NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings to you in the name of the Most High from one of your brothers in Christ. Let this letter be a means by which you grow in the defense, belief and love of God, and may it give glory to He who is worthy of unending praise. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.

Brothers and sisters, it should be plain to you who have spent any amount of time here that the warfare of the spirit occupies no small percentage of discussion. So often, we find ourselves snarling and battling against unbelievers – and let us not deceive ourselves – losing. Victories for Christ are scarce and philosophical bloodbaths plentiful.

How is it that we are so frequently on the receiving end of failure and humiliation? I am sure our opponents would be quick to explain that we are wrong, but that is not an explanation we can accept as Christians. We could blame them and call them narrow-minded and unwilling to accept the Truth and yet that standpoint seems like a mere attempt for us to excuse ourselves for our own failures. If our arguments do not convince, it is up to us to be more convincing, not blame the other side for failing to listen.

Why then are failures prevalent? If the defense of the Faith is something sanctioned in Heaven, shouldn’t our Faith suffice in ensuring our success? To assume so is to forget that Faith is but one aspect of Christianity, and particularly in the field of apologetics, more is needed. St. Paul wrote:

11Put on all the armor that God gives, so you can defend yourself against the devil's tricks. 12We are not fighting against humans. We are fighting against forces and authorities and against rulers of darkness and powers in the spiritual world. 13So put on all the armor that God gives. Then when that evil daya comes, you will be able to defend yourself. And when the battle is over, you will still be standing firm.
14Be ready! Let the truth be like a belt around your waist, and let God's justice protect you like armor. 15Your desire to tell the good news about peace should be like shoes on your feet. 16Let your faith be like a shield, and you will be able to stop all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17Let God's saving power be like a helmet, and for a sword use God's message that comes from the Spirit.
18Never stop praying, especially for others. Always pray by the power of the Spirit. Stay alert and keep praying for God's people. ~~Ephesians 6:11-18

Unfortunately, many of the Christians here seem to come off as impetuous crusaders, wild-haired and foaming, screaming Christ’s name at the top of their lungs, wearing a single shoe having left their belt undone. Haphazard preparation leaves us with haphazard arguments, ignored at best and thoroughly refuted at worst. Such a thing only brings us shame.

When you wish to open a theological debate or discourse, I beg you, think thoroughly about the point you are about to make. Build a strong case for your point using evidence from as many relevant sources as possible. Do not make unreasonable claims without support. Additionally, be prepared for counterarguments – anticipate and refute them before they can even be employed if you can. Argue calmly, with patience, and never lash out in anger in the many cases where it can be avoided. Show respect to the opposing viewpoint, even be willing to admit a mistake when you err, though similarly be willing to jump back into the fray, mistake corrected. Do not lose Faith, and pray to God for counsel, always continue your research and keep up the debate. When you write, remember that grammatically-correct sentences free of spelling errors will make you look twice as intelligent as you deserve, and will create a greater respect for you than any hastily-pounded response no matter the content.

Avoid undue judgment in all its forms. Do not condemn any unbeliever or sinner to Hell, no matter how grievous their offense. No Christian should wish everlasting punishment on anyone, and doing so is not only antichristian, but adds further fuel to the scorching inferno in which we already burn. The Christian message is Love and Mercy. There is a saying I once saw on these very forums: “Know Jesus, No Hell! No Jesus, Know Hell!” Which is clever wordplay, but broadcasts a message of intolerance which is not what we want. We can simply stop at “Know Jesus,” and we have the real message of Christianity – the love of and in Christ.

Amen.

Even though I am not a christian I like how you are trying to get people to debate intellegently. Keep up the good work.

I'm the most lovable christian on the boards. :)

Why? Because I choose not to argue about it at all. Faith doesn't come from debate. Faith comes from the heart.

did you write that yourself?

if you did, good job!

if you didnt, you need to give credit

I'm the most lovable christian on the boards. :)

Why? Because I choose not to argue about it at all. Faith doesn't come from debate. Faith comes from the heart.

So If I have faith in a religion that tells me to supress all other forms of them because they are lies. That religion also tells me to kill people who arent in this religion and take all their property as well. Are you going to want to try to challenge this religion on actual grounds of debate or are you going to go well he has faith let him do what he wants. (Religion i use in this post is made up and not a reference to any actual one)

JesusSaves was a much better troll.

-Jimus-

JesusSaves was a much better troll.

-Jimus-

Someone defending christianity is not necessarily a troll. Jesussaves was also a hoax.

Unless of course, you can tell me where Total Victory deliberately tried to provoke a hostile response? I can't see any, and I certainly wasn't provoked or incited to anger by this thread.

So If I have faith in a religion that tells me to supress all other forms of them because they are lies. That religion also tells me to kill people who arent in this religion and take all their property as well. Are you going to want to try to challenge this religion on actual grounds of debate or are you going to go well he has faith let him do what he wants. (Religion i use in this post is made up and not a reference to any actual one)

Not in the least. That's a totally different scenario, in my opinion.

I have faith in God. I don't have faith in religion. Religion isn't an organized by God. Religion is an organization of men who share a faith in God. The problem is that they are organizations of men. ANd like any organization of men, they are often flawed, intolerant and occasionally violent.

The worst thing that ever happened to Faith is when people started to get together to be led by other men in their worship of God.

But the thing people need to understand is that such acts by a religious entity aren't a failing of faith, and it isn't a failing of God. It's a failing of that religion.

Great post!

I would add:

Don't pretend to be the arbiter of all that is Christianity. There are and always have been arguments about particular doctrines. There are and always have been varying and sometimes contradictory interpretations. Do not claim that your own beliefs necessarily represent the entirety of the faith. Do not see the variation of belief as a threat to your faith, but instead as a sign that the search for Truth is always ongoing.

So If I have faith in a religion that tells me to supress all other forms of them because they are lies. That religion also tells me to kill people who arent in this religion and take all their property as well. Are you going to want to try to challenge this religion on actual grounds of debate or are you going to go well he has faith let him do what he wants. (Religion i use in this post is made up and not a reference to any actual one)
There is a difference between having faith in god and having faith in a particular belief system. There is a huge difference in the ways that they perceive the world and those that have faith in their belief shouldn't be compared to those who just have faith in god.

This letter should be read by all, atheist (without the reference to god or jesus), christian (obviously), muslim, agnostic, just about everyone. I wish more people would take the aproach of presenting evidence and not being inflamatory towards others, this makes for more interesting discussions. As an atheist i say well done, and good luck to you in whatever you do.

did you write that yourself?

Yeah.

Unless of course, you can tell me where Total Victory deliberately tried to provoke a hostile response? I can't see any, and I certainly wasn't provoked or incited to anger by this thread.

I'm not deliberately provoking any hostilities. I'm well aware I could attract a few trying not to provoke a hostile response. I suppose that does make me pretty terrible at trolling. Sorry guys...

Not in the least. That's a totally different scenario, in my opinion.

I have faith in God. I don't have faith in religion. Religion isn't an organized by God. Religion is an organization of men who share a faith in God. The problem is that they are organizations of men. ANd like any organization of men, they are often flawed, intolerant and occasionally violent.

The worst thing that ever happened to Faith is when people started to get together to be led by other men in their worship of God.

But the thing people need to understand is that such acts by a religious entity aren't a failing of faith, and it isn't a failing of God. It's a failing of that religion.
Damn it goofball, you just had to get that post in before mine and offer a more detailed explanation didn't you?

Damn it goofball, you just had to get that post in before mine and offer a more detailed explanation didn't you?

Sorry. Maybe I better just stick to silliness. :p

Not in the least. That's a totally different scenario, in my opinion.

I have faith in God. I don't have faith in religion. Religion isn't an organized by God. Religion is an organization of men who share a faith in God. The problem is that they are organizations of men. ANd like any organization of men, they are often flawed, intolerant and occasionally violent.

The worst thing that ever happened to Faith is when people started to get together to be led by other men in their worship of God.

But the thing people need to understand is that such acts by a religious entity aren't a failing of faith, and it isn't a failing of God. It's a failing of that religion.

The thing is I find that debating these issuse is an important part of life. These religions have a direct impact on how we live and how we treat others so it is important to debate the issues and try to see if they are legitimate or not. Note only does debating these issues help inform people. Frankly I see debating religion as a way to avoid ingorance that can lead to religious persecution or other acts. By debating religion we can avoid throwing ourselves behind a position which directly involves moral and social stances on issues. With out debate all you get are religious fanatics and zelots.

::nods approvingly::
Well done. I do not completly agree with you, but that was eloquent. W00t W00t for intelligent debates, as opposed to the IDish "My God is better than your God! Argh! Must kill all heretics!" type debate.

Sorry. Maybe I better just stick to silliness. :p
Meh, do whatever you want. It was a comment directed towards you anyways.
*Shrugs shoulders*

Meh, do whatever you want. It was a comment directed towards you anyways.
*Shrugs shoulders*

Well, the last thing I want to do is step on the toes of the serious debaters here.

The last thing that people expect from me is rational opinion. But that's part of the fun. :)

Have a taco. *hands you a taco*

This letter should be read by all, atheist (without the reference to god or jesus), christian (obviously), muslim, agnostic, just about everyone. I wish more people would take the aproach of presenting evidence and not being inflamatory towards others, this makes for more interesting discussions. As an atheist i say well done, and good luck to you in whatever you do.

Thank you very much. And that's just proof as to how well my suggested approach works... note the curious absence of responses telling me how narrow-minded and bigoted I am.

Now as to the Religion vs. God discussion that's sprouted up: I think it is perfectly okay to take part in organized religion, and that it can be beneficial. It is good to have a community of believers to associate with. A problem arises when the religion starts to become superior to the deity, when of course it should be the deity who lords over the religion. I happen to be registered on some roster in far-off Minnesota as an ELCA Lutheran, but I consider myself to be just a Christian, no more and no less.

Way to be, Total Victory. Well said.

Well, the last thing I want to do is step on the toes of the serious debaters here.

The last thing that people expect from me is rational opinion. But that's part of the fun. :)

Have a taco. *hands you a taco*
1) I'm not all that much a serious debater, in fact usually a spammer
2) I dont come around here that much anymore
3) *eats taco*
4) *Burps*
5) *Spams*

I'm the most lovable christian on the boards. :)

Why? Because I choose not to argue about it at all. Faith doesn't come from debate. Faith comes from the heart.
I agree (I am a Christian also.)

:)
As a Bahai, I am very troubled by the hateful and ignorant things some people here say, draping themselves in a cloak of rightous anger and hiding behind the Bible. This happens all over the place, not just on these forums. These people may call themselves Christians, but I have an enormous difficulty in accepting them as such. Faith comes from the heart and the spirit, and is supported by the mind. Its is, however, our ACTIONS which define the sincerity and depths of a persons Faith.

In my opinion, people who post ignorant and hurtful things on the forums in the name of Christianity are showing by their actions that they are in fact rather insincere Christians. Perhaps they think that the louder and and more frequently they talk about Jesus, that people will not realize their lack of true faith. My understanding of God is quite frankly, nobodies business except my own, and I couldn't give a toss if they think the Faith I have chosen is mistaken and sinful.

I've been told many times in my life that I would go to hell because I have not found my salvation through Christ our lord. Each time I hear this I want to vomit. I DO beleive in Jesus...and Moses, and Mohammed and Zoroaster, and Buddha and Baha'ulah. What someone else beleives about my personal faith is just that, THEIR BELEIFS. Not mine.

As often as I've heard and seen messages of hate in the name of Jesus, I've always encountered a good true Christian who shows their faith through their actions. I would like to thank Total Victory for being just such a person.

peace n' respect
J.G.

Total victory, if more people could be as wise as you, these forums would indeed be a better place.

I was relieved to open this, I thought it was someone bashing christians. Glad I was wrong and found your thoughts

Amen to that. I agree 100%.

Yeah.

wwell then

nice job

some people just see flames in everything dont let it deter you from your course.

I'm the most lovable christian on the boards. :)

Why? Because I choose not to argue about it at all. Faith doesn't come from debate. Faith comes from the heart.
you're a christian, didn't know that. Hey whats up. I hope a christian who reads the bible. .

you're a christian, didn't know that. Hey whats up. I hope a christian who reads the bible. .

I would read it, but it's keeping my bed level. :)

Greetings to you in the name of the Most High from one of your brothers in Christ. Let this letter be a means by which you grow in the defense, belief and love of God, and may it give glory to He who is worthy of unending praise. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.

Brothers and sisters, it should be plain to you who have spent any amount of time here that the warfare of the spirit occupies no small percentage of discussion. So often, we find ourselves snarling and battling against unbelievers – and let us not deceive ourselves – losing. Victories for Christ are scarce and philosophical bloodbaths plentiful.

How is it that we are so frequently on the receiving end of failure and humiliation? I am sure our opponents would be quick to explain that we are wrong, but that is not an explanation we can accept as Christians. We could blame them and call them narrow-minded and unwilling to accept the Truth and yet that standpoint seems like a mere attempt for us to excuse ourselves for our own failures. If our arguments do not convince, it is up to us to be more convincing, not blame the other side for failing to listen.

Why then are failures prevalent? If the defense of the Faith is something sanctioned in Heaven, shouldn’t our Faith suffice in ensuring our success? To assume so is to forget that Faith is but one aspect of Christianity, and particularly in the field of apologetics, more is needed. St. Paul wrote:

11Put on all the armor that God gives, so you can defend yourself against the devil's tricks. 12We are not fighting against humans. We are fighting against forces and authorities and against rulers of darkness and powers in the spiritual world. 13So put on all the armor that God gives. Then when that evil daya comes, you will be able to defend yourself. And when the battle is over, you will still be standing firm.
14Be ready! Let the truth be like a belt around your waist, and let God's justice protect you like armor. 15Your desire to tell the good news about peace should be like shoes on your feet. 16Let your faith be like a shield, and you will be able to stop all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17Let God's saving power be like a helmet, and for a sword use God's message that comes from the Spirit.
18Never stop praying, especially for others. Always pray by the power of the Spirit. Stay alert and keep praying for God's people. ~~Ephesians 6:11-18

Unfortunately, many of the Christians here seem to come off as impetuous crusaders, wild-haired and foaming, screaming Christ’s name at the top of their lungs, wearing a single shoe having left their belt undone. Haphazard preparation leaves us with haphazard arguments, ignored at best and thoroughly refuted at worst. Such a thing only brings us shame.

When you wish to open a theological debate or discourse, I beg you, think thoroughly about the point you are about to make. Build a strong case for your point using evidence from as many relevant sources as possible. Do not make unreasonable claims without support. Additionally, be prepared for counterarguments – anticipate and refute them before they can even be employed if you can. Argue calmly, with patience, and never lash out in anger in the many cases where it can be avoided. Show respect to the opposing viewpoint, even be willing to admit a mistake when you err, though similarly be willing to jump back into the fray, mistake corrected. Do not lose Faith, and pray to God for counsel, always continue your research and keep up the debate. When you write, remember that grammatically-correct sentences free of spelling errors will make you look twice as intelligent as you deserve, and will create a greater respect for you than any hastily-pounded response no matter the content.

Avoid undue judgment in all its forms. Do not condemn any unbeliever or sinner to Hell, no matter how grievous their offense. No Christian should wish everlasting punishment on anyone, and doing so is not only antichristian, but adds further fuel to the scorching inferno in which we already burn. The Christian message is Love and Mercy. There is a saying I once saw on these very forums: “Know Jesus, No Hell! No Jesus, Know Hell!” Which is clever wordplay, but broadcasts a message of intolerance which is not what we want. We can simply stop at “Know Jesus,” and we have the real message of Christianity – the love of and in Christ.

Amen.Well written... You do have a gift... one I sorely wished I had.

Good work.

I would read it, but it's keeping my bed level. :)

hahah :gundge: Sorta cool to know an old timer here is a Christian and does not feel like ya gotta always debate.

Well, the last thing I want to do is step on the toes of the serious debaters here.

The last thing that people expect from me is rational opinion. But that's part of the fun. :)

Have a taco. *hands you a taco*

A) I think this thread will hopefully bring up the civility on both sides, and as one of the non-religious folks, I will try to reciprocate by not dismissing all religious folks as fire-and-brimstone judges in mauve polyester suits.

B) Lunatics frequently exhibit valuable insight (e.g. Georg Cantor, John Nash)

C) Why did I not receive a taco?

Grave Digging!

Erm, actually no. This needs to be bumped from time to time, I'm tired of all the religion topics started recently.

*waits for someone to post armour of god pajama ad*

Thank you very much. And that's just proof as to how well my suggested approach works... note the curious absence of responses telling me how narrow-minded and bigoted I am.

I for one, find you sir to be an intolerant bigot.

Now that that's out of the way I'll take my leave.

We are not fighting against humans. We are fighting against forces and authorities and against rulers of darkness and powers in the spiritual world.
Yeah, it’s not me arguing against superstition, it’s a big scaly dude with a pitchfork. :rolleyes:

On a different note, I totaly agree we should all be civil during our debates.

*waits for someone to post armour of god pajama ad*

http://www.armorofgodpjs.com/images/dolls.jpg

While I agree with nearly everything in the OP, the problems with modern Christianity come out of these ideas.

I cannot argue with anything that you said except for the very last point. However, I can argue bery much with the tone of what you said. The tone inferred by me (and probably most of the people who read this) is that it doesn't matter what the other people do, as long as we give them the warm fuzzy feeling of God loving them. We are also to hold everyone, believers and unbelievers, to account for wrong doing. Whether this means punishing them, is another matter, but we are to be intolerant. Not that we are to be bigots. Rather we are to say: "Your homosexual relationship goes against God's Word and you need to repent and proclaim Christ as your Lord and Savior." That is merely an example; the issues run from the controversial ones of today (abortion, homosexuality, etc.) to those which are common place in society (doing unnecessary work on the Sabbath). Christians are to take a stand in all things, even if the stand is that the issue is stupid and shouldn't be an issue. And I believe, though this is by no means a doctrine accepted by all Christians, that we are falling dreadfully short in our evangelism if we do not show the consequence for sin. Because, if they don't know the consequence, why should they need to be saved from something that appears to do no harm?

So If I have faith in a religion that tells me to supress all other forms of them because they are lies. That religion also tells me to kill people who arent in this religion and take all their property as well. Are you going to want to try to challenge this religion on actual grounds of debate or are you going to go well he has faith let him do what he wants. (Religion i use in this post is made up and not a reference to any actual one)

There have been many injustices done in the name of God or Allah over the years. And not just in Christianity. They are not representative of Christianaity in any way, nor are they representative of Islam. The acts belong to the doer. For you to make such a blanket comment is irresponsible, and just contributes to the miasma of hatred that unfortunately seems to permeate much of our society.

In case you were wondering, the Bible rather directly addresses your misinformation.

Exodus 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.

There can be no misunderstanding that one. That covers property, clothing, personal possessions, everything.

Matthew 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

That hardly sounds like a message of hate or an invocation to violence, now does it?

Christians are not perfect. We make mistakes. So do you. The Old Testament is full of misdeeds perpetuated in the name of God. History provides many other examples as well. They do not define us, nor do yours define you, or other people, theirs. Ultimately, in the final analysis, we are all accountable for our own actions.

By it's very core Christianity tells you obviously what the source of our faith is, and how it should direct our actions. All that may have passed before has no relevance. If you see injustice, if you see evil, therefore, you should look elsewhere, if you want to cast blame.

If any Christians' actions do not reflect Christ's teachings, they only reflect on themselves. They do not embody the beliefs of anyone else.

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Good advice for us all.

Exodus 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.

There can be no misunderstanding that one. That covers property, clothing, personal possessions, everything.

How about intellectual property? Is Limewire pirating prohibited?

Or okay, how about taxes? I view them as theft, does the Bible?

How about intellectual property? Is Limewire pirating prohibited?

Or okay, how about taxes? I view them as theft, does the Bible?

Yes. Theft is theft. Period. Up to and including keeping the excess change that the lady at the checkout stand may have given you by mistake.

As for taxes, much as I dislike them, they have been around a long long time. I have no choice but to pay them. Nor do you, without consequences.

Luke 20:22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?
Luke 20:23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?
Luke 20:24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's.

Luke 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

Sort of sounds to me like He was saying to pay up and quit sniveling.

While I agree with nearly everything in the OP, the problems with modern Christianity come out of these ideas.

I cannot argue with anything that you said except for the very last point. However, I can argue bery much with the tone of what you said. The tone inferred by me (and probably most of the people who read this) is that it doesn't matter what the other people do, as long as we give them the warm fuzzy feeling of God loving them. We are also to hold everyone, believers and unbelievers, to account for wrong doing. Whether this means punishing them, is another matter, but we are to be intolerant. Not that we are to be bigots. Rather we are to say: "Your homosexual relationship goes against God's Word and you need to repent and proclaim Christ as your Lord and Savior." That is merely an example; the issues run from the controversial ones of today (abortion, homosexuality, etc.) to those which are common place in society (doing unnecessary work on the Sabbath). Christians are to take a stand in all things, even if the stand is that the issue is stupid and shouldn't be an issue. And I believe, though this is by no means a doctrine accepted by all Christians, that we are falling dreadfully short in our evangelism if we do not show the consequence for sin. Because, if they don't know the consequence, why should they need to be saved from something that appears to do no harm?


Erm, you feel you are obliged to tell people what to do? I think you may have misunderstood something very essential about Christianity.... choice.
It's everybody's own choice to be Christian or not to be Christian. If they choose not to be Christian, that's up to them. The fact that you choose to be Christian does not mean that you get to tell people what to do.
You can tell them that you believe that they will go to hell if they don't change their ways, but that's about as far as it goes.

Oh, and thank you. It's Christians like you that make me realise again and again that I made the right choice in abandonning religion altogether. :)

Erm, you feel you are obliged to tell people what to do? I think you may have misunderstood something very essential about Christianity.... choice.
It's everybody's own choice to be Christian or not to be Christian. If they choose not to be Christian, that's up to them. The fact that you choose to be Christian does not mean that you get to tell people what to do.
You can tell them that you believe that they will go to hell if they don't change their ways, but that's about as far as it goes.

Oh, and thank you. It's Christians like you that make me realise again and again that I made the right choice in abandonning religion altogether. :)

So according to your logic, you should never have responded, because you were telling me what to do: to not tell others what to do. That makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

Where if you would just realize that it is everyone's responsibility to hold every other person accountable to what he or she believes to be true, then we would could have avoided this self-contradition. :)

So according to your logic, you should never have responded, because you were telling me what to do: to not tell others what to do. That makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

Where if you would just realize that it is everyone's responsibility to hold every other person accountable to what he or she believes to be true, then we would could have avoided this self-contradition. :)

"Tolerate intolerance, but under no circumstances tolerate tolerance" - is that what you are trying to get across?

I could have phrased it a little less general : You don't get to tell me what I can or can't do.

"Tolerate intolerance, but under no circumstances tolerate tolerance" - is that what you are trying to get across?

I could have phrased it a little less general : You don't get to tell me what I can or can't do.

But then you can't tell me what I can or cannot do and that includes me telling you what to do.

And we are not to tolerate (in the modern sense of the word). We are to embrace that which is good and reject or be intolerant of that which is evil. None of this "Well, I think it's wrong, but it's okay for you to do it" stuff. That's just being an enabler. Tell them it's wrong, refuse to enable the sin, but don't force them to do differently, unless the laws (which should be subjrct to the Law) say differently.

But then you can't tell me what I can or cannot do and that includes me telling you what to do.

Did you ever hear that golden rule that your liberties end where those of another person begin? No? Thought so.
I'm advocating tolerance and acceptance, not anarchy.


And we are not to tolerate (in the modern sense of the word). We are to embrace that which is good and reject or be intolerant of that which is evil. None of this "Well, I think it's wrong, but it's okay for you to do it" stuff. That's just being an enabler. Tell them it's wrong, refuse to enable the sin, but don't force them to do differently, unless the laws (which should be subjrct to the Law) say differently.


I think you misunderstand the word "to tolerate". It doesn't mean that you have to take part in everything you consider sin. You don't have to enable anything. As you so eloquently stated, don't force them to do differently unless its against the law.

Meaning, again, you don't get to tell me what to do, as I'm not breaking any laws.
It's my perfect right to create erotic art, to have sex with whoever I choose, and any way I fancy. Oh, you can tell me that it's wrong. But if you do, you better have some VERY good arguments as to why it is wrong. Otherwise I might just call you a liar.

Silly Christian propoganda!

Yay!

Silly Christian propoganda!

Yay!

No, actually, the OP had a very good point. Much as I enjoy questioning religion, it is a bit boring if the other site just keeps throwing bible quotes in all directions. I'd much rather have a discussion with someone who actually has an opinion apart from "it's in the bible!"

Did you ever hear that golden rule that your liberties end where those of another person begin?

That's not the Golden Rule, though some might like it to be.

I'm advocating tolerance and acceptance, not anarchy.

In your words, yes. In your ideas, you are most definitely advocating anarchy because unless you have anarchy, there is always someone going to be telling someone else what to do.


I think you misunderstand the word "to tolerate". It doesn't mean that you have to take part in everything you consider sin. You don't have to enable anything. As you so eloquently stated, don't force them to do differently unless its against the law.

Ahhh, but you forget that I said the law is to agree with the Law. And, in the case of homosexuals as an example, okaying homosexual marriage enables them to continue a sinful relationship. Not only that, but it blesses the relationship.

Meaning, again, you don't get to tell me what to do, as I'm not breaking any laws.

No, meaning, as I said before, that if you disagree with the Law, it is my responsibilty to tell you about it and to urge you to repent.

It's my perfect right to create erotic art, to have sex with whoever I choose, and any way I fancy. Oh, you can tell me that it's wrong. But if you do, you better have some VERY good arguments as to why it is wrong. Otherwise I might just call you a liar.

Because God's Word says it is wrong. Now, we can have a discussion about whether it truly is God's Word, but if it is, then there is no higher reason to obey it.

That's not the Golden Rule, though some might like it to be.

Actually, you'll find this to be the foundation of every single Western legal system.


In your words, yes. In your ideas, you are most definitely advocating anarchy because unless you have anarchy, there is always someone going to be telling someone else what to do.

To prevent them from infringing the rights of others. That's why I said I'm not advocating anarchy.


Ahhh, but you forget that I said the law is to agree with the Law. And, in the case of homosexuals as an example, okaying homosexual marriage enables them to continue a sinful relationship. Not only that, but it blesses the relationship.

It does no such thing. No Western state ever blesses anything, that's an action reserved for religious leaders.
Not allowing them to marry does not force them to abandon their relationship either, it just infringes their Human Rights.


No, meaning, as I said before, that if you disagree with the Law, it is my responsibilty to tell you about it and to urge you to repent.

Because God's Word says it is wrong. Now, we can have a discussion about whether it truly is God's Word, but if it is, then there is no higher reason to obey it.

See, that's were you make the mistake. I currently live in the Republic of Ireland, so I will follow the laws that are in place here. And no others.
I honestly don't care if my actions are against the law in Saudi Arabia, I don't live there. And I equally don't care if they are against any form of religious law, as I don't believe in any form of deity.

You are of course free to stage campaigns to establish a theocracy, but I somehow doubt that physically forcing people to live according to your idea of law is going to make you look particularly good with your god.

Actually, you'll find this to be the foundation of every single Western legal system.

Actually, it's the Ten Commandments, though many would prefer to think otherwise.

To prevent them from infringing the rights of others. That's why I said I'm not advocating anarchy.

So, you agree that there are times when people are to be told what to do; we disagee on when they should be told.

It does no such thing. No Western state ever blesses anything, that's an action reserved for religious leaders.
Not allowing them to marry does not force them to abandon their relationship either, it just infringes their Human Rights.

Blesses not as a religious term, but as saying "Do as you wish; we see no problem with it. In fact, we think that it is good for you to be exercising your 'rights'."

See, that's were you make the mistake. I currently live in the Republic of Ireland, so I will follow the laws that are in place here. And no others.
I honestly don't care if my actions are against the law in Saudi Arabia, I don't live there. And I equally don't care if they are against any form of religious law, as I don't believe in any form of deity.

Who's talking about Saudi Arabia?

You are of course free to stage campaigns to establish a theocracy, but I somehow doubt that physically forcing people to live according to your idea of law is going to make you look particularly good with your god.

I am and I do. I don't look good with my God, no matter what I do, because I, just like the rest of the human race, am a sinful little dust bunny.

And again, I am not forcing anyone. You can choose to murder someone. You can choose to have sex with someone of the same sex. But you should be aware of the consequenses of that action, whether they are in this life or the next.

Because God's Word says it is wrong.

Does God's Word say it is wrong because it's wrong, or is it wrong because God's Word says it is wrong?

Actually, it's the Ten Commandments, though many would prefer to think otherwise.

The only parts of the Ten Commandments consistently respected in Western law are parts that are common to all societies.

Or okay, how about taxes? I view them as theft, does the Bible?

No, not if you read it honestly.

Does God's Word say it is wrong because it's wrong, or is it wrong because God's Word says it is wrong?

Pardon? Could you clarify a bit?

The only parts of the Ten Commandments consistently respected in Western law are parts that are common to all societies.

And? I never said the basis was still respected. I merely said it was the basis. Or at least that is what I meant to say.

No, not if you read it honestly.

You're right.

Render to Caesar...

Pardon? Could you clarify a bit?

Does God commanding an action make it good? Or do His commands merely recognize pre-existing good in the action?

And? I never said the basis was still respected. I merely said it was the basis. Or at least that is what I meant to say.

Why do you think it is the basis?

Actually, it's the Ten Commandments, though many would prefer to think otherwise.

*lol
You really believe that, do you?
I had a thread on this topic, not too long ago, have a look here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497453). If you compare the ten commandments with today's general legislation in the Western world, you'll find that only two of the commandments directly correspond to current laws. And those laws were in place in every society know to mankind, so it's a fair guess that they might be remnants of the Roman Empire or Germanic legal tradition rather than the bible....


Blesses not as a religious term, but as saying "Do as you wish; we see no problem with it. In fact, we think that it is good for you to be exercising your 'rights'."


bless

• verb 1 call on God to protect or treat favourably. 2 consecrate by a religious rite. 3 praise (God)

Blessing is something religious, no matter what sense you choose to use the word in.


Who's talking about Saudi Arabia?

See? It would be absurd to follow the laws of another country. And it's equally absurd to follow the laws of another religion.


I am and I do. I don't look good with my God, no matter what I do, because I, just like the rest of the human race, am a sinful little dust bunny.

And again, I am not forcing anyone. You can choose to murder someone. You can choose to have sex with someone of the same sex. But you should be aware of the consequenses of that action, whether they are in this life or the next.

Oh, yes. The old "do it or die" choice. Christians always seem to love that one...

Ok, back to the begining of legislative theory :
Killing someone means inflicting harm on someone. Severly interfereing with his personal rights and liberties, taking them away completely in fact. That deserves punishment.
If I fuck another woman, nobody gets harmed, no rights nor liberties get compromised (providing she consents, of course). So no punishment is in order.

What happens in the next life (if there is any) doesn't concern me. Nor does it concern any judge in any Western country.

[QUOTE]Does God commanding an action make it good? Or do His commands merely recognize pre-existing good in the action?

Yes. It is good because God commands it and there is good in it because it is what God desires to be done.

Why do you think it is the basis?

Whether you like it or not, Christians ran the show until the beginning of the 1900's. The may not have been as vocal about as they were in the Middle Ages, but they were all Christians to some extent. Because they based our rights and laws on the Law, particuarally the Ten Commandment, they are, by definition, the basis. They are still the basis, though the movement is ever growing strength to change the basis to that of a "secular" one. The fact that these two overlap in some areas, doesn't change the difference.

*lol
You really believe that, do you?
I had a thread on this topic, not too long ago, have a look here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497453). If you compare the ten commandments with today's general legislation in the Western world, you'll find that only two of the commandments directly correspond to current laws. And those laws were in place in every society know to mankind, so it's a fair guess that they might be remnants of the Roman Empire or Germanic legal tradition rather than the bible....

See my post above.

Blessing is something religious, no matter what sense you choose to use the word in.

No, I was using it as a figure of speech to project the attitude of the action, which is very much the attitude of that in a relgious blessing.

See? It would be absurd to follow the laws of another country. And it's equally absurd to follow the laws of another religion.

Of course, which is why we have discussions, debates, and arguments about which religion is true.

Oh, yes. The old "do it or die" choice. Christians always seem to love that one...

No, we love that we are obeying God, though we may not be happy about the things we are commanded to do.

Ok, back to the begining of legislative theory :
Killing someone means inflicting harm on someone. Severly interfereing with his personal rights and liberties, taking them away completely in fact. That deserves punishment.
If I fuck another woman, nobody gets harmed, no rights nor liberties get compromised (providing she consents, of course). So no punishment is in order.

Where do these rights come from? Again, it's back to the discussion of religion.

What happens in the next life (if there is any) doesn't concern me. Nor does it concern any judge in any Western country.

Yet again, back to the discussions about religion. It ought to concern the judge. But, I'm a theocrat, so according to most of the West, I know nothing.

Whether you like it or not, Christians ran the show until the beginning of the 1900's. The may not have been as vocal about as they were in the Middle Ages, but they were all Christians to some extent. Because they based our rights and laws on the Law, particuarally the Ten Commandment, they are, by definition, the basis. They are still the basis, though the movement is ever growing strength to change the basis to that of a "secular" one. The fact that these two overlap in some areas, doesn't change the difference.

You're under some serious misconception here... if the ten commandments ever were the basis for out current legal system, there would have been a time when every single commandment would have been reflected in a law.

There has never been a law against depicting god - or anybody else for that matter - in any Western country.

There has never been a law against working on Sundays

There has never been a law against not honouring your parents

There has never been a law

There has never been a law against swearing, or using the name of god in any possible form

There has never been a law against "coveting"


All in all, the legislation we use today is a based on a conglomerate of Roman common law and Germanic/Celtic/Viking laws (the idea of financial compensation is distincly Germanic in its origins), that was refined, expanded and adjusted over the centuries.

Yes. It is good because God commands it and there is good in it because it is what God desires to be done.

But "what God desires to be done" is arbitrary?

If God desired that you kill a baby, it would be good for you to do so?

Where do these rights come from? Again, it's back to the discussion of religion.

The intrinsic worth and dignity of the human being.

The same "intrinsic worth and dignity" that makes human freedom - even from divine authority and punishment - a worthy goal.

See my post above.

Ditto. You might want to read up a bit on history of legislation.


Of course, which is why we have discussions, debates, and arguments about which religion is true.

I don't, and there is no answer to that question. Nobody can prove without the shadow of a doubt which one is true, so it's really just a matter of personal taste and choice.


No, we love that we are obeying God, though we may not be happy about the things we are commanded to do.

Oh, dear. A masochist...


Where do these rights come from? Again, it's back to the discussion of religion.


No, why would that have to do anything with religion? These rights are granted by society.


Yet again, back to the discussions about religion. It ought to concern the judge. But, I'm a theocrat, so according to most of the West, I know nothing.

The jude ought to be only concerned with current law, nothing else. That's his job, that's what he gets paid for. He can concern himself with whatever he likes in his free time, but in court it's the law that's his guideline.

There has never been a law against depicting god - or anybody else for that matter - in any Western country.

There is no problem with depicting God. So long as there is no idol, which the Middle Ages did away with in the West.

There has never been a law against working on Sundays

Blue laws? Some of those were still around in 1970's!

There has never been a law against not honouring your parents

Why would there need to be? There would be no way to enforce it. And it was considered unacceptable to dishonor one's parents so why would there need to be a law?

There has never been a law against swearing, or using the name of god in any possible form

Actually the Puritans had many laws against this and it was generally considered unacceptable in society, so why have a law against it?

There has never been a law against "coveting"

Unenforcalbe, as coveting lacks a physical action.

All in all, the legislation we use today is a based on a conglomerate of Roman common law and Germanic/Celtic/Viking laws (the idea of financial compensation is distincly Germanic in its origins), that was refined, expanded and adjusted over the centuries.

Reread the Law. There is a lot of financial compensation in there.

You make the mistake of assuming that because something is the basis, there would need to be laws for every part of it. There never was a homosexual movement. So why would marriage need to be defined as between one woman and one man, if everyone agreed that the Bible taught otherwise? There would be no need. But it does not change that the laws made were based on the Law.

But "what God desires to be done" is arbitrary?

If God desired that you kill a baby, it would be good for you to do so?

Yes. Though, if you read the story of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac, it seems pretty clear that if the person obeyed, God would prevent it by repeal of His particular command.

No, why would that have to do anything with religion? These rights are granted by society.

Nazi Germany granted no rights to the Jews, but that was that society's choice, so we cannot judge them for it.

The jude ought to be only concerned with current law, nothing else. That's his job, that's what he gets paid for. He can concern himself with whatever he likes in his free time, but in court it's the law that's his guideline.

What is and what ought to be are nearly always two different things.

Yes. Though, if you read the story of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac, it seems pretty clear that if the person obeyed, God would prevent it by repeal of His particular command.

Why is this clear? In moral terms, God's commands are arbitrary, according to the framework you've advanced here; whatever He chooses, He does not choose it because it is inherently good, for goodness is a trait that can only be added by His command. Thus, He could freely command anything, and it would be right.

Not to mention the fact that His "omnibenevolence" becomes tautological. Whatever He does or commands is automatically "good," even if it is the mass slaughter of innocent children, or the eternal torture of people who have done no wrong.

What kind of deity is it that you people worship?

Nazi Germany granted no rights to the Jews, but that was that society's choice, so we cannot judge them for it.

The Nazis were the elected German government. If that is not society's choice, then what is?

Nazi Germany granted no rights to the Jews, but that was that society's choice, so we cannot judge them for it.

And if God had commanded it, we cannot judge Him for it?

There is no problem with depicting God. So long as there is no idol, which the Middle Ages did away with in the West.


Excuse me? If I'm not mistaken, the exact wording is "Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above". You might confuse that with the commandment about not having any other gods....


Why would there need to be? There would be no way to enforce it. And it was considered unacceptable to dishonor one's parents so why would there need to be a law?

Because people DID dishonour their parents?

Actually the Puritans had many laws against this and it was generally considered unacceptable in society, so why have a law against it?

Puritans, blue laws.... those didn't affect anybody outside the US, let alone seriously influence legilation in, say, Spain or Italy. I'm not talking about the US here, I'm talking about our general Western understanding of legally acceptable and legally unacceptable.


Reread the Law. There is a lot of financial compensation in there.

You make the mistake of assuming that because something is the basis, there would need to be laws for every part of it. There never was a homosexual movement. So why would marriage need to be defined as between one woman and one man, if everyone agreed that the Bible taught otherwise? There would be no need. But it does not change that the laws made were based on the Law.

Well, I'm not saying that the biblical law didn't influence Western legislation. But it is not at its roots, let alone it's sole root. It came into the picture at a stage in legal history when the system and the frame were already set up and established. It merely added some highlights.