymore so it won't matter if its a gate or a needle.

the question is whether or not you are willing to do it not whether or not there is an out if you refuse.

Aren't the Calvinists also the guys who think that your future is predetermined and that there is no free will?

yep, predetermination. god chose who goes to heaven at the begining of time. however, people who are chosen will act good and be well off, because otherwise god wouldn't have chosen them. and they hated fun. goddamn f--- puritans

yes, their thinking was that god had already chosen the people to be saved, and that the vast majority of the population was going to hell. Thing is, there's a gaping hole in that logic, because chances are, I'm going to hell no matter what I do, so why don't I just party?

Personally, I don't believe in hell. I just think that if you hurt people on earth, it will take much longer for you get to the good place in the afterlife.

Christianity is not what it use to be. Most Christians are no longer really Christians. Most Christians do not believe that what is in the Bible is God's true words, and therefor its grown corrupt.

A woman's CHOICE on what happens to her body is her choice BEFORE sex. Multiple passages in the Bible depict life beginning in the womb at conception. Even modern day technology developed in England can show the face of an unborn baby in the wound in great video detail, and shows crying, sucking on the thumb, and other very human and ALIVE characteristics that an apparent "glob of tissue" is logically incapable of doing. Ergo, abortion is the legalized right of a woman to brutally slice up and decapitate their unborn child. It doesn't matter if the child already has a fully developed nervous system and nerves in weeks, ergo capable of feeling pain. It's still "their choice". Jesus, God, and Christianity would not condone the act of abortion at all -- ergo, in this concept, modern liberal Christians aren't very Christian.

Jesus never once brought up homosexuality in his sermons, except for condemning the homosexual acts of the citizens at Sodom and Gamorrah.

Liberals more than ever support the immoral agenda of mass media, sex before marriage (obviously not supported anywhere in the Bible), sick acts of abortion, and homosexuality. Liberals may believe they're Christians, but compared to how God views the world according to the Bible, and the preachings of Jesus, He would not condone the horribly immoral acts directly contradictory to His Word.
God is a forgiving God, and He alone will judge me. We are all sinners, there are no saints among us. Conservatives don't support immoral agendas? Give me a break. Conservative girls don't have sex before marriage? Oh my!!

Thing is, there's a gaping hole in that logic, because chances are, I'm going to hell no matter what I do, so why don't I just party?

well, in their eyes that would be the final proof that you were predestined for hell.

Many conservative girls do not have sex before marriage. Many non-Christians do not have sex before marriage. On the other hand many Christians do have pre-marital sex, but this doesn't make it right.

I tend to believe that God's commandments to us in this "Age of Grace" tend to have a reason. Like, premarital sex is wrong for many reasons, not just because "God said so" (although this should be enough).

Canuckheaven, you're comment about us all being sinners is 100% correct. We are all sinners and all need the grace of God. However, the Bible commands us all to be brothers and sisters, and if you see a sister or brother in trouble, you are to try to convince them of their error. It also teaches us to warn everyone that they are sinners and in need of salvation.

God will judge us all. Only when we reach heaven will we truly know the answers.

Canuckheaven, you're comment about us all being sinners is 100% correct. We are all sinners and all need the grace of God.
...
God will judge us all. Only when we reach heaven will we truly know the answers.

i've been trying for a long time to put my finger on why stuff like this gives me the creeps, and i think i figured it out:

i have volunteered for several years at a Domestic Abuse center, and this is exactly the sort of stuff i hear from women who have been abused by their loved ones; he only beats me because he loves me, it's my fault for making him angry, he only wants what's best for me, i'm messed up and need him to take care of me...

it's a classic abusive relationship. God uses fear, violence, and careful destruction of self-worth to control and create dependence. that's seriously messed up.

i've been trying for a long time to put my finger on why stuff like this gives me the creeps, and i think i figured it out:

i have volunteered for several years at a Domestic Abuse center, and this is exactly the sort of stuff i hear from women who have been abused by their loved ones; he only beats me because he loves me, it's my fault for making him angry, he only wants what's best for me, i'm messed up and need him to take care of me...

it's a classic abusive relationship. God uses fear, violence, and careful destruction of self-worth to control and create dependence. that's seriously messed up.

Or maybe people are so used to the carrot-stick idea that this is the view of God they have chosen. I, for one, prefer the Abelard theory of atonement (deemed heretical or not). Basically, it says that God doesn't want us to obey him out of fear, God wants all human beings to love God and in so doing, we will do good things. Christ came to this Earth and died not to build up a bunch of penance for everybody - but to demonstrate the God loves all of us greatly. And as he said, no greater love hath man than to lay down his life for his friends. According to Abelard, in seeing that kind of demonstration of love, we should in return turn to God in love.

I don't believe that God rules by fear, destroys self-worth, or creates dependence. I think God wants us to love God for the wonders he has created and for the love God has shown us, wants us to realize our potential and use it for good, and wants us to come to these conclusions on our own. It all comes down to interpretation, really.

Canuckheaven, you're comment about us all being sinners is 100% correct. We are all sinners and all need the grace of God.
...
God will judge us all. Only when we reach heaven will we truly know the answers.

i've been trying for a long time to put my finger on why stuff like this gives me the creeps, and i think i figured it out:

i have volunteered for several years at a Domestic Abuse center, and this is exactly the sort of stuff i hear from women who have been abused by their loved ones; he only beats me because he loves me, it's my fault for making him angry, he only wants what's best for me, i'm messed up and need him to take care of me...

it's a classic abusive relationship. God uses fear, violence, and careful destruction of self-worth to control and create dependence. that's seriously messed up.

Good point, Bottle. You have to take the fear and the guilt out of a faith relationship, otherwise it's little better than slavery. However, I do think it's important to point out that we have no real evidence that "God" uses these tools to bring people to faith. Mankind justifies their faith using them, though. Like any abusive relationship, both sides have a short-circuit going on. The abuser is obviously in the wrong, but the abusee must take steps to get out of the situation or even admit the situation is wrong. With your work at the Domestic Violence shelter, I'm sure you've seen women who've been brainwashed into believing their lovers, like you said, only do what they do because they "love them so much" and they also are afraid to leave because of what they think this person might do or they've convinced themselves that this type of relationship is exactly what they deserve.

I think that this is exactly the same kind of short-circuit going on in people who base their faith on fear, judgement or vengence. We have to demand better Gods than that.

i've been trying for a long time to put my finger on why stuff like this gives me the creeps, and i think i figured it out:

i have volunteered for several years at a Domestic Abuse center, and this is exactly the sort of stuff i hear from women who have been abused by their loved ones; he only beats me because he loves me, it's my fault for making him angry, he only wants what's best for me, i'm messed up and need him to take care of me...

it's a classic abusive relationship. God uses fear, violence, and careful destruction of self-worth to control and create dependence. that's seriously messed up.

Or maybe people are so used to the carrot-stick idea that this is the view of God they have chosen. I, for one, prefer the Abelard theory of atonement (deemed heretical or not). Basically, it says that God doesn't want us to obey him out of fear, God wants all human beings to love God and in so doing, we will do good things. Christ came to this Earth and died not to build up a bunch of penance for everybody - but to demonstrate the God loves all of us greatly. And as he said, no greater love hath man than to lay down his life for his friends. According to Abelard, in seeing that kind of demonstration of love, we should in return turn to God in love.

I don't believe that God rules by fear, destroys self-worth, or creates dependence. I think God wants us to love God for the wonders he has created and for the love God has shown us, wants us to realize our potential and use it for good, and wants us to come to these conclusions on our own. It all comes down to interpretation, really.

but even the "love" philosophies follow the classic abuse pattern:

how does God show he loves us? by forgiving us for being bad, nasty sinners. we're inherently wicked, but he lowers himself to love us. we owe him just for being willing to care about us, and he doesn't owe us a thing for all our worship...he will still allow horrible natural disasters, plagues, and other catastrophes to befall us, and we should thank him for allowing us to "test our faith" in such ways. he wants our love, but he doesn't want it to be mutual; he will tell us he loves us while punishing and abusing us, and while turning his back on our suffering. he'll promise us that it will all be worth it later, after we are dead, and will expect that to be enough for us.

sorry, but i don't really think there's much of a difference in those interpretations. one is slightly more covert and insideous, but it's still a fairly common pattern of abuse. we see it all the time, and it's cosidered tragic between humans...how much more tragic must it be to have an all-powerful being who acts in this way? i don't know how anybody could respect a God that would act in a manner shared with the lowest form of humanity, and i certainly couldn't. i deeply pity the victims of this theological abuse, who have been indoctrinated into a painful cycle that will only lead to further dependence and continued mistreatment.

Canuckheaven, you're comment about us all being sinners is 100% correct. We are all sinners and all need the grace of God.
...
God will judge us all. Only when we reach heaven will we truly know the answers.

i've been trying for a long time to put my finger on why stuff like this gives me the creeps, and i think i figured it out:

i have volunteered for several years at a Domestic Abuse center, and this is exactly the sort of stuff i hear from women who have been abused by their loved ones; he only beats me because he loves me, it's my fault for making him angry, he only wants what's best for me, i'm messed up and need him to take care of me...

it's a classic abusive relationship. God uses fear, violence, and careful destruction of self-worth to control and create dependence. that's seriously messed up.

Good point, Bottle. You have to take the fear and the guilt out of a faith relationship, otherwise it's little better than slavery. However, I do think it's important to point out that we have no real evidence that "God" uses these tools to bring people to faith. Mankind justifies their faith using them, though. Like any abusive relationship, both sides have a short-circuit going on. The abuser is obviously in the wrong, but the abusee must take steps to get out of the situation or even admit the situation is wrong. With your work at the Domestic Violence shelter, I'm sure you've seen women who've been brainwashed into believing their lovers, like you said, only do what they do because they "love them so much" and they also are afraid to leave because of what they think this person might do or they've convinced themselves that this type of relationship is exactly what they deserve.

I think that this is exactly the same kind of short-circuit going on in people who base their faith on fear, judgement or vengence. We have to demand better Gods than that.

EXACTLY. we should expect more from our dieties, at the very least :).

but even the "love" philosophies follow the classic abuse pattern:

how does God show he loves us? by forgiving us for being bad, nasty sinners. we're inherently wicked, but he lowers himself to love us. we owe him just for being willing to care about us, and he doesn't owe us a thing for all our worship...he will still allow horrible natural disasters, plagues, and other catastrophes to befall us, and we should thank him for allowing us to "test our faith" in such ways. he wants our love, but he doesn't want it to be mutual; he will tell us he loves us while punishing and abusing us, and while turning his back on our suffering. he'll promise us that it will all be worth it later, after we are dead, and will expect that to be enough for us.

sorry, but i don't really think there's much of a difference in those interpretations. one is slightly more covert and insideous, but it's still a fairly common pattern of abuse. we see it all the time, and it's cosidered tragic between humans...how much more tragic must it be to have an all-powerful being who acts in this way? i don't know how anybody could respect a God that would act in a manner shared with the lowest form of humanity, and i certainly couldn't. i deeply pity the victims of this theological abuse, who have been indoctrinated into a painful cycle that will only lead to further dependence and continued mistreatment.

I didn't say anything about being inherently wicked, or God having to lower Godself to love us, now did I? You are putting words into my mouth based on what other people believe. Natural disasters, etc. are part of nature - which as a whole is a wonderful thing. I believe that God does help support us through times of trial because God loves us. If you don't feel that support, I am sorry - but I do.

Saying that this describes abuse is like saying a parent who allows their children to go through life is abusing them. My mother doesn't completely shelter me from any type of pain, but she is there to be supportive when things do happen and I need that support. The same for my boyfriend. Neither of them can force me into a sheltered life without doing me a disservice just as great as if they were causing the pain themselves. I don't feel like God turns a cold shoulder to our suffering, I have felt the support of God when I needed it. Kind of like the old footprints in the sand story.

There are those who have been indoctrinated into abusive theology, and I agree with you that this is a sad state of affairs. However, it is other human beings who cause these kind of abuses, not God.

I think God knows that none of us are perfect, and that God forgives us for that, because God loves us.

Canuckheaven, you're comment about us all being sinners is 100% correct. We are all sinners and all need the grace of God.
...
God will judge us all. Only when we reach heaven will we truly know the answers.

i've been trying for a long time to put my finger on why stuff like this gives me the creeps, and i think i figured it out:

i have volunteered for several years at a Domestic Abuse center, and this is exactly the sort of stuff i hear from women who have been abused by their loved ones; he only beats me because he loves me, it's my fault for making him angry, he only wants what's best for me, i'm messed up and need him to take care of me...

it's a classic abusive relationship. God uses fear, violence, and careful destruction of self-worth to control and create dependence. that's seriously messed up.

Good point, Bottle. You have to take the fear and the guilt out of a faith relationship, otherwise it's little better than slavery. However, I do think it's important to point out that we have no real evidence that "God" uses these tools to bring people to faith. Mankind justifies their faith using them, though. Like any abusive relationship, both sides have a short-circuit going on. The abuser is obviously in the wrong, but the abusee must take steps to get out of the situation or even admit the situation is wrong. With your work at the Domestic Violence shelter, I'm sure you've seen women who've been brainwashed into believing their lovers, like you said, only do what they do because they "love them so much" and they also are afraid to leave because of what they think this person might do or they've convinced themselves that this type of relationship is exactly what they deserve.

I think that this is exactly the same kind of short-circuit going on in people who base their faith on fear, judgement or vengence. We have to demand better Gods than that.

EXACTLY. we should expect more from our dieties, at the very least :).

Of course, since God always does the right thing and never sins, what we percieve as contradicitons, fear tactics, and the such are justifiable, since God sets what is right and wrong. And if God dictates morals, what we might percieve as oppression and persecution is actually right, since God wills it. Of course, since we can't know what God is thinking, this could be used to persecute others. So, basically, God doesn't contradict or do wrong, so it's entirely possible that things like unbelievers burning in hell are actually what should happen. But since we can never actually know this, we're kinda stuck here having to side with one side or another.

Canuckheaven, you're comment about us all being sinners is 100% correct. We are all sinners and all need the grace of God.
...
God will judge us all. Only when we reach heaven will we truly know the answers.

i've been trying for a long time to put my finger on why stuff like this gives me the creeps, and i think i figured it out:

i have volunteered for several years at a Domestic Abuse center, and this is exactly the sort of stuff i hear from women who have been abused by their loved ones; he only beats me because he loves me, it's my fault for making him angry, he only wants what's best for me, i'm messed up and need him to take care of me...

it's a classic abusive relationship. God uses fear, violence, and careful destruction of self-worth to control and create dependence. that's seriously messed up.

Good point, Bottle. You have to take the fear and the guilt out of a faith relationship, otherwise it's little better than slavery. However, I do think it's important to point out that we have no real evidence that "God" uses these tools to bring people to faith. Mankind justifies their faith using them, though. Like any abusive relationship, both sides have a short-circuit going on. The abuser is obviously in the wrong, but the abusee must take steps to get out of the situation or even admit the situation is wrong. With your work at the Domestic Violence shelter, I'm sure you've seen women who've been brainwashed into believing their lovers, like you said, only do what they do because they "love them so much" and they also are afraid to leave because of what they think this person might do or they've convinced themselves that this type of relationship is exactly what they deserve.

I think that this is exactly the same kind of short-circuit going on in people who base their faith on fear, judgement or vengence. We have to demand better Gods than that.

EXACTLY. we should expect more from our dieties, at the very least :).

Of course, since God always does the right thing and never sins, what we percieve as contradicitons, fear tactics, and the such are justifiable, since God sets what is right and wrong. And if God dictates morals, what we might percieve as oppression and persecution is actually right, since God wills it. Of course, since we can't know what God is thinking, this could be used to persecute others. So, basically, God doesn't contradict or do wrong, so it's entirely possible that things like unbelievers burning in hell are actually what should happen. But since we can never actually know this, we're kinda stuck here having to side with one side or another.

Of course, since God always does the right thing and never sins, what we percieve as contradicitons, fear tactics, and the such are justifiable, since God sets what is right and wrong. And if God dictates morals, what we might percieve as oppression and persecution is actually right, since God wills it. Of course, since we can't know what God is thinking, this could be used to persecute others. So, basically, God doesn't contradict or do wrong, so it's entirely possible that things like unbelievers burning in hell are actually what should happen. But since we can never actually know this, we're kinda stuck here having to side with one side or another.

Unfortunately, your basic premise is flawed. The idea that God willfully uses those captivity methods, but that they are right since God is doing it, is inconsistent with your premise that God is the creator of morality. To say that something which is fundamentally wrong is right because it's God doing it violates the very idea of morality to begin with. If God created us and our perceptions of morality, then why would he create us to believe fear and intimidation are wrong, then break his own rules and make an end run around them? That's very sloppy construction and doesn't say much for God.

This also assumes a personified God which is capable (and interested) in creating morality in the first place, which I'm not willing to grant at this time.

it's a classic abusive relationship. God uses fear, violence, and careful destruction of self-worth to control and create dependence. that's seriously messed up.

So does the government and bosses.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

I didn't say anything about being inherently wicked, or God having to lower Godself to love us, now did I? You are putting words into my mouth based on what other people believe. Natural disasters, etc. are part of nature - which as a whole is a wonderful thing. I believe that God does help support us through times of trial because God loves us. If you don't feel that support, I am sorry - but I do.

Saying that this describes abuse is like saying a parent who allows their children to go through life is abusing them. My mother doesn't completely shelter me from any type of pain, but she is there to be supportive when things do happen and I need that support. The same for my boyfriend. Neither of them can force me into a sheltered life without doing me a disservice just as great as if they were causing the pain themselves. I don't feel like God turns a cold shoulder to our suffering, I have felt the support of God when I needed it. Kind of like the old footprints in the sand story.

There are those who have been indoctrinated into abusive theology, and I agree with you that this is a sad state of affairs. However, it is other human beings who cause these kind of abuses, not God.

The problem with that line of analysis is that its still a false analogy. While the footprints in the sand story is swell for greeting cards, it presupposes that you'll never go through anything in life so horrible that any just and rational God would be forced not to stop at support and go straight to intervention.

Let me put it this way: if you stub your toe, your parents would be remiss to coddle you or to call an EMT. In much the same way, you might say that God would be remiss in his duties to magically wave away, say, a late payment on your mortgage. On that point, everyone should agree.

But the problem is that not all crises in life are the equivalent of stubbing your toe. Some cases, with something like the Holocaust or the Irish Potato Famine being most prominent, are the equivalent of getting dragged by a truck and then sodomized with a cattle prod by the passerby who found you. In other words, they are quite literally life-shattering events, and any parent that found you in that condition would be criminally negligent to brush it off with a hug and hope it's all better. In the same way, if there was a God and He did have the powers traditional theology ascribes to him, then He should have done more than simple support in cases like systematic slaughter of your entire race with chlorine gas. The fact that He didn't says either that there is no God, that there is a monster we call God, or that He couldn't help us because traditional theology is wrong about His nature. Your call which one is most palatable to you.

I don't think God puts anybody to the test; at least, God doesn't want to do that. Jesus says that somewhere. I'll have to look it up. He also says "Please don't put us to the test" in the Lord's Prayer, so that's where HE stands on the issue.

If I were God I'd give a whole bunch of people a serious a$$whuppin', but I'm not. The God in whom I find peace is more caring and understanding than I am.

I don't think God puts anybody to the test; at least, God doesn't want to do that. Jesus says that somewhere. I'll have to look it up. He also says "Please don't put us to the test" in the Lord's Prayer, so that's where HE stands on the issue.

If I were God I'd give a whole bunch of people a serious a$$whuppin', but I'm not. The God in whom I find peace is more caring and understanding than I am.

You have it backwards. The quote is "Do not put the Lord thy God to the test." It's supposed to be a warning against us trying to test God's loyalty.

I don't think God puts anybody to the test; at least, God doesn't want to do that. Jesus says that somewhere. I'll have to look it up. He also says "Please don't put us to the test" in the Lord's Prayer, so that's where HE stands on the issue.

If I were God I'd give a whole bunch of people a serious a$$whuppin', but I'm not. The God in whom I find peace is more caring and understanding than I am.

You have it backwards. The quote is "Do not put the Lord thy God to the test." It's supposed to be a warning against us trying to test God's loyalty.

Oh, I know that, but no, this definitely goes the other way.

Lamentations 3:33

33. For he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men.
33. Quia non affligit ex corde suo, et delore afficit filios viri.


Also John 3:17, For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world....

I don't think God puts anybody to the test; at least, God doesn't want to do that. Jesus says that somewhere. I'll have to look it up. He also says "Please don't put us to the test" in the Lord's Prayer, so that's where HE stands on the issue.

If I were God I'd give a whole bunch of people a serious a$$whuppin', but I'm not. The God in whom I find peace is more caring and understanding than I am.

You have it backwards. The quote is "Do not put the Lord thy God to the test." It's supposed to be a warning against us trying to test God's loyalty.Maybe it is supposed to be saying don't attempt to intentionally harm yourself to prove to others that God exist. Like don't put a gun to your head and pull the trigger and expect God to stop the bullet. This is putting temptation of God to the test. It is saying, "Come on God prove to them you are there by stopping me from being harmed." God will not give into temptation.

To get back to the topic at hand, if liberals are real Christians...

It seems to me that there is a fundamental issue that many seem to be missing in this debate: Christianity does not create people, people create Christianity.

Christianity has evolved a lot over the centuries. Today's version is far from how it was 500 years ago, and 500 years from now it will look much different than it does today. The individual practitioners are what make a religion, and as the practitioners change, so does the religion.

If someone calls himself Christian, and believes in the basic faith of it, then that person is a Christian. Just because someone is more or less liberal it does not affect how Christian they are. In fact, if it hadn't been for the liberal renewers within the church, like Martin Luther for example, I doubt that it would exist in such stature today.

The details of the religion may change, but the essence is still there. That's what faith is.

I didn't say anything about being inherently wicked, or God having to lower Godself to love us, now did I? You are putting words into my mouth based on what other people believe. Natural disasters, etc. are part of nature - which as a whole is a wonderful thing. I believe that God does help support us through times of trial because God loves us. If you don't feel that support, I am sorry - but I do.

Saying that this describes abuse is like saying a parent who allows their children to go through life is abusing them. My mother doesn't completely shelter me from any type of pain, but she is there to be supportive when things do happen and I need that support. The same for my boyfriend. Neither of them can force me into a sheltered life without doing me a disservice just as great as if they were causing the pain themselves. I don't feel like God turns a cold shoulder to our suffering, I have felt the support of God when I needed it. Kind of like the old footprints in the sand story.

There are those who have been indoctrinated into abusive theology, and I agree with you that this is a sad state of affairs. However, it is other human beings who cause these kind of abuses, not God.

The problem with that line of analysis is that its still a false analogy. While the footprints in the sand story is swell for greeting cards, it presupposes that you'll never go through anything in life so horrible that any just and rational God would be forced not to stop at support and go straight to intervention.

Let me put it this way: if you stub your toe, your parents would be remiss to coddle you or to call an EMT. In much the same way, you might say that God would be remiss in his duties to magically wave away, say, a late payment on your mortgage. On that point, everyone should agree.

But the problem is that not all crises in life are the equivalent of stubbing your toe. Some cases, with something like the Holocaust or the Irish Potato Famine being most prominent, are the equivalent of getting dragged by a truck and then sodomized with a cattle prod by the passerby who found you. In other words, they are quite literally life-shattering events, and any parent that found you in that condition would be criminally negligent to brush it off with a hug and hope it's all better. In the same way, if there was a God and He did have the powers traditional theology ascribes to him, then He should have done more than simple support in cases like systematic slaughter of your entire race with chlorine gas. The fact that He didn't says either that there is no God, that there is a monster we call God, or that He couldn't help us because traditional theology is wrong about His nature. Your call which one is most palatable to you.

We often refer to the Holocaust as a 'watershed' moment. It was an event which defined the world and created the nation of Israel.

The Depression created the conditions which allowed Hitler to rise to power and be defeated resulting in the creation of Israel.

The Irish Potato Famine helped create the countries of Canada and USA.

The Inquisitions solidified the Protestant faith and rallied people together.

In every event that occurs in the world, God is working or is watching. Every major event leads to some result, which may be necessary in God's view.

The Bible states that before the end times, Israel has to exist as a state. So the results of the Holocaust brought us (in the Christian's point of view), one step closer to the end.

Besides, would you really want God interfering in world politics today? After a while, we wouldn't appreciate it anymore and His genorosity would go unnoticed. We wouldn't complain about major disasters, we would complain about smaller ones.. and smaller ones ... until all we are doing is nit-picking.



Other events, like the creation of the USA and Canada, provided a safe place for the Christian faith to grow and prosper.

I didn't say anything about being inherently wicked, or God having to lower Godself to love us, now did I? You are putting words into my mouth based on what other people believe. Natural disasters, etc. are part of nature - which as a whole is a wonderful thing. I believe that God does help support us through times of trial because God loves us. If you don't feel that support, I am sorry - but I do.

Saying that this describes abuse is like saying a parent who allows their children to go through life is abusing them. My mother doesn't completely shelter me from any type of pain, but she is there to be supportive when things do happen and I need that support. The same for my boyfriend. Neither of them can force me into a sheltered life without doing me a disservice just as great as if they were causing the pain themselves. I don't feel like God turns a cold shoulder to our suffering, I have felt the support of God when I needed it. Kind of like the old footprints in the sand story.

There are those who have been indoctrinated into abusive theology, and I agree with you that this is a sad state of affairs. However, it is other human beings who cause these kind of abuses, not God.

The problem with that line of analysis is that its still a false analogy. While the footprints in the sand story is swell for greeting cards, it presupposes that you'll never go through anything in life so horrible that any just and rational God would be forced not to stop at support and go straight to intervention.

Let me put it this way: if you stub your toe, your parents would be remiss to coddle you or to call an EMT. In much the same way, you might say that God would be remiss in his duties to magically wave away, say, a late payment on your mortgage. On that point, everyone should agree.

But the problem is that not all crises in life are the equivalent of stubbing your toe. Some cases, with something like the Holocaust or the Irish Potato Famine being most prominent, are the equivalent of getting dragged by a truck and then sodomized with a cattle prod by the passerby who found you. In other words, they are quite literally life-shattering events, and any parent that found you in that condition would be criminally negligent to brush it off with a hug and hope it's all better. In the same way, if there was a God and He did have the powers traditional theology ascribes to him, then He should have done more than simple support in cases like systematic slaughter of your entire race with chlorine gas. The fact that He didn't says either that there is no God, that there is a monster we call God, or that He couldn't help us because traditional theology is wrong about His nature. Your call which one is most palatable to you.

We often refer to the Holocaust as a 'watershed' moment. It was an event which defined the world and created the nation of Israel.

The Depression created the conditions which allowed Hitler to rise to power and be defeated resulting in the creation of Israel.

The Irish Potato Famine helped create the countries of Canada and USA.

The Inquisitions solidified the Protestant faith and rallied people together.

In every event that occurs in the world, God is working or is watching. Every major event leads to some result, which may be necessary in God's view.



okay, fair enough. now exactly what good is accomplished by God standing by while a child is molested by his relative? what greater good is served by a 4 year old starving to death in the slums? how exactly does being gang raped help a woman lead a happy life? what sort of love is God showing when he allows an infant to be shaken to death by an angry parent?

sorry, but i have to agree with Xeno on this one; there are plenty of situations when any loving God would do more than stand aside and watch. there are any number of senselessly tragic situations that serve no higher purpose and don't help the human race one whit, so your answer is, frankly, unsatisfactory.


Besides, would you really want God interfering in world politics today? After a while, we wouldn't appreciate it anymore and His genorosity would go unnoticed. We wouldn't complain about major disasters, we would complain about smaller ones.. and smaller ones ... until all we are doing is nit-picking.


YES!!! who wouldn't?! an all-knowing, all powerful, all good being helping us to know the best way to run our countries?! SUPER!!! my lord, do you not watch the news? who cares if we get used to it? shouldn't an all-loving God be more than happy to have us all living in bliss? if he's all powerful then what would that cost him? if he's all-knowing and infinite then why the hell would he mind if our imperfect human selves get a little comfortable? he can always send us a wake-up-call flood or meteor if he really wants.

Wow, I can't believe I hadn't thought of that. I'd thought of it in a more abstract way, in terms of 'good and bad', but not having God be part of the equation. If God stuck his hand visibly in earthly business, we'd expect it way too easily.

YES!!! who wouldn't?! an all-knowing, all powerful, all good being helping us to know the best way to run our countries?! SUPER!!! my lord, do you not watch the news? who cares if we get used to it? shouldn't an all-loving God be more than happy to have us all living in bliss? if he's all powerful then what would that cost him? if he's all-knowing and infinite then why the hell would he mind if our imperfect human selves get a little comfortable? he can always send us a wake-up-call flood or meteor if he really wants.

One of God's greatest gifts to humanity is free will. God doesn't control us like puppets and for the most part, just lets us live our lives. If God stepped in and stopped you every time you thought about doing something bad to another person, would that truly be free will?

YES!!! who wouldn't?! an all-knowing, all powerful, all good being helping us to know the best way to run our countries?! SUPER!!! my lord, do you not watch the news? who cares if we get used to it? shouldn't an all-loving God be more than happy to have us all living in bliss? if he's all powerful then what would that cost him? if he's all-knowing and infinite then why the hell would he mind if our imperfect human selves get a little comfortable? he can always send us a wake-up-call flood or meteor if he really wants.

One of God's greatest gifts to humanity is free will. God doesn't control us like puppets and for the most part, just lets us live our lives. If God stepped in and stopped you every time you thought about doing something bad to another person, would that truly be free will?

YES!!! who wouldn't?! an all-knowing, all powerful, all good being helping us to know the best way to run our countries?! SUPER!!! my lord, do you not watch the news? who cares if we get used to it? shouldn't an all-loving God be more than happy to have us all living in bliss? if he's all powerful then what would that cost him? if he's all-knowing and infinite then why the hell would he mind if our imperfect human selves get a little comfortable? he can always send us a wake-up-call flood or meteor if he really wants.

One of God's greatest gifts to humanity is free will. God doesn't control us like puppets and for the most part, just lets us live our lives. If God stepped in and stopped you every time you thought about doing something bad to another person, would that truly be free will?

i'm not asking him to control our lives, just to maybe to keep us from totally effing up each other's lives. i think it's a pretty big leap from "protecting babies who are being shaken by mommy and daddy" to "everybody loses free will." God already doesn't let us live our lives as we want, since he expects us to spend a good portion of our lives worshiping him and giving money to his church...so let's see a little earthly pay-back, huh? if He's all knowing and all-powerful then i'm sure he can figure out a way to protect us without making us zombies.

It seems so interesting to me, that the kind of Christian that I have chosen to be (that being Fundamentalist Non-denominationalist) gets so broadly attacked...
Ok Im going to lay out my 2 cents on the 2 major issues at hand, then the original issue of this discussion.

Up First - Abortion - We can't even be absolutely sure of what Death is, much less when life begins. Before you pop back with 'Death is when all brain activity stops'; please remember there are a frighteningly large number of cases where persons were brought to full-consciousness after being Clinically Dead for periods of 1 minute and longer. Anyhoo, there is a relation between these two topics, simply being that Science and Medicine aren't as exact as we would like them to be. So it comes down to the truth of the matter; We cannot determine when life, as we understand it, begins for the fetus. So I say we just go by this simple little idea, once the sperm fertilizes the egg; you have life. At that point it meets the same requirements for life that all animals meet. And as I have been told many a time by radical vegans, 'Life is life, it doesnt matter if they cant talk'.

Now on to the Homosexuality issue, this one thankfully is very simple...
Tab A + Slot B = Match, I dont think I need to explain that. Homosexuality is going against your very ingrained nature... The basic instincts of any animal are Survival, Shelter, Propagation. Tab A + Slot A /= propagation. It's as simple as that, doesn't matter whether you are Agnostic or whatever, the point of having sexual organs is to Reproduce.

And finally, the definition of Fundamentalist = A christian who believes in the Word, that word being the Bible, and refuses additions/interpretations/modifications that man has made over time. Which in itself is confusing enough, hrm King James has been tinkered with... ugh NIV is bloody horrid...
So whether you are Liberal or Conservative, it all boils down to what you personally believe. *dons kevlar suit* Flame away on this one, I dont care; I know what i have said here to be not only Reasonable, Logical, and based in Faith, but True.

i'm not asking him to control our lives, just to maybe to keep us from totally effing up each other's lives. i think it's a pretty big leap from "protecting babies who are being shaken by mommy and daddy" to "everybody loses free will." God already doesn't let us live our lives as we want, since he expects us to spend a good portion of our lives worshiping him and giving money to his church...so let's see a little earthly pay-back, huh? if He's all knowing and all-powerful then i'm sure he can figure out a way to protect us without making us zombies.

God does let us live our lives as we want, but he asks that we worship him and give money to *charity*. We either comply or not, based on what we want to do. It's kind of like traffic laws. Everyone is asked to obey them, and there are consequences if you don't, but the road doesn't force your hand and get you to obey them.

Yes, sometimes a person's bad decision affects someone else, but if God stepped in and stopped someone who was shaking their child, that person didn't really have free will at all, now did they? God provides guidance and support to do the right thing, but does not force your hand. I don't see this as a bad thing.

Now on to the Homosexuality issue, this one thankfully is very simple...
Tab A + Slot B = Match, I dont think I need to explain that. Homosexuality is going against your very ingrained nature... The basic instincts of any animal are Survival, Shelter, Propagation. Tab A + Slot A /= propagation. It's as simple as that, doesn't matter whether you are Agnostic or whatever, the point of having sexual organs is to Reproduce.

If this is true, what is the point of the clitoris? The clitoris is the *only* organ designed specifically for pleasure - it has no other purpose whatsoever. A woman can orgasm (which does help reproduction along) without any clitoral stimulation. So why does she have it if sex organs are only there for reproduction? Why is she still able to have sex even after she can no longer conceive?

As for a man, why does the man have a "G-spot" that triggers orgasm about an inch up his anus? If nothing is ever supposed to stimulate that area, why does it have so many nerve endings able to provide pleasure?

And finally, the definition of Fundamentalist = A christian who believes in the Word, that word being the Bible, and refuses additions/interpretations/modifications that man has made over time.

But accepts the additions/interpretations/modifications that the humans writing it down put in the first time it was committed to stone/parchment/papaya/whatever?

Flame away on this one, I dont care; I know what i have said here to be not only Reasonable, Logical, and based in Faith, but True.

Not all that logical, see above.

Up First - Abortion - We can't even be absolutely sure of what Death is, much less when life begins. Before you pop back with 'Death is when all brain activity stops'; please remember there are a frighteningly large number of cases where persons were brought to full-consciousness after being Clinically Dead for periods of 1 minute and longer. Anyhoo, there is a relation between these two topics, simply being that Science and Medicine aren't as exact as we would like them to be. So it comes down to the truth of the matter; We cannot determine when life, as we understand it, begins for the fetus. So I say we just go by this simple little idea, once the sperm fertilizes the egg; you have life. At that point it meets the same requirements for life that all animals meet.

Actually, not all animal life or reproduction requires this step.


And as I have been told many a time by radical vegans, 'Life is life, it doesnt matter if they cant talk'.

But it does matter if you're simply going by potential, which you seem to be doing. As I've said before, I believe abortion is a mistake, but I also believe taking that choice away from a woman who might have to face it is also wrong. As a fertilized egg in no way, shape or form guarantees a baby, it seems that the factual rights of the mother outweigh the potential rights of the fertilized egg. If we're going to start giving out rights on potential, then we're in trouble. I do think there should be councilling for women who are thinking about getting abortions and that they should understand completely both the procedure as well as their options, but in the end the choice still belongs to the woman and she must make it and then make whatever peace between herself and her gods (if she has any) as she can.


Now on to the Homosexuality issue, this one thankfully is very simple...
Tab A + Slot B = Match, I dont think I need to explain that. Homosexuality is going against your very ingrained nature... The basic instincts of any animal are Survival, Shelter, Propagation. Tab A + Slot A /= propagation. It's as simple as that, doesn't matter whether you are Agnostic or whatever, the point of having sexual organs is to Reproduce.

Well, apparently Tab A + Rear Slot C = Match and Tab A + Mouth Slot D = Match as well, because people have been doing it for centuries. How can homosexuals be going against their nature when their nature is the exact thing that draws them into relationships with people of the same gender? Additionally, your arguments draw the same old conclusion that, if you can't procreate, you shouldn't be having sex, so infertile women and sterile men shouldn't be doing it, women post menopause shouldn't be doing it, etc. It's really not as simple as you make it out to be.


And finally, the definition of Fundamentalist = A christian who believes in the Word, that word being the Bible, and refuses additions/interpretations/modifications that man has made over time. Which in itself is confusing enough, hrm King James has been tinkered with... ugh NIV is bloody horrid...
So whether you are Liberal or Conservative, it all boils down to what you personally believe. *dons kevlar suit* Flame away on this one, I dont care; I know what i have said here to be not only Reasonable, Logical, and based in Faith, but True.

And this is exactly why the kind of Christian that you are gets so broadly attacked, because instead of having empathy and compassion, you are attempting to make your particular version of morality the only correct one. People who have been on this planet just as long as you or longer and who are just as smart as you or smarter have had experiences that lead them to different conclusions. Instead of acknolwedging these different experiences and allowing that maybe they have a right to come to their own answers that are just as valid as yours, you invalidate their existance and their searches arbitrarily by claiming superiority of a faith they may not even believe in. Don't play the ingenue here. You know exactly why people have issues with someone who identifies themselves as a fundamentalist. Their is a lack of respect and empathy that is the hallmark of fundamentalists, be their Christian, Islamic or Jewish, that is inimical to society.

i'm not asking him to control our lives, just to maybe to keep us from totally effing up each other's lives. i think it's a pretty big leap from "protecting babies who are being shaken by mommy and daddy" to "everybody loses free will." God already doesn't let us live our lives as we want, since he expects us to spend a good portion of our lives worshiping him and giving money to his church...so let's see a little earthly pay-back, huh? if He's all knowing and all-powerful then i'm sure he can figure out a way to protect us without making us zombies.

God does let us live our lives as we want, but he asks that we worship him and give money to *charity*. We either comply or not, based on what we want to do. It's kind of like traffic laws. Everyone is asked to obey them, and there are consequences if you don't, but the road doesn't force your hand and get you to obey them.

Yes, sometimes a person's bad decision affects someone else, but if God stepped in and stopped someone who was shaking their child, that person didn't really have free will at all, now did they? God provides guidance and support to do the right thing, but does not force your hand. I don't see this as a bad thing.

the police step in and stop us from killing each other or our children...why can't God do as much? we still have free will even though the police step in, so i don't really see what your point is.

God does let us live our lives as we want, but he asks that we worship him and give money to *charity*. We either comply or not, based on what we want to do. It's kind of like traffic laws. Everyone is asked to obey them, and there are consequences if you don't, but the road doesn't force your hand and get you to obey them.

Yes, sometimes a person's bad decision affects someone else, but if God stepped in and stopped someone who was shaking their child, that person didn't really have free will at all, now did they? God provides guidance and support to do the right thing, but does not force your hand. I don't see this as a bad thing.

Why should the free will of bad people take such priority over the free will of the rest of us? Okay, the 9/11 hijackers excercised their free will in crashing two jets into the Twin Towers -- but everybody else who died in there excercised their free will by... going to work in the morning.

Further, what about the random and indeed stupid tragedies that happen all the time? People who, sitting quietly at home, are killed by a carbon monoxide buildup? Or people who's workplace blows up and collapses around them? Or who fall sudden victim to aneurisms, or are struck by lightning? What about parasites, starvation and disease? Why did God feel it necessary to make old people lose control of their bladders?

Let's face it, there is nothing rational about all this. You either have to dismiss all objections to the "all-good AND all-powerful" hypothesis with an appeal to "ineffability" and take it on pure faith -- i.e. no evidence except the internal claims of one version of one religion -- that Deity X is real and good and all things are for the best and there's no better way it could possibly be, or you are faced with the conclusion that Deity X is either NOT all-powerful, or NOT all-good, or nonexistent. As for the "ineffable" argument, it's just a cop-out. OK, I expect the mind of a putative Supreme Being to surpass my understanding, and then some: but why do we have to jump through all these earthly hoops in the first place? Why don't we all start off, perfect, in heaven?

What do you mean by "guidance and support"? If he can guide and support, can he not be a bit clearer and more emphatic and constructive? Are we back to "ineffable" again?

Do you believe that God intervenes at all? If he does, does that not contradict "free will"? If he doesn't, what's the difference between an invisible, ineffable and inactive God, and no God at all?

God does let us live our lives as we want, but he asks that we worship him and give money to *charity*. We either comply or not, based on what we want to do. It's kind of like traffic laws. Everyone is asked to obey them, and there are consequences if you don't, but the road doesn't force your hand and get you to obey them.

Yes, sometimes a person's bad decision affects someone else, but if God stepped in and stopped someone who was shaking their child, that person didn't really have free will at all, now did they? God provides guidance and support to do the right thing, but does not force your hand. I don't see this as a bad thing.

Why should the free will of bad people take such priority over the free will of the rest of us? Okay, the 9/11 hijackers excercised their free will in crashing two jets into the Twin Towers -- but everybody else who died in there excercised their free will by... going to work in the morning.

Further, what about the random and indeed stupid tragedies that happen all the time? People who, sitting quietly at home, are killed by a carbon monoxide buildup? Or people who's workplace blows up and collapses around them? Or who fall sudden victim to aneurisms, or are struck by lightning? What about parasites, starvation and disease? Why did God feel it necessary to make old people lose control of their bladders?

Let's face it, there is nothing rational about all this. You either have to dismiss all objections to the "all-good AND all-powerful" hypothesis with an appeal to "ineffability" and take it on pure faith -- i.e. no evidence except the internal claims of one version of one religion -- that Deity X is real and good and all things are for the best and there's no better way it could possibly be, or you are faced with the conclusion that Deity X is either NOT all-powerful, or NOT all-good, or nonexistent. As for the "ineffable" argument, it's just a cop-out. OK, I expect the mind of a putative Supreme Being to surpass my understanding, and then some: but why do we have to jump through all these earthly hoops in the first place? Why don't we all start off, perfect, in heaven?

What do you mean by "guidance and support"? If he can guide and support, can he not be a bit clearer and more emphatic and constructive? Are we back to "ineffable" again?

Do you believe that God intervenes at all? If he does, does that not contradict "free will"? If he doesn't, what's the difference between an invisible, ineffable and inactive God, and no God at all?

Clappi, you made my day :). rock on.

Why should the free will of bad people take such priority over the free will of the rest of us? Okay, the 9/11 hijackers excercised their free will in crashing two jets into the Twin Towers -- but everybody else who died in there excercised their free will by... going to work in the morning.

Simple answer: It shouldn't. Hard answer: It shouldn't, but who are the bad people? Admittedly, most of the world saw the 9/11 hijackers as "bad". But there is a percentage that saw them as "good". So does majority vote prove to be the rule of the day, or is there some other criteria?


Further, what about the random and indeed stupid tragedies that happen all the time? People who, sitting quietly at home, are killed by a carbon monoxide buildup? Or people who's workplace blows up and collapses around them? Or who fall sudden victim to aneurisms, or are struck by lightning? What about parasites, starvation and disease? Why did God feel it necessary to make old people lose control of their bladders?

What about them? Bad things happen. Life is full of disappointment and disillusionment. There is no gravity, the world just sucks. How does this argue against a God, or even a personified God? All it argues is that we are not in an appropriate reference frame to understand such a God's actions or motivations.


Let's face it, there is nothing rational about all this. You either have to dismiss all objections to the "all-good AND all-powerful" hypothesis with an appeal to "ineffability" and take it on pure faith -- i.e. no evidence except the internal claims of one version of one religion -- that Deity X is real and good and all things are for the best and there's no better way it could possibly be, or you are faced with the conclusion that Deity X is either NOT all-powerful, or NOT all-good, or nonexistent.

No, you don't. Again, the reference frame is important to understanding and none of us are in a good reference frame for understanding God in total. Also, you said there was nothing rational about it. Fine, if that's your point, don't attempt to use rationality to then disprove something.


As for the "ineffable" argument, it's just a cop-out. OK, I expect the mind of a putative Supreme Being to surpass my understanding, and then some: but why do we have to jump through all these earthly hoops in the first place? Why don't we all start off, perfect, in heaven?

Because that's the way it is. What's the point in starting off perfect? Where's the learning? Where's the growth?


What do you mean by "guidance and support"? If he can guide and support, can he not be a bit clearer and more emphatic and constructive? Are we back to "ineffable" again?

Let me try a metaphor to answer this. God is an eternal river and we're on the bank after crossing a long, hot, dry desert. We can dip our hands into the water and bring back a cup full and, if we are thirsty, that handful of water will be the more important than the huge expanse of the river. We can even see our own reflection in it. God provides support like that hand full of water quenches thirst and God provides direction like the river provides a boundary. We can walk along it, we can walk away from it, possibly we can someday walk over it if we find a bridge and some mystics perhaps can even swim across it. We can't understand the river, not in it's entirety. We can't understand how long it is or how much life it has in it or where it's been or where it's going. All we can truly perceive of it is the hand full that we've spooned out, which is like one grain of sand in all the beaches of the universe. However, as we can wrap our brains around that hand full and because it's immediately useful to us, we take it as the whole of the river. I'm still working on this metaphor, so it's sort of rough, but I think it makes sense and helps explain my belief that we sort of create our own God by defining understandable (but very limited) aspects of a central source which is, itself, undefinable.


Do you believe that God intervenes at all? If he does, does that not contradict "free will"? If he doesn't, what's the difference between an invisible, ineffable and inactive God, and no God at all?

Well, do your parents always stop you from making a wrong choice? How do you learn if you don't make mistakes? I don't know if I believe in a personified God who runs around the universe like some holy Super Friend, but I do know others believe in one and, on the whole, I don't see why that's necessarily bad. It's what they need from the concept of God. It doesn't make them weak or less than, it makes them different. In order for me to be able to demand respect for my own spiritual searching, I must allow them that same respect.

To get back to the topic at hand, if liberals are real Christians...

It seems to me that there is a fundamental issue that many seem to be missing in this debate: Christianity does not create people, people create Christianity.

Christianity has evolved a lot over the centuries. Today's version is far from how it was 500 years ago, and 500 years from now it will look much different than it does today. The individual practitioners are what make a religion, and as the practitioners change, so does the religion.

If someone calls himself Christian, and believes in the basic faith of it, then that person is a Christian. Just because someone is more or less liberal it does not affect how Christian they are. In fact, if it hadn't been for the liberal renewers within the church, like Martin Luther for example, I doubt that it would exist in such stature today.

The details of the religion may change, but the essence is still there. That's what faith is.

excellent point, cromotar. the early christians wouldnt recognize their christianity in our churches today. the people of the middle ages focused on things that make us shudder today, (when was the last time you heard of the blessings of scourging outside an S&M club?)

the christian churches of the future will focus on other things yet and be bewildered over what we think is important

only belief in jesus stays constant

Why should the free will of bad people take such priority over the free will of the rest of us? Okay, the 9/11 hijackers excercised their free will in crashing two jets into the Twin Towers -- but everybody else who died in there excercised their free will by... going to work in the morning.

Simple answer: It shouldn't. Hard answer: It shouldn't, but who are the bad people? Admittedly, most of the world saw the 9/11 hijackers as "bad". But there is a percentage that saw them as "good". So does majority vote prove to be the rule of the day, or is there some other criteria?

OK, remove the moral qualifiers: why did the 9/11 hijackers' free will take precendence over the 9/11 victims' free will? Rather than postulate any criteriat all, is it not simpler to say, "because the universe is without purpose"?


Further, what about the random and indeed stupid tragedies that happen all the time? People who, sitting quietly at home, are killed by a carbon monoxide buildup? Or people who's workplace blows up and collapses around them? Or who fall sudden victim to aneurisms, or are struck by lightning? What about parasites, starvation and disease? Why did God feel it necessary to make old people lose control of their bladders?

What about them? Bad things happen. Life is full of disappointment and disillusionment. There is no gravity, the world just sucks. How does this argue against a God, or even a personified God? All it argues is that we are not in an appropriate reference frame to understand such a God's actions or motivations.

This is an argument against an all-powerful, all-good God. If he can stop the bad things, but won't, then he's not all-good. If he wants to stop them, but can't, he's not all-powerful. The argument that we would in some way be damaged by a constantly interventionist and protectionist God doesn't cut it for me, I'm afraid. OK, in some circumstances, it might be better for us to learn from adversity and grow: in other cases, it would definitely, unequivocably be better for the "bad things" to be prevented. As for the merely unpleasant and undignified, such as loss of bladder control or senility in old age -- what's with that? How is any of that necessary? What good does it serve? I suspect we are heading towards the "ineffable" argument again. Simpler, surely, to say: " because the universe is without purpose".


Let's face it, there is nothing rational about all this. You either have to dismiss all objections to the "all-good AND all-powerful" hypothesis with an appeal to "ineffability" and take it on pure faith -- i.e. no evidence except the internal claims of one version of one religion -- that Deity X is real and good and all things are for the best and there's no better way it could possibly be, or you are faced with the conclusion that Deity X is either NOT all-powerful, or NOT all-good, or nonexistent.

No, you don't. Again, the reference frame is important to understanding and none of us are in a good reference frame for understanding God in total. Also, you said there was nothing rational about it. Fine, if that's your point, don't attempt to use rationality to then disprove something.

That was my point. An earlier poster -- I forget who -- had made the claim that belief (worse, fundamentalist belief) was "rational". It's not, as I -- and you -- have argued above, and indeed as Christian thinkers have concluded for well over a thousand years. But rather than postulate an unknowable, ineffable and inerrant super-entity who has created the best of all possible universes even though it is filled with what looks to us like random suffering and misery, is it not simpler to say, "the universe has no purpose"?


As for the "ineffable" argument, it's just a cop-out. OK, I expect the mind of a putative Supreme Being to surpass my understanding, and then some: but why do we have to jump through all these earthly hoops in the first place? Why don't we all start off, perfect, in heaven?

Because that's the way it is. What's the point in starting off perfect? Where's the learning? Where's the growth?

Where's God's growth? He could have made us all like Him, and we could all have lived in eternal bliss and mutual joy forever. Again, rather than postulating this all-good, all-powerful entity who -- for the best of reasons, and because it's the only way it can be done -- creates a maze of suffering for us to run through for an eyeblink before spending the rest of eternity in perpetual torment or joy, is it not simpler to say: "This is merely existence. The universe has no purpose"?


What do you mean by "guidance and support"? If he can guide and support, can he not be a bit clearer and more emphatic and constructive? Are we back to "ineffable" again?

Let me try a metaphor to answer this. God is an eternal river and we're on the bank after crossing a long, hot, dry desert. We can dip our hands into the water and bring back a cup full and, if we are thirsty, that handful of water will be the more important than the huge expanse of the river. We can even see our own reflection in it. God provides support like that hand full of water quenches thirst and God provides direction like the river provides a boundary. We can walk along it, we can walk away from it, possibly we can someday walk over it if we find a bridge and some mystics perhaps can even swim across it. We can't understand the river, not in it's entirety. We can't understand how long it is or how much life it has in it or where it's been or where it's going. All we can truly perceive of it is the hand full that we've spooned out, which is like one grain of sand in all the beaches of the universe. However, as we can wrap our brains around that hand full and because it's immediately useful to us, we take it as the whole of the river. I'm still working on this metaphor, so it's sort of rough, but I think it makes sense and helps explain my belief that we sort of create our own God by defining understandable (but very limited) aspects of a central source which is, itself, undefinable.

I'm afraid the metaphor is a bit ineffable to me :) . This, though, is what I feel it comes down to. You, I assume, have had some religious experience, some sense of God in your life. I haven't. No offence meant, but I view "religious experiences" (from the admittedly limited point of view of someone who doesn't know what they are) as physical, electrochemical events occurring within the human brain. But I admit that I literally don't know what I'm talking about here.


Do you believe that God intervenes at all? If he does, does that not contradict "free will"? If he doesn't, what's the difference between an invisible, ineffable and inactive God, and no God at all?

Well, do your parents always stop you from making a wrong choice? How do you learn if you don't make mistakes? I don't know if I believe in a personified God who runs around the universe like some holy Super Friend, but I do know others believe in one and, on the whole, I don't see why that's necessarily bad. It's what they need from the concept of God. It doesn't make them weak or less than, it makes them different. In order for me to be able to demand respect for my own spiritual searching, I must allow them that same respect.

This runs up against the same rocks for me, I'm afraid. Can help but won't = not all-good. Would like to help but can't = not all-powerful. I cannot believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing being could not devise some better mode of existence than this one. Does the Divine Plan really need that raped child? Is it fundamental to the nature of being that this loving husband and father should fall victim to schizophrenia? I can't buy it. And a God who intervenes here and there, with a hit rate that's exactly the same as random chance? If some people want or need to look at the world that way, so be it: but I can't bring myself to respect their point of view.

If it looks like a purposeless universe, and quacks like a purposeless universe -- it's a purposeless universe. There is no good and no evil, just that which we do ourselves. There is no justice, except that which we make for ourselves. There is no purpose, except that which we find for ourselves. Anything else is just whistling in the dark.

Clappi and Berkylvania - have either of you read The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky? There's a passage (from the perspective of the brother Ivan) that goes into great detail on the issues that you discuss. Something about whether or not the torture of one child is judtified in the cause of peace. Memory fails...

Clappi and Berkylvania - have either of you read The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky? There's a passage (from the perspective of the brother Ivan) that goes into great detail on the issues that you discuss. Something about whether or not the torture of one child is judtified in the cause of peace. Memory fails...

I've tried, albeit a long time ago, but I've never managed to finish it. Something about all those multi-part names... I remember the chapter about the meeting between the Grand Inquisitor and the reincarnated Christ, but I can't remember the bit you mention. Maybe I'll give it another go -- although there are plenty of other books waiting to be read. Arggh!

Clappi - Oh yay Existentialism... If you believe the world is meaningless and death is the oblivion end, then go speed up the process just like Hemmingway did. Nah Wait don't do that, there may yet be some hope for you to do something other than negative actions.
As to others free will imposing over anothers. There has always been people in power who have abused said power to the detriment of those around them. Those Hijackers took a role of dominance, and except for the one plane that crashed over Pennsylvania, they were unchallenged. So Freedom of Will was preserved, the people in all of the planes had the choice. They all knew that they were going to die, how they die was their choice.
And yes I do enjoy attacking Existentialism, its the only belief/idealogy that took such intelligent people to come up with a brilliantly ignorant idea.

As to the wonderful attacks upon me, no I never claimed that I was superior; you may be able to read that from what I have said. As they say, hear what you want to hear.

To the comment about that any combination seems to work; Really? so then by that logic i should be able to jerk off and produce Children. The point i made was that the primary intent of the sexual organs is Reproduction; ya know Survival of the Species...

Yeah yeah, there are more than just the clitoris that has little other purpose than stimulation; Freedom of Will and all that. Even if you have the capability to do something, doesnt mean you should.

Clappi and Berkylvania - have either of you read The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky? There's a passage (from the perspective of the brother Ivan) that goes into great detail on the issues that you discuss. Something about whether or not the torture of one child is judtified in the cause of peace. Memory fails...

I've tried, albeit a long time ago, but I've never managed to finish it. Something about all those multi-part names... I remember the chapter about the meeting between the Grand Inquisitor and the reincarnated Christ, but I can't remember the bit you mention. Maybe I'll give it another go -- although there are plenty of other books waiting to be read. Arggh!

Know the feeling - I just had a birthday and all my presents were books! The joys of Will Self, Bill Hicks, Robert Rankin and some random bloke I can't remember are all to come...

Why should the free will of bad people take such priority over the free will of the rest of us? Okay, the 9/11 hijackers excercised their free will in crashing two jets into the Twin Towers -- but everybody else who died in there excercised their free will by... going to work in the morning.

Why should the free will of good people take precendence over that of bad people? I mean, we put people we think are bad in jail, right? I doubt they want to go. It's a silly question, free will is free will. To say that God should only give free will to good people is like saying that everyone can have freedom of speech as long as they don't hurt anyone's feelings.

Further, what about the random and indeed stupid tragedies that happen all the time? People who, sitting quietly at home, are killed by a carbon monoxide buildup? Or people who's workplace blows up and collapses around them? Or who fall sudden victim to aneurisms, or are struck by lightning? What about parasites, starvation and disease? Why did God feel it necessary to make old people lose control of their bladders?

Most of what you are describing here is part of nature. Nature itself is a good and beautiful thing. Human beings view anything that hurts them as *bad*, but in the long run it isn't really. Parasites, disease, and viruses are part of what causes a species to evolve. People who die in a CO buildup die, but their deaths can contribute to the lives of other people or, if they are buried, of other life. Your definition of good and bad seems to be "if a human is hurt, bad - if a human is coddled, good."


What do you mean by "guidance and support"? If he can guide and support, can he not be a bit clearer and more emphatic and constructive? Are we back to "ineffable" again?

I could appeal to the river metaphor from Berkylavania ((which was very good by the way!!)) but you said you didn't understand that one, so let me put it this way. I believe that if you ask God to be a part of your life and to guide you, you receive that guidance. If you are expecting and looking for it, it is very clear. This isn't ineffable, it just requires faith.

Do you believe that God intervenes at all? If he does, does that not contradict "free will"? If he doesn't, what's the difference between an invisible, ineffable and inactive God, and no God at all?

It doesn't contradict free will if you ask for it. I ask God to intervene by guiding me to do what is right. Thus, if man X on the corner is praying for something to happen and I can do it, then God may guide me to help. Ditto for if I am praying for intervention in my life.

You don't have to agree with me on this, but I feel it working in my life.

To the comment about that any combination seems to work; Really? so then by that logic i should be able to jerk off and produce Children. The point i made was that the primary intent of the sexual organs is Reproduction; ya know Survival of the Species...

Actually what you said was that the only intent of the sexual organs is reproduction, which was promptly disproved.

Yeah yeah, there are more than just the clitoris that has little other purpose than stimulation; Freedom of Will and all that.

Your argument was that everything is used only according to its purpose. Since you believe reproduction is the *only* use for sexual organs, you obviously think that's all they were designed for. So I ask again, why would organs be designed specifically for pleasure if they were not to be used for that?

Even if you have the capability to do something, doesnt mean you should.

Like think rationally?

"All people who live good lives,
no matter what their religion, have a place in heaven."

How can an intelligent person argue with that statement :?:


. Source (http://www.swedenborg.org/) of the above.

"All people who live good lives,
no matter what their religion, have a place in heaven."

How can an intelligent person argue with that statement :?:


Well, provided there is a heaven, you're right. It would be nice.

"All people who live good lives,
no matter what their religion, have a place in heaven."

How can an intelligent person argue with that statement :?:


Well, provided there is a heaven, you're right. It would be nice.

I agree with the statement, although I wouldn't argue with someone who says that there isn't a heaven. I also take it one step further and say that if there is a heaven all will eventually get there.

"All people who live good lives,
no matter what their religion, have a place in heaven."

How can an intelligent person argue with that statement :?:


Well, provided there is a heaven, you're right. It would be nice.

I agree with the statement, although I wouldn't argue with someone who says that there isn't a heaven. I also take it one step further and say that if there is a heaven all will eventually get there.

I'm not arguing against there being a heaven, I simply don't know and don't believe I will know while I'm alive. I like your views though.

Clappi - Oh yay Existentialism... If you believe the world is meaningless and death is the oblivion end, then go speed up the process just like Hemmingway did. Nah Wait don't do that, there may yet be some hope for you to do something other than negative actions.

Oh, thank you so much. Actually, I find that my outlook on life gives me every reason to keep on living: it's all I'm ever going to get, so I may as well enjoy it while it lasts. After all -- given that it's a purposeless and random universe -- I might get hit by a bus tomorrow. Or a meteorite. Or a flood basalt event. Or a crippling disease. Or... you get the point, I hope. Carpe diem, I say.

There is nothing negative about belief in a purposeless universe: it means that, if I want purpose and meaning in my life, I have to get off my duff and make them for myself -- not ingest them whole from someone's particular interpretation of some big old book of fable.

As to others free will imposing over anothers. There has always been people in power who have abused said power to the detriment of those around them. Those Hijackers took a role of dominance, and except for the one plane that crashed over Pennsylvania, they were unchallenged. So Freedom of Will was preserved, the people in all of the planes had the choice. They all knew that they were going to die, how they die was their choice.

Great choice. How about the ones in the WTC, who didn't even see it coming? But frankly this is nonsense. Of course we have free will, since we live in a purposeless universe. I don't debate the issue of free will; I question the possibilty of the simultaneous existence of an all-powerful, all-good Deity, and free will. I'm afraid that, by his own terms, Calvin was right: an all-powerful, transcendent God creates all things, past, present and future. If God exists then everything is pre-ordained, since God transcends the universe and the universe consists of time as well as space. Hence either: God is not all-powerful; or, God is not all-good; or (simplest explanation), God is imaginary.

And yes I do enjoy attacking Existentialism, its the only belief/idealogy that took such intelligent people to come up with a brilliantly ignorant idea.

Well, as long as you're having fun. Can I ask, though: why do you believe there is a God? Have you had some sort of religious experience? Even though, as I said, I think that such events are electrochemical and neurological, I find them interesting. I honestly have no idea what one must be like.

OK, remove the moral qualifiers: why did the 9/11 hijackers' free will take precendence over the 9/11 victims' free will? Rather than postulate any criteriat all, is it not simpler to say, "because the universe is without purpose"?

Not necessarily. While the events of 9/11 were tragic, who knows what their future ramifications will be. I'm not talking about now, but even farther in the future. Additionally, it seems a mistake to say that just because the purpose of the universe and/or God is different from our desired purpose, that negates a purpose altogether. What if the only purpose of God or the universe is to exist, all qualifiers aside? I think you're going to accuse me of being ineffible here, but I do believe in frames of reference and I believe that, given our mortal and limited perception, we do not have the proper frame of reference to judge. It may be simpler to say that 9/11 is an argument for a universe without purpose, but just because it's simpler doesn't mean it's correct. That's why I try and explore the possibilities and keep an open mind. It may very well turn out I'm wrong and when I die the last chemical reaction firing in my brain may spell out something like, "Whoops, well, blew that one," but to not even question it, to not explore the possibility seems somehow to be a betrayal of everything that makes me human.


This is an argument against an all-powerful, all-good God. If he can stop the bad things, but won't, then he's not all-good. If he wants to stop them, but can't, he's not all-powerful. The argument that we would in some way be damaged by a constantly interventionist and protectionist God doesn't cut it for me, I'm afraid. OK, in some circumstances, it might be better for us to learn from adversity and grow: in other cases, it would definitely, unequivocably be better for the "bad things" to be prevented. As for the merely unpleasant and undignified, such as loss of bladder control or senility in old age -- what's with that? How is any of that necessary? What good does it serve? I suspect we are heading towards the "ineffable" argument again. Simpler, surely, to say: " because the universe is without purpose".

Again, no, it's not. Good can come from bad and death is a part of life. Would you sacrifice one minute of this life, with all it's inherant pains and woes, for whatever comes afterwards? Why are you asking theists to do that?

I'm not sure if I believe in an all-powerful, all-good God. Not really. It's a nice idea, but like you've pointed out, practicle evidence would seem to suggest otherwise. Although, if anyone can give some examples (heh, if anyone actually reads my long a$$ posts), then I'd be more than happy to listen.

Like I posted in another thread, I accept the framework of Christianity (in a particularly lenient form) because of my social conditioning. The tools, terminology and focus are familiar to me so I don't have to waste time on becoming familiar with the the symbology of another faith and can explore the real issue to me, which is: What is the substance of God? I don't particularly think that there is a personified God any more than people have created one, which can be just as valid. It goes back to my metaphor. God, or at least my current working concept of it, is eternal and abundant and while it directly touches all things, all things also directly touch God. Because of that touching, all things can focus on a particular aspect of God and bring it to the fore. Be it a vengeful and punishing God or a merciful and forgiving God or a God for each individual human emotion or whatever. Because God, in it's base form, is unlimited, it can simultaneously be all these things without provoking inherant contradiction. There can be multiple aspects of God, each reflecting a valid interpretation, that can be, for lack of better terminology, "called forth" by mankind to serve whatever purpose the moment requires. These aspects are an intrinsic part of the whole of God, but are framed in a way that satisfies (and obeys) our comprehension. They are not, in and of themselves, the whole of God, any more than a handful of water is the whole of the river. They are, at the time, the most focused and/or important part of the whole of God, just as a thirsty man cares more about the water he's going to drink rather than what's happening five miles up stream.

The problem is, if I may be so bold as to make this assumption, that you are working against disproving a very Judeo-Christian concept of God. I can't really blame you. I'm not sure what your social conditioning is, but as religion is the social expression of faith, we tend to feel very bound to whatever ones have influenced our lives (even if we don't believe). I could be completely wrong in this, though, and if I am I apologize for the assumption. I make it because I see anti-theists tend to fall between two categories: A) Those who have made a long spiritual trip and questioned themselves and the world around them, have decided that they do not have faith in "God" and are quite satisfied and feel no reason to debate his existance with others; and B) Those who have had a bad experience in faith (or no experience whatsoever) and have reacted to it by attempting to attack, destroy or disprove whatever conceptualization of faith they feel has done them wrong. Of course, these are polar extremes and a majority of non-theists (and even theists, to a degree) hold their views because of a mixture of these extremes.

The reason I said that and risked offending you (and please believe me when I say that really wasn't my intention), is because it seems that you make very effective arguments against a traditional Judeo-Christian aspect of God, and, honestly, I don't really have an answer for them. It does seem odd that an all-powerful and all-good God would allow evil to exist, or pain or old age or create a situation where we must experience these thing in order to learn when he could have just made us perfect to begin with. The only answer to that seems to be the ineffible (which I know you hate), "Well, that's the way he did it and who are you to argue with God?" That's not a very satisfying answer for me, either, by the way.

The trouble is, these arguments, while being potent against a specific conceptualization of God, are not as effective against the idea of God as Prime Source, devoid of the expectations and limitations our self-called aspect of it imposes.


That was my point. An earlier poster -- I forget who -- had made the claim that belief (worse, fundamentalist belief) was "rational". It's not, as I -- and you -- have argued above, and indeed as Christian thinkers have concluded for well over a thousand years.

Oh, absolutely. You can use rationality within belief, but that initial track jump from a rational, physical world view to an intuitive, metaphysical world view is completely irrational. Sorry if I missed this.


But rather than postulate an unknowable, ineffable and inerrant super-entity who has created the best of all possible universes even though it is filled with what looks to us like random suffering and misery, is it not simpler to say, "the universe has no purpose"?

Just because it's simpler doesn't always make it true, and no Occam's Razor, please. Differential equations are not simple, but that doesn't make them any less true or important in understanding the mechanics of the universe.

Also, yes, the world is full of misery, suffering and woe, but at the same time it's also filled with heroisim, beauty and pure joy. Can one exist without the other, at least in our present frame? As for the best of all possible worlds, who knows? Perhaps it would be much worse without God? That's all speculation (well, all this is speculation, when you get right down to it).


Where's God's growth? He could have made us all like Him, and we could all have lived in eternal bliss and mutual joy forever. Again, rather than postulating this all-good, all-powerful entity who -- for the best of reasons, and because it's the only way it can be done -- creates a maze of suffering for us to run through for an eyeblink before spending the rest of eternity in perpetual torment or joy, is it not simpler to say: "This is merely existence. The universe has no purpose"?

It's just as simple to say, "God exists and has a purpose, I just don't understand it." As for God's growth, perhaps it grows through us. I like the idea that we offer, through our lives and experience, a sensation to God that it previously lacked or wasn't aware of. I don't say that's true and I realize that's most likely my Pollyanna soul finding a bright shell on the beach of life and mistaking it for something meaningful.


I'm afraid the metaphor is a bit ineffable to me :) . This, though, is what I feel it comes down to. You, I assume, have had some religious experience, some sense of God in your life. I haven't. No offence meant, but I view "religious experiences" (from the admittedly limited point of view of someone who doesn't know what they are) as physical, electrochemical events occurring within the human brain. But I admit that I literally don't know what I'm talking about here.

Yes, I know that metaphor needs work. I've got that one and the prisim one and they both need some development before I go around springing them on people. :D

Yes, I have had what I would term religious experiences. However, I also believe those experiences were, at least in part, motivated by electrochemical events occurring within the human brain. Regardless of one's stance on God, it's not a smart move to deny objective reality and, the fact of the matter is, many of our "emotions" have an underlying chemical motivator. Even still, though, I do believe that, while this serves on a physical level, there is a meta-physical component which is not denied existance by the obvious chemical functions of the brain. I also, though, may be completely off base in this and utterly wrong and the fact that we can both admit to this potential is why we can talk about it calmly and exchange ideas rather than use words like, "idiot heathen" and "stupid God-botherer." All in all, the acknowledgement that either one of us might be wrong provides a much more satisfactory exchange of ideas, don't you think? :D

Plus, wouldn't it be wonderful if both of us were right?

This runs up against the same rocks for me, I'm afraid. Can help but won't = not all-good. Would like to help but can't = not all-powerful.

Well, again, though, that's the problem. You're using qualifiers like "good" and "help" and even "powerful" to some extent. I mean, this type of thinking is the same justification that Bush used to invade Iraq (I just KNEW I could tie these two subjects together somehow! :lol: ). We've all seen how that "good" and "all-powerful" act has turned out. It's debateable if it was even "good" and it's certainly turning out to be not "all-powerful". It comes back to the old question, can an all-powerful God create a universe that binds it's actions, therefore nullifying it's all-powerful ground state? Greater theologians and skeptics than me have wrestled with this question and there's not enough space to go over all their answers here. It seems, though, at least to me that creating a universe that does impose limits on him is perhaps a definition of "all-powerfulness". The fact that he (and please forgive the use of the male pronoun here...again, I'm used to using the tools of Judeo-Christian theology and God is traditionally personified as a he) managed to "subdue" an "un-subduable" power argues that he himself is greater than that power, even though he (at least in certain aspects) is now limited.


I cannot believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing being could not devise some better mode of existence than this one. Does the Divine Plan really need that raped child? Is it fundamental to the nature of being that this loving husband and father should fall victim to schizophrenia? I can't buy it.

Yes, it does seem strange. I have no answer for that. It's one of those areas I'm still exploring. It seems to be sort of a, "Does the end justify the means," kind of thing, at least in a way. I don't know what possible good a rape of a child would serve or why such a terrible thing is part of whatever God's plan might be. This is why I have trouble truly believing in a personified God, at least personified in the sense of a kindly father figure floating above us in long white robes, watching over us and rooting for us or having any other plan than just existing and seeing what happens. Who knows? I know I've gone through enough spiritual permutations in my life to never say never and perhaps this will be an obsticle I can't clear, but right now, I'm not willing to abandon a search for God because of the horrible actions of others. But I completely understand your point, though, and agree with it to a certain extent.


And a God who intervenes here and there, with a hit rate that's exactly the same as random chance? If some people want or need to look at the world that way, so be it: but I can't bring myself to respect their point of view.

This is where we disagree. Not so much about the random chance, but about respecting world views. In order to get respect, you must be willing to give it.


If it looks like a purposeless universe, and quacks like a purposeless universe -- it's a purposeless universe. There is no good and no evil, just that which we do ourselves. There is no justice, except that which we make for ourselves. There is no purpose, except that which we find for ourselves. Anything else is just whisting in the dark.

Maybe. That's certainly a possibility. It's the one I operated on while I was forming my own moral code, that there was no justice, no good, no value except that which I brought to the playing field myself. Stepping outside the system of religion and faith gave me time and perspective to consider it and, what I believe, the empathy to appreciate everyone's approach to these questions, so long as they show tolerance and grant me the right to come to my own conclusions. Maybe you don't respect me because of my viewpoints, but I certainly respect yours. And perhaps I am whistling in the dark, but, at least for me, it's more interesting to whistle in the dark than just sit there.

the problem of a god who permits evil has bothered religious people since the beginning of time

check out gods response to job when he asked him wtf god was letting such bad stuff happen to him.

or, since job is a bit hard to get through, try a book named
"when bad things happen to good people"

it is possible to come to a more sophisticated religious view than the one where god kills your innocent child with lukemia to punish you for missing church on sunday.

or just whine to god about it, he's the one who decided this stuff not US

post deleted.

"All people who live good lives,
no matter what their religion, have a place in heaven."

How can an intelligent person argue with that statement :?:


Well, provided there is a heaven, you're right. It would be nice.

I agree with the statement, although I wouldn't argue with someone who says that there isn't a heaven. I also take it one step further and say that if there is a heaven all will eventually get there.

I'm not arguing against there being a heaven, I simply don't know and don't believe I will know while I'm alive. I like your views though.

I agree. Although if there isn't a life after death, I would prefer not knowing. I think that there is, but I certainly can't prove it.

Why should the free will of good people take precendence over that of bad people? I mean, we put people we think are bad in jail, right? I doubt they want to go. It's a silly question, free will is free will. To say that God should only give free will to good people is like saying that everyone can have freedom of speech as long as they don't hurt anyone's feelings.


I'm not questioning the existence of free will. I'm questioning the logical contortions some people go through to preserve the idea of free will AND an all-powerful, all-good God. Logically, Calvin was more honest. If God transcends the universe, then he must also transcend time. If he is all-powerful, onmipresent, and all the rest, he must also know exactly what will happen, everywhere, throughout the universe, all the time. In fact, he must have known all this at the moment of Creation: therefore, predestination. But since I don't believe in God, omnipotent, all-good or whatever, I believe we have free will. There's no need to tie yourself in knots to preserve God AND free will. If you discard the first assumption, the second follows automatically.

Further, what about the random and indeed stupid tragedies that happen all the time? People who, sitting quietly at home, are killed by a carbon monoxide buildup? Or people who's workplace blows up and collapses around them? Or who fall sudden victim to aneurisms, or are struck by lightning? What about parasites, starvation and disease? Why did God feel it necessary to make old people lose control of their bladders?

Most of what you are describing here is part of nature. Nature itself is a good and beautiful thing. Human beings view anything that hurts them as *bad*, but in the long run it isn't really. Parasites, disease, and viruses are part of what causes a species to evolve. People who die in a CO buildup die, but their deaths can contribute to the lives of other people or, if they are buried, of other life.

Yes, it's part of nature. It all makes perfect sense as part of a blind and purposeless nature. What I can't buy is the idea that all this has been deliberately created for the purpose of getting some imperfect creations to better themselves. If we all had the same level playing field, for example, then maybe I could see some sense in it. But consider: it's quite easy for me to be decent to other people. I had a happy and loving childhood, a good education, and a decent job. Adolf Hitler, on the other hand, had a nightmare childhood, four brutal years in the trenches in WWI, and serious mental problems. Am I better than him? Who is to say? What if he'd had the loving family and decent life, and I'd had the misery and brutality? If Hitler was innately evil, then -- who's to blame for that? If he wasn't, then is there not at least some mitigating factor in his life?

Not everyone with an abusive childhood turns into a monster, certainly: but a significantly higher proportion of them do. Why do they have to get past these extra hurdles? Or does God judge them on a lower standard? Of course, many people don't survive abusive or impoverished childhoods. How can six short years spent starving in the dust be compared to ninety in the comfort of a wealthy and developed society? Is it ineffable again?

Your definition of good and bad seems to be "if a human is hurt, bad - if a human is coddled, good."

You've oversimplified my definitions of bad and good. "Bad" and "good" can't work on broad definitions: it has to be judged case-by-case. If a child is raped or tortured -- neither one an intrinsic part of nature, but certainly the product of someone else excercising their free will -- that's bad, yes? If someone has the power to intervene, and does, then that's pretty unequivocably good. If they have the power to intervene, and don't, because that might interfere with the torturer's precious free will, then I'd have to say that WASN'T good. So you have to wonder why God fails to intervene. Complex answer: it surpasseth all understanding. Simple answer: there is no God.


What do you mean by "guidance and support"? If he can guide and support, can he not be a bit clearer and more emphatic and constructive? Are we back to "ineffable" again?

I could appeal to the river metaphor from Berkylavania ((which was very good by the way!!)) but you said you didn't understand that one, so let me put it this way. I believe that if you ask God to be a part of your life and to guide you, you receive that guidance. If you are expecting and looking for it, it is very clear. This isn't ineffable, it just requires faith.

It is ineffable, if it requires faith to accept, instead of reason to understand. That's pretty much what ineffable means, surely? Also, if you've had a religious experience, regardless of my views on that, then there is a source for your faith. But do you seriously expect me to have faith in what is, frankly, an obvious set of fables? Why shouldn't I have faith in Odin? Or Thoth? Or Grandfather Bandicoot?

Do you believe that God intervenes at all? If he does, does that not contradict "free will"? If he doesn't, what's the difference between an invisible, ineffable and inactive God, and no God at all?

It doesn't contradict free will if you ask for it. I ask God to intervene by guiding me to do what is right. Thus, if man X on the corner is praying for something to happen and I can do it, then God may guide me to help. Ditto for if I am praying for intervention in my life.

You don't have to agree with me on this, but I feel it working in my life.

But what if you ask for it, and he doesn't give it to you? If there's no rhyme or reason to it, if it just happens or doesn't happen, then what's the difference between this and random chance? How do you know that the assistance came from God, and not just from the routine tickings of a purposeless universe? Faith, I assume. :)

Take Lourdes, for instance: out of the millions of people who have visited Lourdes, there have been only a handful of medically inexplicable results. (Note that "medically inexplicable" doesn't mean "miraculous", just "beyond current knowledge". There has been nothing that defies nature, such as limbs regrowing.) In fact, the odds of remission from cancer among people going to Lourdes is actually slightly lower than those who don't go. Even this anomaly is explained by the fact that Lourdes attracts people with more serious illnesses; when you factor this in, you get a result that matches random chance.

Mind you, not that that would convince anyone who had gone to Lourdes and had recovered. I suppose this is where the personal experience comes in. But people of all faiths have, throughout history, had religious experiences. What makes their faiths all wrong and yours right?

I'm not questioning the existence of free will. I'm questioning the logical contortions some people go through to preserve the idea of free will AND an all-powerful, all-good God. Logically, Calvin was more honest. If God transcends the universe, then he must also transcend time. If he is all-powerful, onmipresent, and all the rest, he must also know exactly what will happen, everywhere, throughout the universe, all the time. In fact, he must have known all this at the moment of Creation: therefore, predestination. But since I don't believe in God, omnipotent, all-good or whatever, I believe we have free will. There's no need to tie yourself in knots to preserve God AND free will. If you discard the first assumption, the second follows automatically.

There is a huge difference between predestination and knowing what will happen. Predestination would involve forcing my hand to do what I'm supposed to, thus - no free will. Knowing what will happen is part of being able to see all of the possibilities. Given an infinite amount of information and knowledge of infinite possibilities, you can determine what will happen.

Some of your objections are issues I don't necessarily have an answer to at this time. I can say that I tend towards the view that God is not outside the universe so much as God *is* the universe. Or perhaps the universe is part of God.

Yes, it's part of nature. It all makes perfect sense as part of a blind and purposeless nature. What I can't buy is the idea that all this has been deliberately created for the purpose of getting some imperfect creations to better themselves.

Or it makes sense as, this is the nature that was created and it is all part of God's nature. And I never said it was created just for the purpose of getting imperfect creations to better themselves - that's a viewpoint brought up by human beings that think they *must* be the center of creation because they think they are better than the rest of nature.

Not everyone with an abusive childhood turns into a monster, certainly: but a significantly higher proportion of them do. Why do they have to get past these extra hurdles? Or does God judge them on a lower standard? Of course, many people don't survive abusive or impoverished childhoods. How can six short years spent starving in the dust be compared to ninety in the comfort of a wealthy and developed society? Is it ineffable again?

I don't claim to know the answer to some of these questions. But I also don't claim that they prove or disprove anything. I had a mostly loving, middle class upbringing. I was also abused as a child. Both things are a part of who I am. But things that we deem as *good* can come out of things that we deem as *bad*. I person who is harmed as a child, for example, may develop into a more compassionate person who can help others going through emotional pain. They may have a drive to help others.

You've oversimplified my definitions of bad and good. "Bad" and "good" can't work on broad definitions: it has to be judged case-by-case. If a child is raped or tortured -- neither one an intrinsic part of nature, but certainly the product of someone else excercising their free will -- that's bad, yes?

Of course I think that is bad, but I can see how good can eventually come out of it.

If someone has the power to intervene, and does, then that's pretty unequivocably good.

Not necessarily. Suppose you see a child about to be murdered and you go and save them. You have done a good thing - yay for you. Now suppose that the child grows up to kill 6 million people. Did you really do good in the long run? Like someone else said on here good can come from bad and bad can come from good.

It is ineffable, if it requires faith to accept, instead of reason to understand. That's pretty much what ineffable means, surely? Also, if you've had a religious experience, regardless of my views on that, then there is a source for your faith. But do you seriously expect me to have faith in what is, frankly, an obvious set of fables? Why shouldn't I have faith in Odin? Or Thoth? Or Grandfather Bandicoot?

Ineffable means beyond understanding. Faith is not necessarily beyond understanding. But, there is a source for my fiath. And no, I don't expect you to agree with my faith. I just expect you to respect my views like I respect yours.

But what if you ask for it, and he doesn't give it to you? If there's no rhyme or reason to it, if it just happens or doesn't happen, then what's the difference between this and random chance? How do you know that the assistance came from God, and not just from the routine tickings of a purposeless universe? Faith, I assume. :)

Yup, faith.

Take Lourdes, for instance: out of the millions of people who have visited Lourdes, there have been only a handful of medically inexplicable results. (Note that "medically inexplicable" doesn't mean "miraculous", just "beyond current knowledge".

I love the way people assume that anyone who has faith can't understand science. As a bioengineer, I understand the term "medically inexplicable".

Mind you, not that that would convince anyone who had gone to Lourdes and had recovered. I suppose this is where the personal experience comes in. But people of all faiths have, throughout history, had religious experiences. What makes their faiths all wrong and yours right?

I never said that all faiths were wrong and mine is right. I believe that all faiths have some part of the equation right, and none have all of it (including mine). I am constantly reexamining and changing my faith in hopes of getting closer to what is right. Like I said, I respect your view (hell, I'm dating an atheist) and only ask that you give equal respect to mine, whether you agree or not.

If my child does an evil thing, despite my teaching and training and encouragement, I have not "permitted" it. I grieve over the action, and over my child, but I did not will this to happen. I still would not willingly obliterate my sinful child, either.

I see the suffering of Jesus as sympathy, deep sympathy, for all who suffer, especially the innocent. The resurrection, then, is vindication and hope. The surface of the sea is stormy but the deeps are calm. Chronological calendar and clock-oriented life is full of pain and conflict but kairotic life, significant timeless moments, are whole and good and perfect.

I see God as all-loving but not all-powerful. The scripture passages which speak of omnipotence I interpret as pointing toward the final victory of good over evil and love over hate, not toward a day by day manipulation of minute events.

(a whole mass of stuff which it would be impolite to quote in full, but thankyou for a very interesting response!)

To be honest I've never had a bad experience with any faith, and -- although I acknowledge that it may not always come over that way -- I don't hate people for their beliefs, nor do I hate the beliefs themselves. I admit that some of them make me nervous, and I don't like seeing governments run by the devout of any stripe, but mostly I just honestly do not get it -- "it" being the concept of God. Particularly bewildering are the beliefs that depend on an anthropomorphic deity and his sand-box creation, which are just so unimaginative. So cripplingly limited. Just kind of... to be blunt, and notwithstanding what you said about respect for other people's beliefs... well... stupid. Fine for the Middle Ages, slightly questionable for the Renaissance, foolish after the Enlightenment and just plain dumb now: I mean, why not go the whole hog and have a flat earth under a dome of sky with God sitting outside on a big chair, wearing a toga the size of Asia?

I appreciate that this is obviously not your strand of belief, though. And personally I've always had a soft spot for Buddhism, which at least operates on something like the right cosmic scale, and avoids the internal logical knots of the Judeo-Christian systems. OK, I admit it: God -- some form of entity or thing beyond the physical, whether of the universe or in some way outside and beyond it -- is possible. Inevitably, indeed by definition, such a being would be ineffable. If some people feel it moving in their minds, and interpret it through their culture and upbringing, then this could be a source of faith. Also, such an entity would be so beyond our ability to comprehend that it would be intangible and invisible to us. But I can't see the point. Such a being is unneccessary. Which is not to say nonexistent, of course, but -- why worry about it? Although there is the throwaway line from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, jsut before they get distracted by people not wearing enough hats:

"Matter is energy. In the universe there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person's soul. However, this "soul" does not exist ab initio as orthodox Christianity teaches; it has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved owing to man's unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia."

This is without doubt the most worrying theology I've ever encountered. Really. :)

Obviously people have different interests and enthusiasms. Things that are deeply fascinating to me can be stultifying to others. Which obviously is a failing on their part :) . Maybe that's the answer. I think maybe I'm interested in the idea of the idea of God; what people believe, and why. So thankyou for your post: it's given me a lot to go on.

A quick defence of Ockham's Razor: it's not really about simplicity, it's about the least number of postulates. It is of course merely a rule of thumb: after all, if a scientist with no knowledge of TV was shown a working TV set, Ockham's Razor would probably lead him at first to conclude that the images were produced solely by the electronics within the set. To add a postulate of "a broadcaster" would be deemed unneccessary. But with that in mind, it is a very good rule of thumb, and it does slice right through a lot of nonsense. In this case I feel that God is an unneccessary postulate, and should probably be discarded. Without any evidence for, or ability to detect, God, the question becomes even more moot, from a rational standpoint. Which of course may be the problem.

From this perspective, then, I can see that a more interpretive, mystical (in the non-perjorative sense) view of the idea of God could be interesting, even pleasing, to consider. I think I can see why you believe what you believe: nothing concrete, not the chapter, verse, word, letter, jot and tittle, but something (Friday night -- I'm not at my most expressive, sorry :( ). Numinous? Immanent? I can't do it myself, I'm afraid; my brain won't let me and it's the only one I have. But I can respect your views as being the product of a sensible and considered approach to the universe.

Sorry this is a bit rambling; your post really deserves better. But it's Friday and time for my tea, amongst other things, so this will have to do!

There is a huge difference between predestination and knowing what will happen. Predestination would involve forcing my hand to do what I'm supposed to, thus - no free will. Knowing what will happen is part of being able to see all of the possibilities. Given an infinite amount of information and knowledge of infinite possibilities, you can determine what will happen.

Some of your objections are issues I don't necessarily have an answer to at this time. I can say that I tend towards the view that God is not outside the universe so much as God *is* the universe. Or perhaps the universe is part of God.

Thanks for the response. Sorry I missed it last night. The whole issue of time and predestination is undeniably complex. Talking about it the other night, I heard an interesting idea: we all have a physical existence in three dimensions, right? And while we are free to move around in those three dimensions, we are not *totally* free: I am bounded by my shape and size, and to a degree by gravity and other physical aspects of my environment. It's possible that the same is true of time: my potential for movement in the fourth dimension is *not* infinite, therefore I have at best limited free will. In fact, given that movement in time seems to be entirely one-way (although the speed may vary), I may have *very* limited free will indeed. It is even possible that the only potential for movement is at a quantum level, and therefore below that of conscious manipulation: which would mean no free will at all, in that my 4-dimensional shape is already mapped and I'm just rattling along the rails. It *feels* like free will, since I have no knowledge of the future, but potentially that future already exists. The conversation did break down a bit at this point and we got into the whole "the conscious part of your brain only kicks in after you start to do something" bit, which implies that all we as conscious beings do is make up an on-the-spot narrative to explain to ourselves why we're doing the things we are doing. Personally, I think this has more to do with our lack of understanding of the workings of the brain, and in any case I suspect my understanding of the whole issue is more than a little sophomoric. Is there a physicist in the house?

Yes, it's part of nature. It all makes perfect sense as part of a blind and purposeless nature. What I can't buy is the idea that all this has been deliberately created for the purpose of getting some imperfect creations to better themselves.

Or it makes sense as, this is the nature that was created and it is all part of God's nature. And I never said it was created just for the purpose of getting imperfect creations to better themselves - that's a viewpoint brought up by human beings that think they *must* be the center of creation because they think they are better than the rest of nature.

Fair enough. That's a valid argument.

Not everyone with an abusive childhood turns into a monster, certainly: but a significantly higher proportion of them do. Why do they have to get past these extra hurdles? Or does God judge them on a lower standard? Of course, many people don't survive abusive or impoverished childhoods. How can six short years spent starving in the dust be compared to ninety in the comfort of a wealthy and developed society? Is it ineffable again?

I don't claim to know the answer to some of these questions. But I also don't claim that they prove or disprove anything. I had a mostly loving, middle class upbringing. I was also abused as a child. Both things are a part of who I am. But things that we deem as *good* can come out of things that we deem as *bad*. I person who is harmed as a child, for example, may develop into a more compassionate person who can help others going through emotional pain. They may have a drive to help others.

You've oversimplified my definitions of bad and good. "Bad" and "good" can't work on broad definitions: it has to be judged case-by-case. If a child is raped or tortured -- neither one an intrinsic part of nature, but certainly the product of someone else excercising their free will -- that's bad, yes?

Of course I think that is bad, but I can see how good can eventually come out of it.

Isn't that the same as "the end justifies the means"? Of course, if you are an infinite Deity, then I suppose this could be the case -- although this, to me, is just going back to an appeal to ineffability. Which, on a cosmic scale, I suppose is valid, but to me it's enormously unsatisfactory. I can't believe that all the suffering is inescapably necessary. An infinite and infinitely loving deity *must*, by definition, be able to do better.

It is ineffable, if it requires faith to accept, instead of reason to understand. That's pretty much what ineffable means, surely? Also, if you've had a religious experience, regardless of my views on that, then there is a source for your faith. But do you seriously expect me to have faith in what is, frankly, an obvious set of fables? Why shouldn't I have faith in Odin? Or Thoth? Or Grandfather Bandicoot?

Ineffable means beyond understanding. Faith is not necessarily beyond understanding. But, there is a source for my fiath. And no, I don't expect you to agree with my faith. I just expect you to respect my views like I respect yours.

See, this is my problem. To me, faith *is* beyond understanding. Where does it come from? How are you able to do it?

I do respect your views, BTW, and I'm sorry if I've given the impression that I don't. OK, you have faith, and I don't understand where that comes from, but you don't have the element of religion that I can't bring myself to respect: blind faith in blatant superstition. I can respect faith if it carries a modicum of questioning uncertainty. I don't understand it, but I can respect it.

Take Lourdes, for instance: out of the millions of people who have visited Lourdes, there have been only a handful of medically inexplicable results. (Note that "medically inexplicable" doesn't mean "miraculous", just "beyond current knowledge".

I love the way people assume that anyone who has faith can't understand science. As a bioengineer, I understand the term "medically inexplicable".

My apologies again. I was trying for clarity here.

I never said that all faiths were wrong and mine is right. I believe that all faiths have some part of the equation right, and none have all of it (including mine). I am constantly reexamining and changing my faith in hopes of getting closer to what is right. Like I said, I respect your view (hell, I'm dating an atheist) and only ask that you give equal respect to mine, whether you agree or not.

No, fine, absolutely. I do tend to go OTT in these things, partly from genuine bafflement but probably mostly from overbearing pigheadedness. :oops:

Know the feeling - I just had a birthday and all my presents were books! The joys of Will Self, Bill Hicks, Robert Rankin and some random bloke I can't remember are all to come...

Awesome taste in authors.

what I want to know is why they called pople in favour of abortions "Pro-choice".it sounds like they're trying to disguise the horror of killing a child, or stopping one before it even becomes a child.

Same reason Pro-Choice isn't called 'interfering with others life due to irrational belief and self-righteous moral code condemning teenage mothers to a ruined life of depression'. It's a euphemism.

what I want to know is why they called pople in favour of abortions "Pro-choice".it sounds like they're trying to disguise the horror of killing a child, or stopping one before it even becomes a child.

Same reason Pro-Choice isn't called 'interfering with others life due to irrational belief and self-righteous moral code condemning teenage mothers to a ruined life of depression'. It's a euphemism.

DId you mean pro-life isnt... BS... BS... BS... it's a eupemism?

((bump))