NationStates Jolt Archive

is not from non-Christians (be they Muslims, Atheists, etc.) but from those Christians who have hijacked the Christian agenda and managed to take a faith that was supposed to be about love, peace, social justice, and respecting God's creation, into a justification for hate-mongering, war-mongering, and generally treating your fellow man and the planet like crap while making as much money as possible doing it.

Honestly, do you people think that you’re saying anything remotely novel?

Honestly, do you people think that you’re saying anything remotely novel?

Nope ... just something I needed to get off my chest.

People like this corrupt anything they touch. be it politics, religion, or dinner parties. What they are corrupting has nothing to do with them, it's your own problem if you want to judge anything by its worst element.

The biggest threat to the Christian Faith ...

...is of course Reality.
Or the recognition thereof.
:eek:

is not from non-Christians (be they Muslims, Atheists, etc.) but from those Christians who hve hijcked the Chrisian agenda and managed to take a fith that was supposd to be about love war-mongerin, and genrally treating your fellow man and the planet like crap whle making as much money as possibe doing it.


Holy shit, call the nobel prize committee, lets get this guy a spot on the editorial board of the New York Times

Unfortunately, you are talking about 40% of the American people.

But then again, at the time of Jesus, the people who were loyal to the original pharisees was probably greater than those loyal to the neo-pharisees.

Your a liar. Everyone knows the greatest threat to Christianity is gay people, stem cells, and abortions. Oh save us Jebus!!!!!!JEbus!!!!!!

Holy shit, call the nobel prize committee, lets get this guy a spot on the editorial board of the New York Times

The sad thing is you think that's funny ...

...is of course Reality.
Or the recognition thereof.
:eek:

It's only a threat to the fundamentalists. Unfortunately, they seem to be in the ascendancy.

The s d thng is you tinkthat's fnny ...


No, you've really opened up my eyes. I'd never thought of anything like that. no one had!

is not from non-Christians (be they Muslims, Atheists, etc.) but from those Christians who have hijacked the Christian agenda and managed to take a faith that was supposed to be about love, peace, social justice, and respecting God's creation, into a justification for hate-mongering, war-mongering, and generally treating your fellow man and the planet like crap while making as much money as possible doing it.

And the Sun looks yellow.

is not from non-Christians (be they Muslims, Atheists, etc.) but from those Christians who have hijacked the Christian agenda and managed to take a faith that was supposed to be about love, peace, social justice, and respecting God's creation, into a justification for hate-mongering, war-mongering, and generally treating your fellow man and the planet like crap while making as much money as possible doing it.

You forgot the people that are convinced it is perfectly fine to bend the truth - or simply outright lie - if it helps more people to convert or keep believing. Sad thing is that most of those people are not selfish bastards, but genuinely believe they are doing the right thing.

No, you've really opened up my eyes. I'd never thought of anything like that. no one had!

First of all, your link didn't work. And second of all, I didn't say the thought was novel ... merely that I wanted to get it off my chest.

First of all, your link didn't work. And second of all, I didn't say the thought was novel ... merely that I wanted to get it off my chest.

What link?

Get a blog for spamming whatever tautology has you in its thrall tomorrow, we need fewer graffiti threads, not more.

is not from non-Christians (be they Muslims, Atheists, etc.) but from those Christians who have hijacked the Christian agenda and managed to take a faith that was supposed to be about love, peace, social justice, and respecting God's creation, into a justification for hate-mongering, war-mongering, and generally treating your fellow man and the planet like crap while making as much money as possible doing it.
Testify!:cool:

is not from non-Christians (be they Muslims, Atheists, etc.) but from those Christians who have hijacked the Christian agenda and managed to take a faith that was supposed to be about love, peace, social justice, and respecting God's creation, into a justification for hate-mongering, war-mongering, and generally treating your fellow man and the planet like crap while making as much money as possible doing it.
Yes! Unfortunately, the problem is that a majority of the people who do this - be it preacher, prior, pastor - think that there is nothing wrong with it, that they are truly doing the right thing, like TMA said. (Oh, hey - :p ) But that's a different story. Indeed, testify! :D

What link?

Get a blog for spamming whatever tautology has you in its thrall tomorrow, we need fewer graffiti threads, not more.

I'm sorry you're having a bad day. Jesus loves you. :p

Honestly, do you people think that you’re saying anything remotely novel?

If novel ideas rather than some other (better?) criteria are how we are to judge people now, then what novel ideas have your people entertained lately?

It's only a threat to the fundamentalists. Unfortunately, they seem to be in the ascendancy.

Why just to the fundamentalists? Anyone who believes in a divinity of Yeshua (called Christos, i.e. Messiah, the "anointed") because of his nature as the incarnation of the fabricated Jewish biblical deity, is mistaken.

is not from non-Christians (be they Muslims, Atheists, etc.) but from those Christians who have hijacked the Christian agenda and managed to take a faith that was supposed to be about love, peace, social justice, and respecting God's creation, into a justification for hate-mongering, war-mongering, and generally treating your fellow man and the planet like crap while making as much money as possible doing it.

Were you asleep during Human Nature 101?

I have to say, all you oh-so witty people who are doing nothing more than "ya, no shit, sherlock", are forgetting that its become readily apparent that todays Christians need a constant reminder of the very things the OP has said.

Yes, he is stating the obvious, but sadly, too many christians need this to remind them that preaching hatred, bigoty, and intolerance are totally against evrything that the man they worship stood for. (in theory).

Its incredible to me, that the same people who scream and holler about Islam, are the same ones who condemn others and claim religious reasons as thier motivations.

NEVER stop reminding them!

I have to say, all you oh-so witty people who are doing nothing more than "ya, no shit, sherlock", are forgetting that its become readily apparent that todays Christians need a constant reminder of the very things the OP has said.

Yes, he is stating the obvious, but sadly, too many christians need this to remind them that preaching hatred, bigoty, and intolerance are totally against evrything that the man they worship stood for. (in theory).

Its incredible to me, that the same people who scream and holler about Islam, are the same ones who condemn others and claim religious reasons as thier motivations.

NEVER stop reminding them!

A really sensible post which is universally correct for any belief. Even atheism, which is not a belief is effected from this. Some atheist says something unsensible makes all people lose faith in atheism :p People don't care about what people from other religions say about their religion but listen to others from their own. So this is an open door for corruption.

The biggest threat to the Christian Faith...

...would be it's followers.

Any other questions?

I would say the fact that it is no longer relevant. It has served its purpose, and now its time has passed.

...is of course Reality.
Or the recognition thereof.
:eek:

exactly. all organised religion can be corrupted, but the faith itself remains the same. that is the threat to christianity, and all other religions. nomatter how much the organisation and agenda change, the central belief remains the same, and will eventually bring the whole thing down when the truth comes out.

I agree with you: the biggest threat to the Christian faith does come from inside itself.

But it is from those who seek to compromise it and ignore God's and Scripture's call to purity, intolerance of sin, and all the other "not nice" things that come with Biblical Christianity.

But Christians are not to be concerned with being nice, at least not where doctrine and policy are concerned. We are to care about following God's command, not ignoring or compromising it by ignoring those commands and taking passages about love and forgiveness out of the context of the whole of Scripture.

is not from non-Christians (be they Muslims, Atheists, etc.) but from those Christians who have hijacked the Christian agenda and managed to take a faith that was supposed to be about love, peace, social justice, and respecting God's creation, into a justification for hate-mongering, war-mongering, and generally treating your fellow man and the planet like crap while making as much money as possible doing it.
Systems of thought which are founded on superstition and authoritarianism are going to have this kind of built-in insanity. You can't build a system out of crazy jibberish and then be surprised when your system attracts a bunch of jibbering crazies.

Systems of thought which are founded on superstition and authoritarianism are going to have this kind of built-in insanity. You can't build a system out of crazy jibberish and then be surprised when your system attracts a bunch of jibbering crazies.

So saith the lady that never passes up any opportunity whatsoever to cast her darts at the Christian faith and the intelligence of Christians in general. For someone that claims to have no concern, or second thoughts about Christianity, you sure spend a lot of your time continuously and relentlessly attacking it, and its followers, you never withhold any taunt or hold back any insult but instead seem to seek out opportunities to attack even more.

Perhaps you have some grievance in your past, some injury that will not heal, that keeps you perpetually bitter?

Holy shit, call the nobel prize committee, lets get this guy a spot on the editorial board of the New York Times

OK, he got it off his chest, now let him off the hook, willya?

is not from non-Christians (be they Muslims, Atheists, etc.) but from those Christians who have hijacked the Christian agenda and managed to take a faith that was supposed to be about love, peace, social justice, and respecting God's creation, into a justification for hate-mongering, war-mongering, and generally treating your fellow man and the planet like crap while making as much money as possible doing it.
The biggest threat to Christians are the fundamentalist Christians, just as the extremists Muslims are the greatest threat to Islam. It's not the outside, but rather the inside forces that are the greatest threat to any religion/faith system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bottle
Systems of thought which are founded on superstition and authoritarianism are going to have this kind of built-in insanity. You can't build a system out of crazy jibberish and then be surprised when your system attracts a bunch of jibbering crazies.

So saith the lady that never passes up any opportunity whatsoever to cast her darts at the Christian faith and the intelligence of Christians in general. For someone that claims to have no concern, or second thoughts about Christianity, you sure spend a lot of your time continuously and relentlessly attacking it, and its followers, you never withhold any taunt or hold back any insult but instead seem to seek out opportunities to attack even more.

Perhaps you have some grievance in your past, some injury that will not heal, that keeps you perpetually bitter?

You think..!?

But to Bottle's point,.. who says that "basic" christianity is founded on superstition and authoritarianism, much less crazy jibberish?

I disagree on both those points.

Christianity (at base) is founded on the realization that we should act according to the moral imperatives of "the golden rule", and that sometimes to act according to our morals we must accept that bad things could happen to us (ie "give ourselves over to god" knowing that we're "correct" but may be "punished" by "the world").

That is in fact the basis of ANY "real" philosophical/moral/religious system, of necessity, because it's the ONLY "fact" on which to base such a system.

All "overlays" to this (these) basic principle simply confuses the issue (creates a CULTURE) and gives us, as separate people from separate cultures, something to "play" with with each other.

Sometimes this "play" takes the form of war.

The reason for war is not a difference in the basic tenet, but in what overlays it according to the "conflicting" cultures.

Bottle's solution (and all leftists) is to reduce this conflict by "homogenizing" all humanity so that these cultural differences don't exist.

And, of course, religion, as the ONLY spawning ground of culture (OPINION: ALL cultural features come from religion, such as economics, interpersonal relationships, governmental systems, etc) must be made ONE, which brooks no competition, to accomplish this massive feat.

What would those like Bottle call this "new" religion..?



The problem is that since it is impossible to anihilate all religions but one (which is THE stated goal of islamofascism by the way) without destroying every culture on the planet (save one), this tactic to quell "war" is inherently impossible.

So what should we do?

Two possibilities: Learn to live with war (cultural conflict), or turn war into some less destructive "behavior".

The age old way to do the later is the "battle of the market".



And yes, I do agree, partially, with the OP in that the greatest EXAMPLE of "bad" christianity is demonstrated by those who fixate on the "cultural overlay" and forget that it is supposed to ENHANCE, not replace, the "true" religion beheath.

This "cultural veneer" is what silly people mistake for "religion". That is not religion, and this mistaken identity causes people who would "die for their religion" [or at least try to diminish their "enemies"] (religion-bashers like Bottle as well as cultural fundamentalists, which is what Bottle actually IS) to miss the point of religion all together.

Find what we agree on,.. don't fixate on what we don't agree on.

Simply proclaiming religion to be inherently insane is a fixation on disagreement (a cultural overlay), and yet another example of what folks like Bottle are supposedly so much against, which is "war" created by "misunderstanding".

Christianity (at base) is founded on the realization that we should act according to the moral imperatives of "the golden rule"

And yet a significant part of the Bible is about explaining how breaking this rule can be a good thing in the right circumstances.

In a way, there is no single "Christian Faith". People can and do interpret it in many different ways. The bible is made up of a bunch of initially separate books that were selected from various texts during roman times, but don't necessarily go together without contradicting each other.

Christian fundementalist .

The denegration of the Christian faith can be seen to inversely correspond with the development of the secular state. This is not to say that the secular state has corrupted Christianity, but that Christianity has tied itself to a secular entity, something it was never intended to do. Therefore it has allowed itself to accept unacceptable things from people it associates with in order to achieve its goals. The problem is that the "Kingdom of God" was never intended to achieve its goals via a secular power. It was intended to achieve its goals by changing the lives of people who adhere to the faith, thereby making them examples who create more adherents.

Hence Constatine screwed Christianity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
Christianity (at base) is founded on the realization that we should act according to the moral imperatives of "the golden rule"

And yet a significant part of the Bible is about explaining how breaking this rule can be a good thing in the right circumstances.

No it's not.

It's about how the inevitable is inevitable.


One thing about the golden rule,..

It says that we should treat people how we would expect to be treated.

If we are "bad" and have done bad things, should we expect to be treated by others the way we would treat ourselves?

In other words, if I would treat a "bad" person as a bad person and punish them, would (should) I not expect to be treated the same way by others who consider me a bad person worthy of punishment?


Treating others "nicely" is not what the golden rule is about.

It's about justice for behavioral action.


Breaking the golden rule is NEVER a good thing. Doing so merely means that the spring has been wound for the offender's eventual entrapment by god's inevitable response.

The denegration of the Christian faith can be seen to inversely correspond with the development of the secular state. This is not to say that the secular state has corrupted Christianity, but that Christianity has tied itself to a secular entity, something it was never intended to do. Therefore it has allowed itself to accept unacceptable things from people it associates with in order to achieve its goals. The problem is that the "Kingdom of God" was never intended to achieve its goals via a secular power. It was intended to achieve its goals by changing the lives of people who adhere to the faith, thereby making them examples who create more adherents.

Hence Constatine screwed Christianity.

Beautifully,.. or at least concisely, said.

But,.. the virus that is the REAL underlying basis of christianity lives on, within the host that Constantine started, to infect the bodies politic of every society that the ancestors of Rome/Byzantium come into contact with.

Sounds like a pretty wise virus, to me. :)

By the way, I'm all for as much contagion of this particular virus as possible.

Whoever said that Christianity was about the "Golden Rule" was not on target. It is about God's justice in opposition to his love and how he rectifies the two.

As far as human morality it is about having love for God and therefore for his creation.

is not from non-Christians (be they Muslims, Atheists, etc.) but from those Christians who have hijacked the Christian agenda and managed to take a faith that was supposed to be about love, peace, social justice, and respecting God's creation, into a justification for hate-mongering, war-mongering, and generally treating your fellow man and the planet like crap while making as much money as possible doing it.
Yes. It's hyprocrites that are the problem.

Speaking of the golden rule...
What does it imply about sadomasochism?

I agree with you: the biggest threat to the Christian faith does come from inside itself.

But it is from those who seek to compromise it and ignore God's and Scripture's call to purity, intolerance of sin, and all the other "not nice" things that come with Biblical Christianity.

But Christians are not to be concerned with being nice, at least not where doctrine and policy are concerned. We are to care about following God's command, not ignoring or compromising it by ignoring those commands and taking passages about love and forgiveness out of the context of the whole of Scripture.
You are wrong.

It is those who adovcate war, hatred, and the shunning of sinners who are the danger. They ignore the spirit of love that permeates God's law, they ignore the fact that sinners need to be compassionately assisted rather than attacked and they ignore the fact that we must help those less fortunate than ourselves.

Christianity is a religion of peace and it's people like you that are perverting it.

The denegration of the Christian faith can be seen to inversely correspond with the development of the secular state. This is not to say that the secular state has corrupted Christianity, but that Christianity has tied itself to a secular entity, something it was never intended to do. Therefore it has allowed itself to accept unacceptable things from people it associates with in order to achieve its goals. The problem is that the "Kingdom of God" was never intended to achieve its goals via a secular power. It was intended to achieve its goals by changing the lives of people who adhere to the faith, thereby making them examples who create more adherents.

Hence Constatine screwed Christianity.

Directly, not inversely.

I have to say, all you oh-so witty people who are doing nothing more than "ya, no shit, sherlock", are forgetting that its become readily apparent that todays Christians need a constant reminder of the very things the OP has said.

Yes, he is stating the obvious, but sadly, too many christians need this to remind them that preaching hatred, bigoty, and intolerance are totally against evrything that the man they worship stood for. (in theory).

Its incredible to me, that the same people who scream and holler about Islam, are the same ones who condemn others and claim religious reasons as thier motivations.

NEVER stop reminding them!

Thank you.

But it is from those who seek to compromise it and ignore God's and Scripture's call to purity, intolerance of sin, and all the other "not nice" things that come with Biblical Christianity. [QUOTE]

It's not the intolerance of "sin" that gets me. It's the intolerance of "sinners". Whatever happened to "love the sinner, hate the sin?"

[QUOTE]
But Christians are not to be concerned with being nice, at least not where doctrine and policy are concerned. We are to care about following God's command, not ignoring or compromising it by ignoring those commands and taking passages about love and forgiveness out of the context of the whole of Scripture.

How can you take the passages about love and foregiveness out of context? That was the fundamental message ... it provides the context.

The denegration of the Christian faith can be seen to inversely correspond with the development of the secular state. This is not to say that the secular state has corrupted Christianity, but that Christianity has tied itself to a secular entity, something it was never intended to do. Therefore it has allowed itself to accept unacceptable things from people it associates with in order to achieve its goals. The problem is that the "Kingdom of God" was never intended to achieve its goals via a secular power. It was intended to achieve its goals by changing the lives of people who adhere to the faith, thereby making them examples who create more adherents.


Agreed. The separation of church and state is as much for the protection of the church as it is for the protection of the state.

Bears

is not from non-Christians (be they Muslims, Atheists, etc.) but from those Christians who have hijacked the Christian agenda and managed to take a faith that was supposed to be about love, peace, social justice, and respecting God's creation, into a justification for hate-mongering, war-mongering, and generally treating your fellow man and the planet like crap while making as much money as possible doing it.

Where's that pic with the guy saying "Not this shit again." and has his hand on his forehead.

You are wrong.

It is those who adovcate war, hatred, and the shunning of sinners who are the danger. They ignore the spirit of love that permeates God's law, they ignore the fact that sinners need to be compassionately assisted rather than attacked and they ignore the fact that we must help those less fortunate than ourselves.

Christianity is a religion of peace and it's people like you that are perverting it.

Where did I advocate any war (I do advocate war, but only as a last resort), hatred (definitely advocate of hating sin, but that's about it), or the shunning of sinners (I would have to shun everyone, even myself).

Who's ignoring the less fortunate? Who's refusing to help sinners? No Christian I know.

It's not the intolerance of "sin" that gets me. It's the intolerance of "sinners". Whatever happened to "love the sinner, hate the sin?"

There was too much "Love the sin" so it goes to the other extreme sometimes.

How can you take the passages about love and foregiveness out of context? That was the fundamental message ... it provides the context.

"We are to love everyone, so that means no punishment. And we are to forgiven everyone, so that means let them do what they want."

Love and forgiveness provides the context for punishment and judgement, yes. But they do not eliminate them.

There was too much "Love the sin" so it goes to the other extreme sometimes.


Tolerance of sin is not love of sin.


Love and forgiveness provides the context for punishment and judgement, yes. But they do not eliminate them.

Yes, but nor do the need for punishment and judgement eliminate the need for love and foregiveness, which is what I see happening all the time.

Tolerance of sin is not love of sin.

No, its not in name, but in practice it very much is.

Yes, but nor do the need for punishment and judgement eliminate the need for love and foregiveness, which is what I see happening all the time.

Of course not. And I'm sorry you see that all the time, that's very sad.

I don't think it is fair to say a majority of Christians believe intolerance is okay. I think this is the image most prevalent in our (western, specifically American) culture because Christians who do believe this are much louder than everyone around them. Also, the media follows the same pattern this forum does: stories (or threads) that are much more sensational attract more readers (or posters). If Pat Robertson preached that Christianity was the best faith, but violence should not be practiced, and Christians should really just do their best to be loving, kind people to others and to God (which is the basis of Christian doctrine, despite what some of you here say), why would anyone listen to him? No one ever became famous for being incredibly moderate. And yes, the point the OP made is not exactly original. But that doesn't mean it's not true.

If novel ideas rather than some other (better?) criteria are how we are to judge people now, then what novel ideas have your people entertained lately?
My people? I know not if you refer to utilitarians, existentialists or personal nihilists, but I am fairly certain that in discussions of politics and philosophy, we say things that are certainly novel to the average person, the average American at least.

I don't think it is fair to say a majority of Christians believe intolerance is okay.

I'm not sure it is a majority either ... but the trend certainly seems headed in that direction. They are the loudest, they speak authoritatively, and if we continue to allow them, they will become the voice of Christianity.

No, its not in name, but in practice it very much is.


Please explain ...

Please explain ...

A lot of people say that they won't embrace homosexuality, but the homosexual. Good. That is tolerance. But then they demand equal rights for the homosexual's sinful acts. Bad. Now, rather than saying that this is wrong and we feel you should repent, we are saying that they are free to do whatever they want (which they are, we cannot constrain them to do otherwise) and it's okay in our eyes, which is embracing the sin.

So I now make a distinction between being a bigot and being intolerant. Bigot and tolerant = bad. Intolerant = good. Intolerant is saying "This is wrong, but I'm not going to glow up the abortion clinic or lynch the gay. But I will fight to end the acceptence of them as good."

is not from non-Christians (be they Muslims, Atheists, etc.) but from those Christians who have hijacked the Christian agenda and managed to take a faith that was supposed to be about love, peace, social justice, and respecting God's creation, into a justification for hate-mongering, war-mongering, and generally treating your fellow man and the planet like crap while making as much money as possible doing it.
You have raised some very good points.

Some of the worst warmongers on NS claim to be Christians. Tis sad to say the least.
:(

is not from non-Christians (be they Muslims, Atheists, etc.) but from those Christians who have hijacked the Christian agenda and managed to take a faith that was supposed to be about love, peace, social justice, and respecting God's creation, into a justification for hate-mongering, war-mongering, and generally treating your fellow man and the planet like crap while making as much money as possible doing it.
Actually, Christianity has coped with such practiced for 2000 years, and it survived and expanded. What's threatening Christianity is the multitude of new sources of information appart from the Bible and the realization that what is written there may not be true.

is TC....haha!

[QUOTE=Edwardis;11728959]
But it is from those who seek to compromise it and ignore God's and Scripture's call to purity, intolerance of sin, and all the other "not nice" things that come with Biblical Christianity. [QUOTE]

It's not the intolerance of "sin" that gets me. It's the intolerance of "sinners". Whatever happened to "love the sinner, hate the sin?"



How can you take the passages about love and foregiveness out of context? That was the fundamental message ... it provides the context.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is the same kind of meaningless sound byte as "i have lots of black friends" and "i have lots of friends who are gay"

Actually, Christianity has coped with such practiced for 2000 years, and it survived and expanded. What's threatening Christianity is the multitude of new sources of information appart from the Bible and the realization that what is written there may not be true.

True. As well as people starting to focus more on trying to understand God instead of just blindly obeying. "Homosexuality is bad ? Why ? Yes- it says it is right here in the Bible but why is it so ? Why does God not approve ?".

Growing up, us humans are.

A lot of people say that they won't embrace homosexuality, but the homosexual. Good. That is tolerance. But then they demand equal rights for the homosexual's sinful acts. Bad. Now, rather than saying that this is wrong and we feel you should repent, we are saying that they are free to do whatever they want (which they are, we cannot constrain them to do otherwise) and it's okay in our eyes, which is embracing the sin.

How are you embracing the homosexual if you consider their homosexual acts to be sinful?


So I now make a distinction between being a bigot and being intolerant. Bigot and tolerant = bad. Intolerant = good. Intolerant is saying "This is wrong, but I'm not going to glow up the abortion clinic or lynch the gay. But I will fight to end the acceptence of them as good."

In other words, you will fight to the end the acceptance of the logically and morally sound principle that homosexuality is acceptable. That is bigotry and intolerance, even if it does not manifest itself in the form of violence.

is not from non-Christians (be they Muslims, Atheists, etc.) but from those Christians who have hijacked the Christian agenda and managed to take a faith that was supposed to be about love, peace, social justice, and respecting God's creation, into a justification for hate-mongering, war-mongering, and generally treating your fellow man and the planet like crap while making as much money as possible doing it.

Though stated numerous times before, and inherently deserving of a "No shit!?!", you're correct, and have earned 1 cookie.

*hands over cookie*

Actually, Christianity has coped with such practiced for 2000 years, and it survived and expanded. What's threatening Christianity is the multitude of new sources of information appart from the Bible and the realization that what is written there may not be true.

Those new sources of information are only threats to fundamentalists. Most reasonable Christians would probably accept that it provides an opportunity to better understand our relationship with God.

Though stated numerous times before, and inherently deserving of a "No shit!?!", you're correct, and have earned 1 cookie.

*hands over cookie*

Thank you.

Thank you.

You are very welcome.

How are you embracing the homosexual if you consider their homosexual acts to be sinful?



In other words, you will fight to the end the acceptance of the logically and morally sound principle that homosexuality is acceptable. That is bigotry and intolerance, even if it does not manifest itself in the form of violence.

Well, I don't care what Man says. In determining what is right. I use Scripture. And it says that homosexual activity is sinful.

Well, I don't care what Man says. In determining what is right. I use Scripture. And it says that homosexual activity is sinful.

Do you ever wonder why it says that ?
Or to put it differently: do you strive towards understanding of Gods divine will, or do you prefer mere obedience without thought ?

Do you ever wonder why it says that ?
Or to put it differently: do you strive towards understanding of Gods divine will, or do you prefer mere obedience without thought ?

I strive towards understanding. And that understanding has told me that there are some things I won't understand before heaven, and I must obey those things anyway.

There was too much "Love the sin" so it goes to the other extreme sometimes.
But, aren't we taught that God hates the sin but loves the sinner?

But, aren't we taught that God hates the sin but loves the sinner?

Yes. But He doesn't love the sin. Some people say that we must love the sin to love the sinner.

Yes. But He doesn't love the sin. Some people say that we must love the sin to love the sinner.
Even I find that part weird... love a sin?

Even I find that part weird... love a sin?

They never say that. They say that we must allow the homosexual to commit homosexual acts to show them God's love. So we are blessing the sin, saying "You can do that if you want." We are loving it. Maybe we wouldn't do it ourselves, but we have no problem with others doing it and so have embraced it as a legitimate, valuable act.

Homosexuality being an example.

I strive towards understanding. And that understanding has told me that there are some things I won't understand before heaven, and I must obey those things anyway.

You realise God could be testing you ? Maybe he doesn't want you to blindly obey.
After all, many parents feel some pride when their children start thinking for themselves...

You realise God could be testing you ?

In what way?

In what way?

Maybe He does not wish you to obey everything.

In what way?
He uses temptation to test your faith, the strength of your integrity and your fidelity to your religion. Sin is the test; having your religion and faith questioned by those outside of it is part of the test. There are other ways he is testing you.

Maybe He does not wish you to obey everything.

Then why would He tell me to do it?

God cannot tempt Man, though He can allow him to be tempted.

He uses temptation to test your faith, the strength of your integrity and your fidelity to your religion. Sin is the test; having your religion and faith questioned by those outside of it is part of the test. There are other ways he is testing you.

I would agree with that. But that's not what Alma Mater is talking about.

And He doesn't tempt me. He allows me to be tempted, same as Job.

Directly, not inversely.

No sir, I wrote correctly. They are inversely related. The strength of the church was greater when the political state was pretty much non-existant or at least when they weren't connected.

Beautifully,.. or at least concisely, said.

But,.. the virus that is the REAL underlying basis of christianity lives on, within the host that Constantine started, to infect the bodies politic of every society that the ancestors of Rome/Byzantium come into contact with.

Sounds like a pretty wise virus, to me. :)

By the way, I'm all for as much contagion of this particular virus as possible.

Yes sir, however, it is sad to see that the citizens of the kingdom of God share their loyalty with a physical kingdom.

Where did I advocate any war (I do advocate war, but only as a last resort), hatred (definitely advocate of hating sin, but that's about it), or the shunning of sinners (I would have to shun everyone, even myself).

Who's ignoring the less fortunate? Who's refusing to help sinners? No Christian I know.
All those proud Christian nationalist Republican voters. I can't fathom how any Christian could vote Republican.

All those proud Christian nationalist Republican voters. I can't fathom how any Christian could vote Republican.

I'm not Republican. Though I favor them over most Democrats.

Do you ever wonder why it says that?
Our bodies and souls are all ultimately the property of God. Some sins are committed against others; homosexuality is a sin that one commits against oneself.

I'm not Republican. Though I favor them over most Democrats.
I detest the Democrats as well but at least they're not a "war and exploitation" party to the same degree as the Republicans.

Our bodies and souls are all ultimately the property of God.

It is statements like this that lead to my large scale rejection of most religion.

My body is my own, nobody elses. I refuse to lower myself to a slave.

It is statements like this that lead to my large scale rejection of most religion.

My body is my own, nobody elses. I refuse to lower myself to a slave.

Indeed. I find that kind of debasement of humanity to be disturbing and morally odorous.

It is statements like this that lead to my large scale rejection of most religion.

My body is my own, nobody elses. I refuse to lower myself to a slave.
I said ultimately. God gave us free will so we are not enslaved.

All those proud Christian nationalist Republican voters. I can't fathom how any Christian could vote Republican.

I am sure that they have just as many good reasons for voting Republican as you do for voting democrat. In the end, the problem is that a good Christian voter should not be relying on the government to accomplish the goals of Christians. God gave us a tool for that...our lives as examples.

I said ultimately. God gave us free will so we are not enslaved.

You stated:

Our bodies and souls are all ultimately the property of God.

A slave owner may let a slave have a great degree of freedom. He may let the slave get an education, marry, raise a family, move around. The slaveowner may even let the slave act in every noticable way a free lifestyle.

Yet as long as the slave's body is thought of as property, he is still a slave.

Those who believe that their bodies are the property of god believe them to be slaves of god. Regardless of whether they also believe that god allows his slaves to have a good degree of freedom, to be ones property is to be ones slave.

I am no slave.

Well, I don't care what Man says. In determining what is right. I use Scripture. And it says that homosexual activity is sinful.

Funny, my RPG book says homosexual activity, just like heterosexual activity, deals 1d3 subdual damage, pending rest.

It's worth as much as the Bible in terms of information, you know.

You realise God could be testing you ? Maybe he doesn't want you to blindly obey.
After all, NORMAL, ACTUAL CARING AND LOVING parents feel some pride when their children start thinking for themselves...

Sorry about the mild breach in author rights here, but I figured I could make your words mine with some changes.

The biggest threat to Christianity is waste oil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGAvxEKH3pk&mode=related&search=

Or maybe thats just Catholicism?

Funny, my RPG book says homosexual activity, just like heterosexual activity, deals 1d3 subdual damage, pending rest.

It's worth as much as the Bible in terms of information, you know.

That's slightly arrogant.

Saying a man's creativity is of the same worth as the Word of God?

That's slightly arrogant.

Saying a man's creativity is of the same worth as the Word of God?

It could also be construed as arrogant to claim that your book of god is the only Word of God.

It could also be construed as arrogant to claim that your book of god is the only Word of God.

Of course it can be construed that way. However, I see no problem with that claim to exclusivity. None of the other books agree with the Bible, so why would God contradict Himself?

Of course it can be construed that way. However, I see no problem with that claim to exclusivity. None of the other books agree with the Bible, so why would God contradict Himself?

The only problem with the claim to exclusivity is that it rests on a circular argument.

How do you know the Bible is the Word of God?
Because it says so.
How do you know the Bible is not wrong?
It can't be. It's the Word of God.

I took a book off my shelf. It's called Maelstrom. It's by Sam Llewellyn. Love those welsh names. Looks like a cheap thriller. I just wrote in it "This book is the revealed Word of God."

Now, prove to me it is not.

Of course it can be construed that way. However, I see no problem with that claim to exclusivity. None of the other books agree with the Bible, so why would God contradict Himself?

Maybe because you can't prove He wrote (or "dictated"/"inspired") the Bible anymore than I can prove He wrote, dictated or inspired D&D 3rd Edition.

But that's okay, you're just the guy that claims to know theology here.

Maybe because you can't prove He wrote (or "dictated"/"inspired") the Bible anymore than I can prove He wrote, dictated or inspired D&D 3rd Edition.

But that's okay, you're just the guy that claims to know theology here.

It's AD&D that reveals the Truth! Heretic!

That's slightly arrogant.

Saying a man's creativity is of the same worth as the Word of God?

Considering God is in everything, maybe. But there's a point here: Anyone can pick a book and say it's "the truth". That rule applies to ANY book. And any book can be proven as as close to being said truth as any other book, unless we're talking about an exact science. A casual stroll through an asylum shows us that faith proves nothing.

It's AD&D that reveals the Truth! Heretic!

OH YEAH??? I'LL START A CRUSADE AGAINST YOU, HERETIC!!!

*Rolls a Charisma test to inspire people*

Dammit, Natural 1! Okay! I and my friend, mr. Crazy Hobo here, will win this with the help of our god!

That's slightly arrogant.

Saying a man's creativity is of the same worth as the Word of God?

What you mean is

"That's slightly arrogant.

Saying a man's creativity is of the same worth as a man's creativity?"

There is nothing arrogant about it at all.

What you means is

"That's slightly arrogant.

Saying a man's creativity is of the same worth as a man's creativity?"

There is nothing arrogant about it at all.

THANK YOU! :D

I am sure that they have just as many good reasons for voting Republican as you do for voting democrat. In the end, the problem is that a good Christian voter should not be relying on the government to accomplish the goals of Christians. God gave us a tool for that...our lives as examples.
I am not American and despise both of your plutocratic, murderous parties, but the as the party that invented the Iraq war, I especially loath the Republicans.

I am pretty much a secularist so I'm not saying that my ideas of Christianity should run any country, but surely there are some things that a Christian of conscience simply cannot vote for.

Yet as long as the slave's body is thought of as property, he is still a slave.

Those who believe that their bodies are the property of god believe them to be slaves of god. Regardless of whether they also believe that god allows his slaves to have a good degree of freedom, to be ones property is to be ones slave.
God created us so only He has ultimate sovereignty over us.

Maybe because you can't prove He wrote (or "dictated"/"inspired") the Bible anymore than I can prove He wrote, dictated or inspired D&D 3rd Edition.
Atheist? Religion isn't about proving facts, like science is. Religion is about faith.

God didn't write the Bible, he inspired men to, thuis there are numerous possible interpretations.

God is alleged to have written the Qu'aran, so there are fewer possible interpretations there.

Atheist? Religion isn't about proving facts, like science is. Religion is about faith.

God didn't write the Bible, he inspired men to, thuis there are numerous possible interpretations.

God is alleged to have written the Qu'aran, so there are fewer possible interpretations there.

No, not an atheist. Just a guy that's getting real tired of people acting as if faith = ultimate truth. It does not. One can, and SHOULD, have faith in something while also knowing that they might be wrong. Faith is supposed to liberate, not constrain. Further, one should NOT let churches set their paws in government offices!

No, not an atheist. Just a guy that's getting real tired of people acting as if faith = ultimate truth. It does not. One can, and SHOULD, have faith in something while also knowing that they might be wrong. Faith is supposed to liberate, not constrain. Further, one should NOT let churches set their paws in government offices!
I agree, we all could be wrong. But I do believe to that the good news of our Lord is probably the truth. If we feel we know the truth, isn't it a good idea to tell other people about it?

I'm also a secularist. :)

God created us so only He has ultimate sovereignty over us.

Maybe so. But if He chose not to tell us clearly (2000-years-old fantasy literature doesn't count) that certain things that are harmful to none will get us in Hell, and then he sends us to Hell for not obeying an unsaid rule, he's not a God, he's a boy with a magnifying glass near an anthill.

Further, being born = sin? For crying out loud, it's unfair and not even God can change the fact that it IS UNFAIR!

Maybe so. But if He chose not to tell us clearly (2000-years-old fantasy literature doesn't count) that certain things that are harmful to none will get us in Hell, and then he sends us to Hell for not obeying an unsaid rule, he's not a God, he's a boy with a magnifying glass near an anthill.

Further, being born = sin? For crying out loud, it's unfair and not even God can change the fact that it IS UNFAIR!
Are you attempting to launch a general attack on Christianity?

I agree, we all could be wrong. But I do believe to that the good news of our Lord is probably the truth. If we feel we know the truth, isn't it a good idea to tell other people about it?

I'm also a secularist. :)

By all means tell them, but under certain conditions:

1- Thou shalt not try to make your government base its decisions on your faith.

2- Thou shalt accept when others ALSO try to tell you their truths.

3- Thou shalt not believe in the contradiction of a good and merciful God that sends Ghandi to Hell for not being a Christian, or a great person to Hell for being a homosexual.

4- Thou shalt not preach intolerance under the banner of your religion demanding it.

5- Thou shalt, overall, be a nice guy and admit that everybody, even atheists, is in the same quest for truth as you are - the other religions might be right after all, and it's a good idea not to piss off Zeus, the Indian gods, the Goddess or the Orishas, just in case. ;)

Are you attempting to launch a general attack on Christianity?

No, just on the concepts of original sin (seriously) and blind belief (in anything). The "fantasy literature" remark was more me lashing out at extremists here (not you, you seem moderate) than anything, really.

Well, I don't care what Man says. In determining what is right. I use Scripture. And it says that homosexual activity is sinful.

Like Aquinas, I belive that belief in God must be in accordance with Reason. As such, when Scripture does not accord with Reason, I must reconsider it. Since Science has proven that homosexuality is in fact natural, I reject those portions of Scripture that tell me it is not. Since God created homosexuals, it would be unreasonable that she would make their natural behaviour a sin.

I can think of at least two reasons why Scripture should not be taken as absolute or literally:
1) it was written by humans, most of it centuries after the events concerned occurred. Humans are fallible, and prone to recording things incorrectly and/or in a way that reflects their biases.
2) When God speaks to a people, she is always speaking to a specific people, in a specific time at a specific place. We must not ignore this context. Some of what she says are eternal truths, some are instructions specific to that context. That should always be borne in mind when reading Scripture.

Jethuth!

None of the other books agree with the Bible, so why would God contradict Himself?

God wasn't necessarily contradicting herself. Again, her instructions are often context-specific: given to a specific people in a specific place at a specifi time. Only by undertaking a broader survey of holy books will we be able to determine which instructions are context-specific, and which are eternal truths.

or perhaps...

Jebuth!

God created us so only He has ultimate sovereignty over us.


No being has ultimate sovereignty over me. Certain entities may have a form of power that they/it are able to use against me. A government may arrest me, god may condemn me to hell, a bullet may end my life, none of those entities have soverienty over me if I chose to reject it.

An all powerful diety may be able to use power over me, but I am no man's, and no diety's property, and am beholdant to none.

I am not a slave.

No being has ultimate sovereignty over me. Certain entities may have a form of power that they/it are able to use against me. A government may arrest me, god may condemn me to hell, a bullet may end my life, none of those entities have soverienty over me if I chose to reject it.

An all powerful diety may be able to use power over me, but I am no man's, and no diety's property, and am beholdant to none.

I am not a slave.

Seconded. If anything, we're all PARTS of God anyways.

What is the biggest threat to the Christian Faith?

Properly read the bible is the biggest threat to the Christian Faith and also the strongest advocate for atheism.

Originally Posted by Arthais101
No being has ultimate sovereignty over me. Certain entities may have a form of power that they/it are able to use against me. A government may arrest me, god may condemn me to hell, a bullet may end my life, none of those entities have soverienty over me if I chose to reject it.

An all powerful diety may be able to use power over me, but I am no man's, and no diety's property, and am beholdant to none.

I am not a slave.
Seconded. If anything, we're all PARTS of God anyways.

Thirded. We are all beings fully equipped with the ability to perceive and draw conclusions and make decisions about ALL things for ourselves, including god concepts and the conditions of our souls. Those who advocate submission to some higher authority that somehow has "sovereignty" over us are people who have made for themselves the decision to give up their sense of independent self. Those who advocate blind obedience to this or that dogma are people who have made for themselves the decision to abdicate all responsiblity for making any more decisions and for the outcomes of those decisions. They have perceived themselves and their abilities and have decided to give up being themselves and using their abilities. To me, it is like an able-bodied person deciding never to walk again.

I choose to use the faculties I have. EDIT: Actually, if a god created us, then I would consider it grossly disrespectful of that creator god to refuse to use the abilities it gave us.

Further, if we are all parts of or emanations of "God," then there is, ultimately, a level at which we are "God," and thus, to have any god claiming to have sovereignty over us is kind of like us looking in a mirror and saying to our own reflection, "I am greater than you. Obey me."