|
|
|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
|
"So Now What?"
formerlywannabe 407 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Daytime Soap Guest Star"
|
11-08-06, 01:26 PM (EST)
 
  |
|
"So Now What?" |
Well, the Democrats are in charge and I guess I am happy about that, even if I am not a Democrat! Apparently, I am a "moderate Republican". Yay for me! I've always been a label whore!I try to pay attention to what goes on in the world..and in our country, I really do, but in the immortal words of Carrie Bradshaw, I can't help but wonder....what does it all mean? Is the war going to end? Can me & DH's friend come home to his wife and 3 kids? One of our old friends from work got his head blown off in Iraq a year and a half ago. If we leave, will his loss have been for nothing? I think the end of the war is a long shot, IMHO. So, what else is there? Stem Cell research? Abortion rights? Gay marriage (although I think that's a state thing)? I am in favor of ALL of these things...are the Democrats going to help make these thing possibe or, like abortion, keep it legal? Is that possible? What about taxes, the economy, preventing another terrorist attack and a million other things that many of us would like to see change? Can the Blue Peeps pull it off? Does all this hype mean anything in terms of real change? Is the Christian Right* going to band together hard core in '08 and we are right back to where we are now. What do you guys think? 'Cause I don't know! *I have no beef with Christians, even if I think some of them are a little goofy  ....I respect the rights and beliefs of everyone, even if I don't always agree with them.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 01:46 PM (EST)
|
|
1. "RE: So Now What?" |
Initially, what we'll see are the setting of the rules for this Congress, mostly geared toward more accountability. Once rules are set, one of the first priorities we'll see is a bill changing the way the federal government works with pharmaceutical companies on Medicare/Medicaid. Currently, the way the law is written, the gov't gets no discount on medications for these, in spite of being by far the pharmaceutical companies' largest customer. Such a bill would save gov't (and by extension, us) billions of dollars. It's ludicrous that such a thing isn't already in place.Not the most glamorous thing, I'll grant you, but something that works in favor of citizens far more than some of the glitzier things.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
 |
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 02:33 PM (EST)
|
|
10. "RE: So Now What?" |
Initially, what we'll see are the setting of the rules for this Congress, mostly geared toward more accountability.Good joke -- using Congress and accountability together in the same sentence. I have no doubt that we'll hear Democrats SAY that's what they're doing. But absolutely nothing will happen. Once rules are set, one of the first priorities we'll see is a bill changing the way the federal government works with pharmaceutical companies on Medicare/Medicaid. Currently, the way the law is written, the gov't gets no discount on medications for these, in spite of being by far the pharmaceutical companies' largest customer. Such a bill would save gov't (and by extension, us) billions of dollars. It's ludicrous that such a thing isn't already in place. No argument on this one. Political pressure is the reason that drug costs are so much lower in Canada. It's ridiculous that the U.S. government set itself up to subsidize lower-cost medications for Canadians -- and Canadians should expect to see their drug costs rise once the subsidy from the U.S. is eliminated. What the U.S. government should demand is "most-favored-nation" status on drugs. Whatever a drug is sold for at its lowest price -- anywhere in the world -- that should be the price that the U.S. government pays, too. I'm not sure the Democrats are willing to go that far, but they should be. This is why I was in favor of letting U.S. states and cities import drugs from Canada, because it would put de facto pressure on drug companies to rationalize their subsidized prices in Canada. Of course, the Bush administration promptly moved to shut that down in 2005 -- yet another blunder from the last two years. Not the most glamorous thing, I'll grant you, but something that works in favor of citizens far more than some of the glitzier things. Except that it doesn't. It doesn't do anything about health-insurance gaps, for example. It won't lower the cost of drugs to the uninsured. All it does is reduce the amount of the U.S. current account deficit. It's just a piece of low-hanging fruit -- a hidden government subsidy to pharmaceutical companies that's now being closed.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
geg6 14941 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 01:50 PM (EST)
|
|
2. "RE: So Now What?" |
LAST EDITED ON 11-08-06 AT 01:51 PM (EST)>Is the war going to end? Not any time soon, thanks to the mess that's been created.
> Can me & DH's
>friend come home to his
>wife and 3 kids? Again, see above answer.
>One of our old friends
>from work got his head
>blown off in Iraq a
>year and a half ago.
> If we leave, will
>his loss have been for
>nothing? If we stay, does that mean it has been for something other than the chaos that is there now, thanks to us? IMHO, every death in that war never had any meaning to the people in charge. I think the
>end of the war is
>a long shot, IMHO. You're right. It always was because of the lack of planning, the lies that created it, the unwillingness of the administration to actually prosecute the war responsibly, the arrogance of dismissing the military's opinion on how to prosecute it, and a complete ignorance of the social and historical background of the region. >So, what else is there?
>Stem Cell research? Abortion
>rights? Gay marriage (although
>I think that's a state
>thing)? I am in favor
>of ALL of these things...are
>the Democrats going to help
>make these thing possibe or,
>like abortion, keep it legal?
> Is that possible? I think stem cell research, barring the Shrub's veto, is a shoe-in. Anything supported by 70% of the American public is highly likely to come to fruition. I have never expected anything other than tinkering on a state by state basis on abortion rights. And equal rights for gays (because that's what the whole argument about "gay marriage" is about. Call it what it really is.) will be a long hard struggle, which I have every faith will eventually come about. Not soon enough for me and not soon enough for all of the gay people who are being denied their rights as Americans. The struggle of African Americans and women is instructive and illustrative. >What about taxes, the economy, preventing
>another terrorist attack and a
>million other things that many
>of us would like to
>see change? Can the
>Blue Peeps pull it off? Taxes will have to be increased due to the criminal irresponsibility of the previous Congress and this administration. These people never saw spending they didn't like (unless it was spending on the poor) or a military disaster they didn't throw money away on. So, expect the top 5% to start paying their way again. Finally. The 9/11 Commission's recommendations will finally be implemented, though the war in Iraq has created so many more terrorists that I'm not sure they are enough any more. I expect to see something good done about health care (especially for kids) and I expect to see something good happen to funding for post-secondary education. >Does all this hype mean anything
>in terms of real change?
> Is the Christian Right*
>going to band together hard
>core in '08 and we
>are right back to where
>we are now. What
>do you guys think? 'Cause
>I don't know! I never expect to see the Christian right run the Republican Party into the ground again. And, if the real conservatives allow that to happen again, they deserve whatever happens to them (most likely, they'll have to hold their noses and become Dems). >*I have no beef with Christians,
>even if I think some
>of them are a little
>goofy ....I respect the rights
>and beliefs of everyone, even
>if I don't always agree
>with them. There you come right to the core of exactly why I have massive beefs with them. They have no respect for the rights and beliefs of anyone other than themselves. So, in return, I have no respect right back. 
Democrats make better lovers. Whoever heard of a good piece of elephant?
Edited to correct a correction I had made before posting. Should have read it again before posting. D'oh!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
geg6 14941 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 04:20 PM (EST)
|
|
25. "RE: So Now What?" |
Oh, I agree. For that bunch, it's always been about cash and power. I have yet to see one.single.leader of the Religious Reich act in a way that conforms in any way to the teachings of Jesus.In some ways, I wish that their dream would come true and Jesus would come down to earth for the Judgment. What happened to the money changers in the temple would be nothing compared to what he'd do to that bunch, IMHO.
Democrats make better lovers. Whoever heard of a good piece of elephant?
Of course, since I don't believe in Jesus' divinity, or the Judgment, or the Rapture, or any of that, it's kind of a moot point.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 09:04 PM (EST)
|
|
37. "RE: So Now What?" |
geg, Texas governor Rick Perry thinks you and I have nonstop tickets to Hell:Perry believes non-Christians doomed "If you live your life and don't confess your sins to God almighty through the authority of Christ and his blood, I'm going to say this very plainly, you're going straight to hell with a nonstop ticket," Mr. Hagee said during a service interspersed with religious and patriotic videos. Asked afterward at a political rally whether he agreed with Mr. Hagee, the governor said he didn't hear anything that he would take exception to. He said that he believes in the inerrancy of the Bible and that those who don't accept Jesus as their savior will go to hell. As Kinky Friedman said in the article, "He doesn't think very differently from the Taliban, does he? ... Being obsessed with who's going to heaven and who's going to hell is kind of a pathetic waste of time." Actually, he could have used the words "pathetic waste of time" to describe Rick Perry himself. P.S. I saw an interview with Christopher Hitchens on Pajamas Media today, in which he said that the one person he would have liked to see lose was Perry, specifically for these comments.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 09:35 PM (EST)
|
|
41. "Salvation" |
You realize, of course, that the whole central idea of Christianity is that they ONLY way to get to heaven is to accept Christ's sacrifice. No one is 'worthy' of heaven, because that is simply impossible. But anyone can go because the gift that God gave in the life of his only Son. Jesus paid the price for our salvation and it is as free as air to anyone who wants it.Based on that central belief of almost all Christian faiths, I guess all Christians are Talibani. The fact is that is what the Bible says and it is absolutely your choice not to believe it. In Islamic states you don't get that choice. Here you are free to go to Hell, but the Bible is very clear on the stakes. No one is worthy, not one but no one goes to the Father except through Jesus. Without Jesus. Without His sacrifice, the Bible is very clear that there IS no other way to get to Heaven. So put me down as a pathetic waste as well. I know that I am no better than anyone else, and a lot worse than others, but I accept that Christ died for my sins and He has paid the price. That doesn't make me any better, but it does make me saved. Because it is the only way to BE saved. 
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - President J. Adams
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Buggy 5089 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-09-06, 00:25 AM (EST)
|
|
52. "RE: Salvation" |
But you aren't a polititian Pre, and Rick Perry is.
As Governnor he is supposed to be representing ALL the people of Texas, not just the ones he deems worthy, not just the Christian faithful.To be truthful, I don't think Perry is any more Christian than the stack of wood in my backyard.
He caters to the Christians in the state, he says the things you want to hear, but it's all a false front to get your vote.
Rick Perry is the worse kind of hypocrit, he lies to everyone. In a two person race he would have lost, (Kinky Clown Friedman is one of the reasons that Perry is still the Governnor), Perry hasn't been good for Texas, and he won't be in the future. But he'll continue to pretend to live by Christian values , and the Hell with the 60% of the State that didn't want him back in office. And for those of you thinking you don't have to worry, because you don't live in Texas? Keep on eye on Perry, he wants to be President. Politics and Religion shouldn't be mixed, when they are we get Taliban type leaders, the very thing we are at War with.
I doubt very much that you want to live in any kind of theocracy, Pre, saved or not. 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-09-06, 08:32 AM (EST)
|
|
57. "RE: Salvation" |
I agree, but I personally would like to see our country led by people who I believe have a moral compass guided by Judeo-Christian values and a faith in something bigger than they are. I haven't seen Rick Perry indulging in Taliban-like acts here, any more than our Founding Fathers did when they openly and freely expressed their personal faith, publicly, while never making someone else's lack of that faith.Perry was asked if he believed, personally, that what the Bible says is true. He agreed. I would have been disgusted if he said otherwise. Sure, he could have tempered the other persons statement that was crassly put, but his response was that he believed in the inerrancy of the Bible. Personally. I don't see how that had any bearing on his political life. Nor do I think that politicians should be banned from sharing what their personal idea is on the subject. As long as their is no policy initiative tied specifically to what his faith teaches on Salvation, or forcing others to embrace that means of Salvation, I don't see what the problem is.
If you want to blame anyone, I'd go with Carol Keaton Rylander Strayhorn. Over 50% of Kinky voters would have stayed home if he wasn't on the ballot. I don't think Bell had a snowballs chance in any case.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
geg6 14941 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-09-06, 08:49 AM (EST)
|
|
59. "RE: Salvation" |
PRE, I have to say that I think you're misunderstanding what AyaK said. I don't see where he says Christians are a pathetic waste of time. He said Rick Perry is. And, based on what Perry said, I'd have to agree.Here's what I just don't get about an awful lot of so-called Christians, especially of the more rabid evangelical persuasion (and I'm not including you here). Where does this impression come from that it is sufficient to simply accept Jesus as your savior? I've read the Bible in several versions (granted, it's been a while), but that's not the impression I got from any of them. In fact, the impression I got was that Jesus basically taught that actions spoke louder than words. And that, without the actions, none of the rest of it mattered much. That impression is what makes me admire Jesus as a philosopher, if not as a god or savior. His most basic philosophy is one of the pillars on which I base my own morality, because it is so humanistic. Why does it seem that this particular branch of politicized fundamental Christianity seems to have lost the fundamental aspects of that philosophy? And why do they feel the need to demonize, exclude, and exhibit cruelty toward those who don't agree rather than embody the philosophy of Jesus? That dissonance (the difference between Jesus' teachings and the actions of these particular followers) is why I have no respect for them. It's not that I (and I won't speak for AyaK, but I'm guessing he would say the same) disrespect Christians. It's that I disrespect those who disrespect me and whose actions directly contradict the teachings of their supposed leader.
Democrats make better lovers. Whoever heard of a good piece of elephant?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-09-06, 09:07 AM (EST)
|
|
60. "RE: Salvation" |
I don't disagree that there are a lot of people who think that ALL they have to do is accept Jesus and they get a free pass on everything else. The Bible says that 'faith without works is empty', but works are only an outward reflection of the inner state of your soul. The Bible also goes on to say that 'all sin and fall short of the glory of God' and that 'all our good works are like filthy rags before Him.' There is "no one who is righteous, not one." All have sinned and Romans goes on to say that 'the wages of sin are deathbut the gift of God is eternal life through His Son Jesus.'
If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
Roman 10 -10
That is what the Bible says. It also says "I am the Way and the Truth and the Light. None come to the Father except through me." You can't go to heaven because you are a good person, the Bible says that there is no possible way for a human to be good enough. That was the whole point of Christ's sacrifice, to pay the price for our sins. That is why he suffered although innocent. I suppose that someone can see this as a bigotted world-view except for Christ's gift is as free as the air we breathe, and just as present. It's there for anyone who wants it. I'm really not trying to start a religious argument here, but you did ask why many Christians believed what they do. I hope that helps. I'd be happy to add citations to any of those quotes for anyone who is interested.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-09-06, 10:09 AM (EST)
|
|
62. "RE: Salvation" |
Most Christians I know DO try to live up to Christ's example. The challenge is that it is nearly impossible to do so. I know that you believe that abortion is a civil right, for example, and that Jesus taught us to love one another and not judge. To some extent that is true, but not to the point where you should excuse or encourage immoral behavior. You love the sinner, but you must hate the sin. And where sin is clearly defined on understood from the Bible, many can't just stand aside. God is a loving God, but He is also a just God. Humility doesn't mean letting anyone do whatever they want in violation of God's law. It means being His instrument in trying to change hearts to do God's will. Certainly there are some who are too self-righteous - or at least percieved or portrayed that way - but I would guess that 90% of those would say that they do their work for God and His glory rather than their own. Take Mr. Dobson for example, he is percieved by some to be a bigoted attack dog, but I've never seen him that way. He states what he thinks is God's Truth and is willing to be cursed and mocked for it. "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you and falsly say all kinds of evil against you because of Me." I agree 100% though that way too often those who are trying to grow God's kingdom and share His word are doing the exact opposite. Not because they aren't doing their best, but there are some people who really think that shoving God down others' throats is going to work. Most forms of evangelism are pretty ineffective, and many are downright counterproductive. I've never seen anyone converted by being hit over the head with a Bible. I understand where you are coming from because believe it or not, I was once there too. I wasn't agnostic or deist, I was an outright athiest thinking that God was a panacea for cavemen who feared to take responsibility for the world. Over time though, I have seen God in my life too many times and felt Him too many ways to say that He isn't there. He has changed my life and I try every day to be a better person because of Him. Anyone who truly knows Him would say the same. I am challenged by His life, not because I think it will earn me a place in Heaven, but because I owe God so much for my life and my salvation. Churches can be great tools to bring you closer to God but they are not what it is all about. It's all about Him and what the Bible says is true. All the other stuff, even all the political stuff, is garbage. Some churches have gay ministers, some are OK with abortion, some are very active against those things. They aren't what God's word is about. They are distractions, the little differences of policy that keep us away fromt he big similarities of Jesus. You'll see very liberal Christians who are drawn to Christ's message of service to the poor, you'll see very socially conservative people who focus on God's moral laws and the structure that they provide for society. I don't think that either exist in a vacuum, but people have different gifts and interests and serve God in different ways. Personally, I care very deeply for the poor - having grown up on welfare until I was 13, I know how helpless it can be. I also care for what God says are the rules of a good society and government. However none of that matters. What we DO in life is how we outwardly show what change God has made in our lives. THAT is the only evangelism that works, in my opinion. Being a shining example of God's love and His power. Sorry to go on and on, but this is pretty important stuff to me. I just hope to share a little bit of where I am coming from.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - President J. Adams
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
formerlywannabe 407 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Daytime Soap Guest Star"
|
11-10-06, 10:25 AM (EST)
|
|
102. "RE: Salvation" |
When I used Christian and goofy in the same sentence, I certaintly wasn't talking about anyone who has strong faith, believes in God and tries to live a good life in his image. I meant a certain faction of Christians that have been pretty prevelent. I wrote some examples in above posts. I agree with Geg about your willingness to explain and I am glad you did. Faith is important and sometimes there will be things that one cannot accept as moral, based on their relgious beliefs. It's all in the way you say it I guess... Many times on OT, people become very angry with each other about certain issues. Each side is very forceful and each side has valid points! I know that you have had to defend youself on some occasions, because lets face it, those darn liberals can be pretty mean when they are mad... I think it's just as disrespectful for someone to call an individual a close minded, intolerant bigot as it is for someone to tell another person they are going to hell. An attack is an attack. Sometimes I wish we could all just agree to disagree! Oh, and even almost a year later, I still can't look at one of your posts without having a vision of the Pringles guy. Darn J-Slice!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
J I M B O 6839 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-09-06, 01:55 PM (EST)
|
|
68. "RE: Salvation" |
It also says "I am the Way and the Truth and the Light. None come to the Father except through me."Does it say that a theist won't get to the Father through Christ? Or that Buddha himself didn't go to heaven through Christ? And just when *did* the switch turn on, where anyone living had better accept Christ or else? What judgement awaits non-Jews from 3,000 years ago? Or is it possible they might get into "the beyond" still "through Christ"? For me? I'd fallen far away. It was either get back up or stay down. I got back up (okay, I was picked up...no, I was scraped off the bottom of the barrell) and now realize god is bigger than the bible. So much bigger. And it is okay to say that and STILL believe the bible delivers Truth. So while I hope everyone's path is right, I can only vouch for the path I've experienced. And my experience, while real and pure, doesn't leave me with knowledge of, or "proof" over the eternal destiny of anyone else. Sure, Christ is rather unique in His claim to God-hood, so that will always be a point of separation. But there's so much we DON'T know beyond our own perspective that it seems we've taken the place of judge and jury--or at least I can understand how it comes off that way.
 Most Christians won't say "you're going to hell" anymore. But "you're not going to heaven" is just as unjust IMO.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
J I M B O 6839 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-09-06, 02:23 PM (EST)
|
|
72. "RE: Salvation" |
Heh...I've been getting that sort of reaction out of people a lot lately!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
J I M B O 6839 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-09-06, 03:28 PM (EST)
|
|
81. "RE: Salvation" |
I was going to reply ::scrabble:: at first, but I don't think he was talking about games.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-09-06, 02:59 PM (EST)
|
|
77. "RE: Salvation" |
Wow. The growth in you the past couple of years... just wow.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
miamicatt 9247 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-09-06, 11:44 PM (EST)
|
|
89. "RE: Salvation" |
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
miamicatt 9247 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-09-06, 11:58 PM (EST)
|
|
90. "RE: Salvation" |
OK...I haven't RTFT (and I have had a glass or two of Malvasia Bianca, which would explain my presence here) but here's the thing for me:The whole "I am the way, the truth and the life" thing? The whole "you are going to heaven unless you believe in me" thing? Is someone really going to tell me that Buddha...or better yet, Ghandi...that they aren't going to heaven because they didn't believe in Jesus? I'm sorry but I just can't accept that. And quite frankly, I wouldn't want to be in an afterlife that would exclude those two (and many others). I refuse to believe in a god or a savior that would be that restrictive. There I said it. Now somebody help me...I can see the bottom of my glass again... 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 01:05 AM (EST)
|
|
92. "Universal Salvation" |
I'm with you, Catt.I don't know if I've done it here yet, but I guess that I am now outing myself as a believer in universal salvation. I just cannot believe in a God that is so evil that It would condemn part of Its creation to eternal torment simply because a person did not manage to follow the instruction manual. And it makes me ::boggle:: that people who are parents could believe in such a God. I wonder how they treat their own children. No matter what they experience with their offspring, I imagine that the Christians I know would not wish any harm on their children, let alone never-ending suffering. I have to imagine that God is so much more capable of offering forgiveness than any human parent, which makes me wonder how God could ever abdicate responsibility for even one soul. I guess that puts me in the same camp as one of our most famous founders: "Now, my Friend, can Prophecies, or miracles convince You, or Me, that infinite Benevolence, Wisdom and Power, created and preserves, for a time, innumerable millions to make them miserable, forever; for his own Glory? I believe no such Things. My Adoration of the Author of the Universe is too profound and too sincere." John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 14 September 1813.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
miamicatt 9247 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 12:03 PM (EST)
|
|
108. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
I can.I refer back to my point above...to the specific part in the bible that basically says "no jesus = no heaven for you". So if God created me and I'm considered one of his "children", I'll be burning in hell for all eternity because I don't agree with that particular statement. Kinda hard to believe that something that is described as loving me unconditionally would throw out a condition like that.
Ha. I'm reminded of a Futurama line. "Hey! There are parts of the bible I like, and parts I don't like."
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
newsomewayne 9353 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 08:46 AM (EST)
|
|
97. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
Were Ghandi and Buddha better people than you are?Were they perfect? God is capable of forgiveness of anything. But He also requires repentance. Forgiveness is a gift, but to be given it must also be received. 
It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas. Yeah, little people do all the work and a fat, bald guy takes all the credit.
Christmas cheer by Syren, 2004
“God's voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding. He says to the snow, 'Fall on the earth,' and to the rain shower, 'Be a mighty downpour.”- Job 37:5-6Does your Bible never speak of judgement?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 09:00 AM (EST)
|
|
98. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
Suppose that one of your children did not conform to the guidelines set out in the bible.Suppose that God, since It is All Powerful, decided that It would not make the decision on whether or not to overlook that, but instead told *you* that you had to make the decision on whether or not to let your own child enter into heaven or instead experience eternal torment at the hands of Satan. Would *you* be capable of condemning your own child to that fate? If not, does it make sense that a supposedly Omnibenevolent God responsible for all of Creation would be able to do that to any of Its children? If so, is that God really worthy of your praise? Is such praise being motivated by fear or love?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
mrc 10113 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 10:17 AM (EST)
|
|
101. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
Let me preface this post by saying that I am about to leave for the weekend. I know it's bad form to post and run, but so be it.I toyed with this idea of universal salvation as an undergraduate, largely because of the influence of George MacDonald, a Scottish writer and theologian who influenced C.S. Lewis. I rejected it because it suggested to me that what I actually did while alive had no real effect on how or where I would find myself in the afterlife. If all will eventually be saved, then why do we need to do good deeds here on Earth? We could be either a Hitler or a Ghandi, and it ultimately wouldn't matter. One might argue that we should do good things because it makes our lives easier here on Earth, but there are numerous examples of individuals who did horrible things and seemed pretty happy with themselves and their situations. And who is to say that what is good and right for one person is not horrible and evil for another person and vice-versa? If we go down that path, then none of us have the right to impose any belief or standard on anyone. If that's true, then we as humans have been silly to establish governments, laws, etc. We should all do what is right in our own eyes, and to hell with everyone else. But we don't really believe that, even here in the good ole US of A, where we value democracy, individuality, and personal liberty. That speaks volumes to me.  Slice & Dice Chop Shop 2004
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Ante Bellum 3762 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge"
|
11-10-06, 12:38 PM (EST)
|
|
116. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
We've gone here before. Yes, it's hyperbole, but not much... why do we need to do good deeds here on Earth? We could be either a Hitler or a Ghandi, and it ultimately wouldn't matter. How far IS it, exactly, between "{you} could be a Hitler ... and it ... wouldn't matter." and "killing each other in the streets?" Not too far, really. And I'll just politely stay out of the "Christians only" discussion from now on. 
Handcrafted by RollDdice
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
newsomewayne 9353 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 02:27 PM (EST)
|
|
138. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
>Suppose that one of your children
>did not conform to the
>guidelines set out in the
>bible.
>
>Suppose that God, since It ...First of all, It? What kind of world conformity is this, HD? I'm sorely disappointed. ...is
>All Powerful, decided that It
>would not make the decision
>on whether or not to
>overlook that, but instead told
>*you* that you had to
>make the decision on whether
>or not to let your
>own child enter into heaven
>or instead experience eternal torment
>at the hands of Satan.
>
Okay, I'm sure there's a real name for this type of argument, but I'll just call it what it is - bull-loney. Because God doesn't leave that decision for us to make about others. Not according to any of the Scriptures I have read. If I'm wrong here, please point them out to me. Besides, forget about what I would choose. What would Ghengis Khan's mother choose for him? Actually, go back to me or my son. What do we, based on God's standard, deserve?
>
>Would *you* be capable of condemning
>your own child to that
>fate? Let's take it down a notch. Am I capable of punishing my child when he misbehaves. Yes.
>
>If not, does it make sense
>that a supposedly Omnibenevolent God
>responsible for all of Creation
>would be able to do
>that to any of Its
>children? Should a just and holy God not be allowed to deliver the punishment for misbehavior, especially since the rules and consequences were laid out to His creation before any infractions were made?
>
>If so, is that God really
>worthy of your praise?
>Is such praise being motivated
>by fear or love? Absoulutely I will praise Him. I deserve nothing from Him but punishment for my sins. But because He loved me and you and everyone so much, He offered us a way out of our punishment. That offering was Jesus Christ. He didn't have to. I didn't deserve it of Him. He came because He wanted to. Because of that I am eternally grateful and love Him and will praise His name.
It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas. Yeah, little people do all the work and a fat, bald guy takes all the credit.
Christmas cheer by Syren, 2004
“God's voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding. He says to the snow, 'Fall on the earth,' and to the rain shower, 'Be a mighty downpour.”- Job 37:5-6Does your Bible have no mention of judgement or punishment for sins?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 04:26 PM (EST)
|
|
146. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
First of all, It? What kind of world conformity is this, HD? I'm sorely disappointed.That's too bad. Do you really think that God has a gender? That God has a penis? (I am assuming that you definitely don't think that God has a vagina.) I'm disappointed that you think that you can confine God to such a small box. Okay, I'm sure there's a real name for this type of argument, but I'll just call it what it is - bull-loney. Because God doesn't leave that decision for us to make about others. If I'm wrong here, please point them out to me. I guess that it is bull-loney because you either did not take the time to understand the argument or you intentionally misread it. It doesn't really matter which. I did not say that the Scriptures say this is how it works. I offered a hypothetical, a "what if," to see how you would react as a parent. My point, anticipating how you would behave as a parent, was that God would go even further for Its children. Besides, forget about what I would choose. Why? You and others are always talking about the fallibility of all human beings. I thought this was a good chance to examine how God would act so much more divinely than mere humans. What would Ghengis Khan's mother choose for him? Precisely. And if a human parent can muster so much love and compassion for her child, doesn't it stand to reason that God is capable of infinitely greater love and compassion? Actually, go back to me or my son. Now you want to talk about you again. Is this going to be one of those cases where I just need to say "Harold Ford is black and the woman is white?" What do we, based on God's standard, deserve? Based on the standard of God's infinite love, I expect that we will all achieve salvation whether we "deserve" it or not. You know, that whole thing about a Parent loving Its children. Let's take it down a notch. Am I capable of punishing my child when he misbehaves. Yes. Does your punishment take the form of, say, letting somebody else smash your child's fingers in the car door repeatedly for eternity? If not, then how can you imagine that God would allow some sort of eternal torment for even one of Its children? Should a just and holy God not be allowed to deliver the punishment for misbehavior, especially since the rules and consequences were laid out to His creation before any infractions were made? I don't believe that I put any prohibitions on what God should be allowed to do. I simply stated how I believe God would actually react considering Its capacity for love and compassion toward Its Creation. And I disagree that the consequences have been laid out --- at least they have not been laid out universally. Imagine a village in a remote place that has yet to be infiltrated by the modern world, including Christian missionaries. (Yeah, that's pretty unlikely now, but imagine such a village in, say, the year 750 --- it might even be an entire society or continent.) Are all those villagers going straight to hell? It doesn't even look like they had a chance. Or would God welcome them into Its Kingdom? If so, does God keep a scorecard for each soul to figure out "well, that one had just enough exposure to Christian teachings that he should have known better, but that one gets a pass because she was isolated enough." Absoulutely I will praise Him. I deserve nothing from Him but punishment for my sins. Again, what a child deserves from a parent and what he actually receives are not necessarily the same. Why is it so hard to conceive of a God capable of infinitely more love and compassion than humans express toward each other? But because He loved me and you and everyone so much, He offered us a way out of our punishment. That offering was Jesus Christ. He didn't have to. I didn't deserve it of Him. He came because He wanted to. Because of that I am eternally grateful and love Him and will praise His name. And the tone there gets back to my question. It sounds like you praise God out of love, not out of fear, at least in the way you chose to articulate it right there. What kind of foundation for a relationship seems more healthy, love or fear? You seem to have gone with love. Does your Bible have no mention of judgement or punishment for sins? Yeah, but following the Methodist tradition, I apply Reason, Experience, and Tradition to bible, leading me to believe that the portions about love and compassion are the more important passages.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
newsomewayne 9353 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 04:40 PM (EST)
|
|
148. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
If there is no Hell and no punishment of sins, then why did Jesus speak more of Hell then of Heaven?If there is no Hell and no punishment of sins, then why did Jesus even mention Hell? If there is no Hell and no punishment of sins, then why did Jesus even come here and allow Himself to be put to death?
It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas. Yeah, little people do all the work and a fat, bald guy takes all the credit.
Christmas cheer by Syren, 2004
“God's voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding. He says to the snow, 'Fall on the earth,' and to the rain shower, 'Be a mighty downpour.”- Job 37:5-6
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
newsomewayne 9353 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 04:52 PM (EST)
|
|
149. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
the remote village argument:
from Romans 1 and 2:
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse....
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.In other words, 18-23But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as people try to put a shroud over truth. But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse. What happened was this: People knew God perfectly well, but when they didn't treat him like God, refusing to worship him, they trivialized themselves into silliness and confusion so that there was neither sense nor direction left in their lives. They pretended to know it all, but were illiterate regarding life. They traded the glory of God who holds the whole world in his hands for cheap figurines you can buy at any roadside stand.
and
12-13If you sin without knowing what you're doing, God takes that into account. But if you sin knowing full well what you're doing, that's a different story entirely. Merely hearing God's law is a waste of your time if you don't do what he commands. Doing, not hearing, is what makes the difference with God. 14-16When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God's law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God's yes and no, right and wrong. Their response to God's yes and no will become public knowledge on the day God makes his final decision about every man and woman. The Message from God that I proclaim through Jesus Christ takes into account all these differences.
It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas. Yeah, little people do all the work and a fat, bald guy takes all the credit.
Christmas cheer by Syren, 2004
“God's voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding. He says to the snow, 'Fall on the earth,' and to the rain shower, 'Be a mighty downpour.”- Job 37:5-6
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 05:06 PM (EST)
|
|
150. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
And what of those who have heard God's law, but do not accept Christ, but follow the law more or less by instinct? Seems like Gandhi and the Dalai Lama would fall into this category pretty well.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
cahaya 19891 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 07:34 PM (EST)
 |
|
166. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
LAST EDITED ON 11-10-06 AT 07:36 PM (EST)It's hard to tell where to slip in a reply within this whole subthread, but I'll do it here after Dave's post. And what of those who have heard God's law, but do not accept Christ, but follow the law more or less by instinct? Seems like Gandhi and the Dalai Lama would fall into this category pretty well. Yes. Yes, indeed. After living outside this country and within a multi-ethnic multi-religious society that was not Christian-centric, it's a little bit of culture shock in reverse to see just how Judeo-Christian centric American society is. Sometimes pompously so. For 20 years, I lived and worked in a society that seems to show more genuine respect for others' beliefs, whether Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, Hindu, Christian, or indigenous aboriginal traditions (about in that order according to population percentages in the areas that I lived and worked in). In those 20 years, I've come to the conclusion that no single organized religious orthodoxy has all the answers, nor the only answers. For most of the people that I worked and socialized with, religion wasn't an issue of sin and repentance leading to heaven or hell, as it is a way of life. That's the crux of it -- a way of life. And in all of them, as far as I could tell, the way of life involves goodness, compassion, and acceptance (more than just tolerance), even toward those who do not believe in and practice the same religion. So, it pains me to see on TV, read in the media, and even read in some of these posts, that some proponents of a particular religion suggest that those who do not practice the same religion are in some fundamental way flawed, either in this life or in the hereafter. To me, to tell another human being that they are damned because of what they believe and practice (even though they sincerely believe it with goodness and unqualified compassion for others), is not only intolerant, but simply wrong. I realize that some of these posts are Christian-to-Christian dialogs, but it's clear that some Christians view non-Christians as being someone or something less than themselves. By the same token, I'll grant that people of some other faiths do the same. It's not the faith that is the problem, but the people who insist that their faith is the sole answer for all humankind. Sorry, but this has to be said. 
A colorful multicultural creation by tribephyl.
Although I'm not a Buddhist, I do believe that the Dalai Lama is the wisest spiritual leader of this generation.ed. to add 'Hindu' to list of religions of people where I have lived and worked.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
mavs_fan 299 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star"
|
11-10-06, 09:10 PM (EST)
|
|
167. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
<< I realize that some of these posts are Christian-to-Christian
<< dialogs, but it's clear that some Christians view non-Christians
<< as being someone or something less than themselves. By the same
<< token, I'll grant that people of some other faiths do the same.
<< It's not the faith that is the problem, but the people who
<< insist that their faith is the sole answer for all humankind.As you note it may be Christian vs Non Christian.
Or it may be Believers vs non Believers - Christianity aside. I'd only add that I think it's independent of religion. There are plenty of examples outside of religion of Us vs Them. Where the Us are enlightened and thoughtfull. While They are the ignorant unwashed deserving only our disdain.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
mysticwolf 10692 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 09:48 PM (EST)
|
|
169. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
LAST EDITED ON 11-10-06 AT 11:36 PM (EST)*smooch*  
An Autumn Tribe
blogging's scary
For the rest of this thread, I'll try to stay away. According to the scriptures I've read (not limited to Christian scriptures), Judgement belongs to God, alone. And, I know that I am not on any kind of par with God, so as to know It's mind. Judging the eventual state of someone else's soul is well outside anything I think I'm qualified to do - encroaching far beyond any boundaries God created for me. As a matter of fact, IMO, making those judgements - attempting to speak for God - is possibly the most egregious sin. For my part, I'll worry about my own soul, and my own connection to God, in my own way. Feel free to do the same about yours. Just leave mine alone, thanks. ETA "try to", because from my subsequent posts it's obvious that my spirit may be willing, but my flesh is weak. 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Buggy 5089 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 11:05 PM (EST)
|
|
172. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
(I'm going to respond under Mystic so I don't get lost)Thank You Cahaya, you bring an insight and world view from you experiences that most of us don't have. I appreciate your broader vision, and that you share it here, for us who have not experienced living in other cultures. I'm glad you found OT before you came back to the States, otherwise the culture shock may have really thrown you! *SMILE*
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
newsomewayne 9353 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 05:07 PM (EST)
|
|
151. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
Please, HD, reason with me from the Scriptures. So far all I've seen is how you feel and believe. If the Scriptures hold I'm wrong here, so be it. But how you feel and wish just doesn't cut it on this.>First of all, It? What kind
>of world conformity is this,
>HD? I'm sorely disappointed.
>
>That's too bad. Do you
>really think that God has
>a gender?
God calls Himself Father. That certainly implies He. It implies God is an impersonal force, which leads to pantheism or something else.
>
>Okay, I'm sure there's a real
>name for this type of
>argument, but I'll just call
>it what it is -
>bull-loney. Because God doesn't leave
>that decision for us to
>make about others. If I'm
>wrong here, please point them
>out to me.
>
>I guess that it is bull-loney
>because you either did not
>take the time to understand
>the argument or you intentionally
>misread it. It doesn't
>really matter which. I
>did not say that the
>Scriptures say this is how
>it works.
Good point. Please explain to me your interpretation of what the Scriptures say, because so far, I feel, you've avoided using them. >
>Besides, forget about what I would
>choose.
>
>Why? You and others are
>always talking about the fallibility
>of all human beings.
>I thought this was a
>good chance to examine how
>God would act so much
>more divinely than mere humans. Of course. But part of His divinity is holiness, wouldn't you agree?
>
>
>What would Ghengis Khan's mother choose
>for him?
>
>Precisely. And if a human
>parent can muster so much
>love and compassion for her
>child, doesn't it stand to
>reason that God is capable
>of infinitely greater love and
>compassion? Yes. And the result of that was giving us a way out through Jesus. A further result of His love was not forcing it upon us by making us spend eternity with Him if we chooses to reject Him.
>
>Actually, go back to me or
>my son.
>
>Now you want to talk about
>you again. Is this
>going to be one of
>those cases where I just
>need to say "Harold Ford
>is black and the woman
>is white?"
Nope. >
>What do we, based on God's
>standard, deserve?
>
>Based on the standard of God's
>infinite love, I expect that
>we will all achieve salvation
>whether we "deserve" it or
>not. You know, that
>whole thing about a Parent
>loving Its children.
And according to Scripture, we can "achieve" nothing. Righteousness can only be imparted to us by the blood of Christ. God's standard is perfection. Holiness. We are the ones who turned our backs on God. Once stained by sin, nothing we do can cleanse ourselves. We need God to make ourselves clean. His just nature cannot allow sin to go unpunished. Fortunately for us, Jesus accepted the punishment for us. And it wasn't just his death. Anyone can die. Christ lived as a man, enduring every temptation and lived for 33+/- years without sin. Not one sin. Because of this, He was the perfect sacrifice.
>
>Let's take it down a notch.
>Am I capable of punishing
>my child when he misbehaves.
>Yes.
>
>Does your punishment take the form
>of, say, letting somebody else
>smash your child's fingers in
>the car door repeatedly for
>eternity? If not, then
>how can you imagine that
>God would allow some sort
>of eternal torment for even
>one of Its children? Because that is the just punishment God decided upon. Also, we are God's creation. We become His children when we accept Christ and become adopted heirs of the Kingdom as His brothers and sisters.
>
>Should a just and holy God
>not be allowed to deliver
>the punishment for misbehavior, especially
>since the rules and consequences
>were laid out to His
>creation before any infractions were
>made?
>
>I don't believe that I put
>any prohibitions on what God
>should be allowed to do.
> I simply stated how
>I believe God would actually
>react considering Its capacity for
>love and compassion toward Its
>Creation. Again, please reason with me on this based on Scriptural passages.
>
>
>Does your Bible have no mention
>of judgement or punishment for
>sins?
>
>Yeah, but following the Methodist tradition,
>I apply Reason, Experience, and
>Tradition to bible, leading me
>to believe that the portions
>about love and compassion are
>the more important passages. And I've always believed it was ALL important.
It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas. Yeah, little people do all the work and a fat, bald guy takes all the credit.
Christmas cheer by Syren, 2004
“God's voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding. He says to the snow, 'Fall on the earth,' and to the rain shower, 'Be a mighty downpour.”- Job 37:5-6
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 05:33 PM (EST)
|
|
154. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
LAST EDITED ON 11-10-06 AT 05:37 PM (EST)God calls Himself Father. That certainly implies He. Yeah, I wonder why God would do that when It was speaking to people that lived in a patriarchal culture. It implies God is an impersonal force, which leads to pantheism or something else. No, that's just how you interpret the use of It. For many people I know, viewing God as It accurately places It beyond our capacity to fully understand It. Again, please reason with me on this based on Scriptural passages. Do I have to find them myself? Or can I just rely on a google search and crib from websites that support my beliefs? If so, you can do a google search for the scriptural roots of universalism just as easily as I can. I guess it all comes down to a matter of whether you're interested in "proving" that your interpretation is right (and thus have no motivation to do the research yourself) or interested in understanding an alternate interpretation (and thus might possibly do a little reading on your own). Here's the most important one: Jesus said, "Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing." Luke 23:34 You may remember that he uttered these words while hanging on the cross. It looks to me like God Incarnated as Man just reversed everything that he may have previously said about punishment. Forgiveness was pronounced --- and it wasn't just forgiveness for the beleivers. ETA: I am leaving for Philadelphia for the weekend. Just wanted you to know why further responses are not forthcoming...
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 06:11 PM (EST)
|
|
155. "Amen" |
newsome you lay out a great case supported by the scripture and God's laws. I think that there are some great points made by both sides here, rational points, but the biggest point is that we have to trust in His wisdom, not our own. His wisdom is given to us inerrantly in the Bible. Any beliefs that are not supported by that are man-made and cannot be trusted. As everyone here agrees, God is too big to be fully understood by us - well, then that certainly makes Him too big to be second guessed.
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
J I M B O 6839 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 06:31 PM (EST)
|
|
162. "RE: Amen" |
Actually, if "sin" doesn't matter...wouldn't the law breakers be laughing at everyone else?? I mean, THEY had the fun and still got the prize!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
mysticwolf 10692 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 10:15 PM (EST)
|
|
171. "RE: Amen" |
Forgive me, but in spite of what I said earlier about staying out of this I must ask one question.The Qu'uran is believed to have been written - transcribed, actually - as a direct text from God. That's why it has remained unchanged, and why memorization of the text is all-important. In other words, written by God, Hirself. The Bible - particularly the New Testament - has been, I thought, universally accepted as a group of writings made by people who knew, or knew of, Jesus. Their remembrances and musings upon His life. As a matter of fact, Bibles differ, depending upon sect as to what is considered Holy text. They differ, depending upon translation (with The King James version generally considered the worst of the translations) depending upon version and printing date. Are you seriously suggesting that The Bible, particularly The New Testament - whatever translation/version you choose to use - is not "man-made", or, at least "man-edited", in some way? That the scripture that you read in your version is the unadulterated, literal, Word of God?
An Autumn Tribe
blogging's scary
If you answer in the affirmative then I know I have to bow out of any of these discussions. Because, at that point any discussion is rendered moot.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-11-06, 09:54 AM (EST)
|
|
181. "RE: short answer" |
Deal. And I won't tell you that you are wrong. The whole point of this threadjack was to defend the right of a public official (Gov. Perry) to espouse a Biblical world-view. I certainly am not the clearinghouse for truth on the subject, I just believe the Bible is and that I am better to trust to its wisdom than my own.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Ante Bellum 3762 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge"
|
11-11-06, 02:51 PM (EST)
|
|
184. "RE: short answer" |
Honestly, I sincerely hope that you guys are right FOR YOUR SAKES. I would be overjoyed just to know that you got to the Heaven of your belief and were eternally blissful at the Feet of your Lord.And I'm completely truthful and earnest about that. But let me share the part that has caused ALL of my ranting and raving on the topic for all these years: I want it to work for you. I do. I have NEVER, not ONCE, been swayed in a positive way by overt HUMAN advocacy of God. If your God wants to point me to the right path, I have made clear that I am MORE than willing to consider it. In fact, I will rush headlong down the right path at the very moment it is revealed to me. What I will not do is listen to some (ANY!) annoying self-righteous human trying to drag me off my path and onto theirs. It has never once done anything but drive me away from their chosen "way." "Any god who would have someone like THAT working for them is an idiot" has run through my head more than once. To be honest that goes for trying to legislate their creed into OUR laws and into MY body. Keep your religion to yourself, and if there's a sudden epiphany that's going to bring me onto the golden path to God, any God, it'll happen to ME, it won't be because your pestered, bugged, badgered, bribed (not even by sex, though that was tried), extorted or threatened me onto it. It will be because I found God. If you want to SHOW me God, show me how God works in your life. I'm not going to listen if you "talk the talk," but I can SEE if you "live the life." Please respect that. And please understand that I will continue to be turned off and threatened by people who try to put their God into my government and force me to do things to comply with their belief system. I would never do that to you. I will only try to effect laws that are in the purely secular domain of Law. Perry, IMHO, stepped across that line when he openly and in the context of campaigning went "on record" as he did. I'm sorry that makes you sad, but he could very easily have turned that aside and said, "we're really not here to talk about my religious beliefs, I'm running for Governor." I'd have respected the hell out of him for that alone. Religion really doesn't have any place in the secular politics of a country that consists of folks with hundreds of different religions. And if you put the religious affiliation of a politician in even the top 5 reasons to vote or not vote for someone, it's time you sat down with a mirror and had a chat with yourself. It'd start with "self, you're a religious bigot. Just like all those who would put skin color or geographic origin of last name in their top 5 are racial/ethnic bigots. Can we live with that, self?" Religion really doesn't belong in the list of qualifications for a political office in a multicultural society. Seriously? If we can't agree on something so BASIC and "low-level," there is no way on God's green Earth that we're going to agree on any other thing of consequence. Sad, but true.
Handcrafted by RollDdice
Chocolate and peanut butter are two great tastes that taste great together. The same will NEVER be said of religion and politics.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
zipperhead 3442 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity"
|
11-11-06, 11:35 PM (EST)
|
|
199. "RE: short answer" |
Holy cats, I hadn't thought of those commercials in a long time. Reese's peanut butter cups, wasn't it?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Ante Bellum 3762 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge"
|
11-11-06, 08:25 PM (EST)
|
|
194. "RE: short answer" |
Rudy, if I gave the impression that I was holding my breath waiting for you to agree with or approve of my comments or stance, I'm very sorry to have been so unclear and misleading.There are perfectly good secular reasons to have a perfectly good set of laws. There are secular reasons for and against abortion, even. That you can't or won't see that speaks volumes. And you missed the last paragraph, I think: Seriously? If we can't agree on something so BASIC and "low-level," there is no way on God's green Earth that we're going to agree on any other thing of consequence. Sad, but true.
Handcrafted by RollDdice Actually, I kinda think you missed most of the paragraphs.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mysticwolf 10692 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-12-06, 02:44 AM (EST)
|
|
203. "RE: short answer" |
That's the issue, Jim. That "something" may be the Judaeo-Christian God (which, btw, would include Allah); it might have been started by one of a number of gods or spirits from any of various polytheistic or "natural" religious heritages; it might be the cumulative effect of generations of ancestry - just as our fight-or-flight instinct seems to have developed*. The only thing I can say with any certainty is that moral values and beliefs predate Jesus Christ - and exist, and have existed, in cultures that have never heard of Jesus Christ, so He most certainly didn't patent the concept. However great a man He might have been, however much He may deserve veneration - as may other great and worthy men and women, He, and by definition, Christians, certainly have no lock on morality. So, while moral behavior may be encompassed in our laws and mores, that does not grant license to include the codification of religion, as well. *Indeed, it would seem that any society that grew without any of the concepts of morality would have been ultimately doomed to extinction. (And, if I recall some of my anthropology classes correctly, there were examples of this.) So, simple evolutionary processes may well explain it. With the creation of religious tradition simply coming out from that as a way of codifying that which worked to best preserve the society of the time.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
J I M B O 6839 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-12-06, 03:51 PM (EST)
|
|
204. "RE: short answer" |
That all makes sense. My only point was the slght irony in an argument of "we all basically 'know' what is moral and what isn't without God's help." When the fact we all basically 'know' it just might BE God. (maybe not, but it certainly isn't an argument against God.)Evolutionarily speaking, if there are (or were) cultures that sampled different societal norms, and died off, was it a whole unique set of morals or just a slight difference? Given the way things tend to change slowly, I wouldn't think it was a whole different set than what runs through so many other cultures. Leading me to wonder how we as a society would know if our consensus morals were moving toward advancement or extinction? If it happened to other cultures, it can happen to us. And certainly they weren't aware of some existential crisis until it was too late. So in a secular humanist view, how do we know which way we're going?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
J I M B O 6839 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-13-06, 12:08 PM (EST)
|
|
209. "RE: short answer" |
Not really warm in terms of the question. Even with all that great stuff you listed, how are we to know if that list (and moreso the manifestations of that list) are indeed good for us as a race, or harmful? Certianly if we're on a path toward self-destruction (meaning societal norms leading toward extinction) we wouldn't be self-aware of it beforehand...as other civilizations likely were not.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-14-06, 09:56 AM (EST)
|
|
215. "RE: short answer" |
The question was in regards to what moral compass can exist in a "secular humanism" sense. Ideals. The framers chanced upon human rights to mix with the ideals they already held. Well, not chanced exactly: they won every argument in favor of their governmental plans except but one, the opposition held out for a bill of rights. The framers eventually conceded in order to get the government they wanted and made the bill of rights their first order of business once that government was up and running.And, amazingly enough, they kept their word, they actually did it. The ideals established in the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, give all Americans commonality. We can all unite on those ideals regardless of our religious and cultural diversity. Or at least we can agree to argue about those things without busting one another over the head. Those ideals formulate a moral compass without the need of a religious base. Now, of course, there are those who would hold that human rights and so on do derive from a religious base, in accordance with their own religious faiths amazingly enough; and that is all well and fine, I won't argue with them. The framers didn't disregard religion but they also didn't disregard philosophers or other constructs such as English common law. Anyway, in the strictly secular regard those ideals need no higher power, "these truths are self-evident" (to quote Jefferson). That was your question, how can secularism derive a moral base, and my answer is by adopting and aspiring to common ideals. Nor is the US unique in having done this, just in how it was accomplished.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-14-06, 01:41 PM (EST)
|
|
225. "RE: short answer" |
Ah, I see. Historical examples can be valuable, I suppose, but basically it's all just shooting craps, roll dem bones.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
J I M B O 6839 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-14-06, 11:53 PM (EST)
|
|
229. "RE: short answer" |
Thanks for that link Geg, I lvoe absorbing stuff like that. Really though, you do realize that's just more dogma don't you? 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
geg6 14941 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-15-06, 03:23 PM (EST)
|
|
236. "RE: short answer" |
*smooch*Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the sh!t that gets carried out in his name - wars, bigotry, but especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it. Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good? Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should be malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.
Democrats make better lovers. Whoever heard of a good piece of elephant?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
geg6 14941 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-15-06, 09:53 AM (EST)
|
|
232. "RE: short answer" |
It may be dogma, but it has, at least, some scientific grounding. And that's why it is my belief that morality has some evolutionary purpose. Not to mention how almost all of the central moral tenets of almost any religion you want to look into all say basically the same thing. From earliest archaelogical evidence of man as a spiritually inclined creature to today's major religions and humanist philosophies, the central morals do not appreciatively differ. So, obviously to me, religion is not a necessary factor in morality. YMMV.Again, I don't believe it is knowable to determine whether your particular (or more pointedly, our particular) society is crumbling or on an evolutionary upswing by studying our moral behavior and values. Evolution, by definition, is a process that occurs over a long period of time. I just know what makes the most sense to me. And my study of Christianity has led me to believe that most of it, other than the most basic principles, does not. That's my dogma and I'm sticking to it.
Democrats make better lovers. Whoever heard of a good piece of elephant?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-14-06, 10:32 AM (EST)
|
|
220. "RE: contemplate that?" |
What a surprise! Politicians saying in public what they thought the masses wanted to hear! Do you really think that the founders were any less sophisticated in the way they thought or their manner of communication in both the public and private spheres than our leaders are today?!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
geg6 14941 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-14-06, 10:38 AM (EST)
|
|
222. "RE: contemplate that?" |
Yes, yes, they did. Just like politicians today, they know that there are people out there who just have to hear what they want to hear.I would, however, point you to the reference books from the link I provided in addition to reading some of the major biographical works available on these gentlemen. Not to mention their own personal papers. In addition, you also have to take into account the context of the times and a more complete understanding of deism. Deists do not necessarily deny the existence of a god, a higher power, etc. and often refer to this concept, especially during the Enlightenment, as Providence, the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, the Creator, the Divine. And the truth of Jefferson, as is easily seen in his own writings, is how disingenuous he was when speaking of his own religious beliefs publicly. Despite what he said for public consumption, he was a deist through and through. And Madison, his own personal protege, most likely was right in line with him. Washington never spoke of his religious beliefs at any length, but there were few cannier politicians to ever cross the American stage than he was. No politician today can hold a candle to the cultivation of image that Washington did.
Democrats make better lovers. Whoever heard of a good piece of elephant?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ante Bellum 3762 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge"
|
11-12-06, 10:28 PM (EST)
|
|
206. "RE: short answer" |
For crying out loud. Does it really f-ing matter? Just argue your points for secular law without using the words "God" or "Bible." Make reasonable arguments. EVERYONE will be happy.I'm not asking you to disavow God or deny Christ 3 times before dawn. Pretend that my morals come out of a black box that you can't see inside. It doesn't MATTER one tiny little iota WHERE they come from as long as they are REASONABLE and don't horribly conflict with your own. Does it? Really? Not when we're talking about secular law, it doesn't. You can't control what I think or believe. All you can do is interact with the part of me and my reasoning that I present to you. Do so. Don't sprinkle all your arguments with "God" and "Bible" or I won't listen to you because I will come to the reasonable conclusion that you are incapable of making and supporting a rational argument without falling back to the comfort and safety of dogma. Give it a try. The mental exercise might make your brain hurt for a while, much like starting a new physical exercise regimen makes your muscles hurt, but in time your brain will become stronger and you won't notice the effort any longer.
Handcrafted by RollDdice
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
PepeLePew13 26140 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-11-06, 07:31 PM (EST)
|
|
188. "RE: Amen" |
LAST EDITED ON 11-11-06 AT 07:33 PM (EST)>The Bible - particularly the New
>Testament - has been, I
>thought, universally accepted as a
>group of writings made by
>people who knew, or knew
>of, Jesus. Their remembrances and
>musings upon His life. As
>a matter of fact, Bibles
>differ, depending upon sect as
>to what is considered Holy
>text. They differ, depending upon
>translation (with The King James
>version generally considered the worst
>of the translations) depending upon
>version and printing date.
>
>Are you seriously suggesting that The
>Bible, particularly The New Testament
>- whatever translation/version you choose
>to use - is not
>"man-made", or, at least "man-edited",
>in some way? That the
>scripture that you read in
>your version is the unadulterated,
>literal, Word of God? We've all played the 'telephone' game where we try to the best of our ability to relay the same message across but invariably, the message is mangled or twisted around by the time it got to the end. You (not *you* in particular, Mystic) can't tell me that the people who knew or knew of Jesus took down his words/sayings verbatim and kept it on their persons until it was time to put together the Bible. The Bible has different meanings to different people because of the ways certain passages can be interpreted. That's why I laugh every time someone tries to tell me that somebody's word is the gospel. My point? Anyone who believes that the Bible is the absolute, final Word of God, prolly has hir head deeply buried in the sand. I'm independent of religion because I've been brought up to think for myself, use common sense and know the difference between right and wrong -- and I think I've done pretty well for myself in life.
  
A Tribe siggie
"Tsk, tsk. Pepe's messing with the newbies again." Spidey, 3/30/05
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
miamicatt 9247 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 12:19 PM (EST)
|
|
111. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
Were Ghandi and Buddha better people than you are? Uh, yeah. They were. My point is, they weren't Christians. Neither one of those men believed that Jesus was their savior. So according to the bible, Ghandi is now a rack o'ribs at Satan's Sinner BBQ. ("Wow, you can really taste the suffering!") Which I just can't accept. It doesn't matter whether they were "better than me" or not...apparently all 3 of us are going to the same place. (I'll be delicious.)
And my bible is the same as yours. It's just pink on the outside.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
newsomewayne 9353 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 01:36 PM (EST)
|
|
130. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
LAST EDITED ON 11-10-06 AT 01:37 PM (EST)Do you suppose they never told a lie? I wonder if either of them ever stole anything. I guess Ghandi was pretty celibate, but did Buddha ever look at some fine little Geisha girl and think he'd like to get some of that? I bet neither one of them ever got enraged at another human being in their life. Ever. No, I suppose not. So now they are lying, thieving, adulterous murderers. But since they were peaceful people with profound philosophies, then they have no need of anyone to take away those sins from them. The point is, as good as they were, they still sinned against God. Everyone does. The penalty for sin is death, i.e. separation from God. And without a holy sacrifice, a perfect sacrifice, to show repentance and ask forgiveness, that separation is permanent. That was why Christ came. Because none of us is good enough to make that sacrifice on our own. I refer to Hebrews 7:11-28 11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. 17 For He testifies:
“ You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”
18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is thebringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
Greatness of the New Priest
20 And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath 21 (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him:
“ The LORD has sworn
And will not relent,
‘ You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek’”), 22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.
23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. 24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who isholy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.
In other words, A Permanent Priesthood
11-14If the priesthood of Levi and Aaron, which provided the framework for the giving of the law, could really make people perfect, there wouldn't have been need for a new priesthood like that of Melchizedek. But since it didn't get the job done, there was a change of priesthood, which brought with it a radical new kind of law. There is no way of understanding this in terms of the old Levitical priesthood, which is why there is nothing in Jesus' family tree connecting him with that priestly line. 15-19But the Melchizedek story provides a perfect analogy: Jesus, a priest like Melchizedek, not by genealogical descent but by the sheer force of resurrection life—he lives!—"priest forever in the royal order of Melchizedek." The former way of doing things, a system of commandments that never worked out the way it was supposed to, was set aside; the law brought nothing to maturity. Another way—Jesus!—a way that does work, that brings us right into the presence of God, is put in its place. 20-22The old priesthood of Aaron perpetuated itself automatically, father to son, without explicit confirmation by God. But then God intervened and called this new, permanent priesthood into being with an added promise: God gave his word;
he won't take it back:
"You're the permanent priest."
This makes Jesus the guarantee of a far better way between us and God—one that really works! A new covenant. 23-25Earlier there were a lot of priests, for they died and had to be replaced. But Jesus' priesthood is permanent. He's there from now to eternity to save everyone who comes to God through him, always on the job to speak up for them. 26-28So now we have a high priest who perfectly fits our needs: completely holy, uncompromised by sin, with authority extending as high as God's presence in heaven itself. Unlike the other high priests, he doesn't have to offer sacrifices for his own sins every day before he can get around to us and our sins. He's done it, once and for all: offered up himself as the sacrifice. The law appoints as high priests men who are never able to get the job done right. But this intervening command of God, which came later, appoints the Son, who is absolutely, eternally perfect.
It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas. Yeah, little people do all the work and a fat, bald guy takes all the credit.
Christmas cheer by Syren, 2004
“God's voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding. He says to the snow, 'Fall on the earth,' and to the rain shower, 'Be a mighty downpour.”- Job 37:5-6
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
miamicatt 9247 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 03:11 PM (EST)
|
|
143. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
And I still say....we'll be delicious.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Prof_ Wagstaff 4196 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"
|
11-10-06, 03:04 PM (EST)
|
|
141. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
My family was Cathloic.When my father was a young man, his closest friend was Jewish. Back then (mid 40's), the church taught that Catholicism was the only true religion and only Catholics were going to heaven.
My dad couldn't understand how this man, who was like his brother, could not get into heaven simply because he was Jewish and so he went to see his priest.
His priest told him not to worry, that this ideology of the church was changing and then told him the following story: It seems that a man died in a car accident. When he arrived in heaven he was greeted by St. Peter.
Peter asked the man his name, but the man couldn't remember.
Peter asked him what religion he practiced, but the man couldn't remember that either.
"Don't worry, said Peter, today is a day of worship. Maybe if we visit some of the more common places of worship it will jog your memory."
So off they went. When the entered the first place they were greeted by men and women wearing brightly colored robes. Inscence was burning, soft bells were ringing and people quietly prayed.
The man told Peter that none of it looked familiar and asked who the people were.
"They are Buhddist," replied Peter. "This is their Temple." Next they came to a rather simple building. Inside men and women wore shawls and the men skullcaps. They prayed from a sacred book and a man spoke on issues of justice.
When Peter asked if this looked at all familiar, the man told him no and asked who these people were.
"They are Jewish," Peter told him, "This is their Synagogue." Next they came to a beautiful domed building with a cresent moon atop the dome.
Inside people knelt in quiet prayer, on small beautifully woven rugs.
Once again the man told Peter that he didn't recognise anything and asked who these worshipers were.
"They are Muslim and this is their Mosque.", replied Peter. Next they came to a large gothic cathedral. Inside people knelt in pews praying. In front, a man dressed in vestments prayed in Latin while two young boys assisted him.
When the man began to tell St. Peter that nothing here looked familiar, Peter shushed him and motioned for him to follow him outside. Once outside, the man turned to Peter and asked, "Who were those people and why did you tell me to be quiet."
St. Peter smiled and said, "Well, they are the Catholics and they think they are the only ones up here." My dads friend died 20yrs ago, but he is certain that they will see each other again. I suspect that there will always be people who for whatever reasons, believe that they will the only ones up there. 
Tribephylanthropy!
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
miamicatt 9247 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 06:18 PM (EST)
|
|
158. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
It's in Jokes 3:16, IIRC.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
J I M B O 6839 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 06:32 PM (EST)
|
|
163. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
I love you you know.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
miamicatt 9247 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 06:38 PM (EST)
|
|
164. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
Yeah I know.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 09:28 AM (EST)
|
|
99. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
I understand where you and Jims are coming from, I really do. It is hard for me to justify that God would condemn people like Ghandi to hell because they didn't dot the right i or cross all their t's, but they lived a life consistent with Christ's teaching of sacrifice and love. For me, there are two schools of thought there:1) CS Lewis was a proponent of Universal Salvation, he believed that when you did good and lived a Christian life by another name that you were still serving the God of the Bible. So, while Ghandi may not have known it, his heart belonged to Christ and Christ claimed him as His own. Christ IS the Way and the Truth and the Light, and if you follow His was - even unknowingly - in reality you ARE serving Him. 2) Humans are too flawed and imperfect, even Ghandi's good deads are like filthy rags before Him for all have fallen short of the glory of God. No matter how good a life ANYBODY lived they are a sinner and must pay the price of sin. UNLESS they accept the payment that God has already made for them through the death of Christ. The first option does make sense, but there really isn't anything in the Bible that directly supports it. It is man's wisdom in interpreting and hoping. It is certainly logical, but it is not God's word. The second option is that Christ is the bridge to heaven and if you try to walk across the chasm on your own it doesn't matter if you are Sir Edmund Hillary, you can't make it. Christ is the ONLY way to the other side. Personally, I don't think that my own wisdom is good enough to try to second guess God's insprired Word. If the Bible is true, then all of it is true and I have to trust and believe that what God tells us there is true. However, the whole reason this threadjack started was because a politician boldly and publically espoused the 2nd Biblical view of Salvation and it was attacked as inappropriate, heartless and bigoted. I was offended by that because that is what most Bible-centered Christians believe to be true, and Mr. Perry should not be attacked for saying what most Christians in Texas believe. I HOPE that number 1 is right. It sounds fair and it sounds like the way that a loving God would approch non-believers. But personally, I have to defer to the wisdom of the Bible as being greater than my wisdom.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - President J. Adams
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
miamicatt 9247 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 12:47 PM (EST)
|
|
121. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
Bloody hell! This is more complicated than the user's manual for Windows Vista!!!
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
miamicatt 9247 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 01:22 PM (EST)
|
|
129. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
There is indeed a stripper factory. Pretty sweet, huh?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
mysticwolf 10692 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-11-06, 00:46 AM (EST)
|
|
178. "RE: Universal Salvation" |
I'm not HD (he mentioned he was leaving), but, as a corollary... Do you believe that God would punish people who spent their whole lives believing in Him and living His ways as best they could by sending them to Hell simply because they did not worship His Son, Jesus Christ*? And, how do you respond to the idea that we are all children of God? Can we not honor and worship our Father without adding worship of our Brother as a condition, as well? While recognizing that, as our Father's "favorite", He may be able to intercede on our behalf if we truly screw up & then truly repent. (Although, I don't recall repentance on Damien's part - just acknowledgement that he knew who Jesus was. So, perhaps knowledge, alone, is enough. Coupled with charity, I suppose. Damien didn't understand why Jesus was there. As far as Damien was concerned he knew that he'd transgressed the law, but Jesus had done nothing but good.) And, while few other Saints have that same power, I do believe that Mary is also supposed to be an intercessionary path. At least in some beliefs. And, if not directly to God, then to Him through Her Son.
An Autumn Tribe
blogging's scary
Whatever happened to "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me..."?*"Christ" is a Greek word. Not Hebrew. Not Aramaic. Not Latin. Greek. So, He would have been so called looooong after His crucifiction. So much for The Bible being the literal word of anyone other than whoever wrote/edited/translated (emphasis on the edited/translated part) whatever section is being read. Are you sure The Bible isn't essentially an ancient version of a collection of blogs? Although it may seem blasphemous on the surface, I'm not. I can see any number of parallels there. And, I think we all know that blogs, no matter who writes them, have an inherent slant/bias/purpose/?? based upon who is doing the writing.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 02:05 PM (EST)
|
|
6. "Taxes" |
I'll disagree with you here - not only will Bush veto ANY tax increase, he will use it as a key issue to differentiate the GOP and show the base that he hasn't forgotten what being a Republican is. Sherps' suggestion makes sense on the surface and I also think that we will see a quick, and overdue, end to oil company subsidies. Finally, I have to disagree about the Christian Right. The GOP lost mostly because they stayed home in droves. I can't see any way in which they bear any of the blame for the results. The neocons running the show on the other hand....well, look for a lot more Reagan republicanism in the next two years.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - President J. Adams
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 02:30 PM (EST)
|
|
9. "RE: Taxes" |
Incidentally, that's not me saying what SHOULD happen, but what I've been led to believe WILL happen based on interviews with Pelosi about the first 100 hours, first 100 days, etc.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
Buggy 5089 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-09-06, 00:32 AM (EST)
|
|
54. "RE: Taxes" |
...to differentiate the GOP and show the base that he hasn't forgotten what being a Republican is. That's the point, this administration never even represented Republican values. What happened to the party of fiscal responsibility? It sure isn't this bunch.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
mavs_fan 299 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star"
|
11-09-06, 01:21 AM (EST)
|
|
56. "RE: Taxes" |
<< I'll disagree with you here - not only will Bush veto ANY tax
<< increase, he will use it as a key issue to differentiate the GOP
<<< and show the base that he hasn't forgotten what being a
<<< Republican is.You may be right PRE in that he will veto Tax increases. But I don't believe he will Veto Spending Increases. And as much as I like lower taxes and believe it spurs the economy, I HATE increasing the deficit more. I'm hoping for grid lock but I think President Uniter will team up with the Dems to increase spending on social programs.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 02:47 PM (EST)
|
|
13. "RE: So Now What?" |
As a progressive, liberal Christian myself, I have to take exception with all Christians being lumped in with the religious right.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 02:51 PM (EST)
|
|
14. "RE: So Now What?" |
Ditto.
 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
nailbone 27263 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-09-06, 04:23 PM (EST)
|
|
82. "RE: So Now What?" |
*whack*
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
J I M B O 6839 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 05:37 PM (EST)
|
|
28. "RE: So Now What?" |
How would I go about determining if I'm part of the Christian Right, or just a Christian? Not sure I understand the difference in your context.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 05:45 PM (EST)
|
|
29. "RE: So Now What?" |
"Hate" women's rights and gays = BAD Christianlike government solutions to poverty and social ills = GOOD Christian It's in the Bible, you know. Somewhere toward the back.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - President J. Adams
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
geg6 14941 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 05:55 PM (EST)
|
|
30. "RE: So Now What?" |
Well, honestly? I'm not a Bible follower or, for the most part, much of a fan. So I'm not well versed anymore since I threw that yoke off.But I do know this. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. A camel has an easier time fitting through the eye of a needle than a rich man does getting into heaven. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto the Father what is the Father's. Judge not that ye be judged. Oh, and that Jesus pretty much befriended and protected some of the people who, at that time, were considered the scum of the earth and completely immoral. So I really fail to see how most of the Christian Right's political goals fall within those. Perhaps you could explain that to me. I doubt it, but maybe you can try.
Democrats make better lovers. Whoever heard of a good piece of elephant?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 06:25 PM (EST)
|
|
31. "I have a quick explanation." |
The Prayer of Jabez is hugely popular among these folks. Okay, that doesn't explain the gay-bashing, etc., but it does explain the pursuit of wealth.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
J I M B O 6839 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 06:46 PM (EST)
|
|
33. "on the wealth thing..." |
I think it is simpler than biblical fundamentalism for the "wealth" side. I really believe a large part of what drives the Right is from people who don't care one bit about religion.Just like some Democrats "use" minorities, some Republicans "use" Christians. Both want their respective core driven by fear, anger, jealousy, and often even ignorance. So if you're in the top 5% of wealthy americans, and you want to keep those tax breaks from rolling back, and your state senate race is up for grabs...you're *probably* okay with a gay marriage ban going onto the ballot because THAT will get the religious peeps out to the polls (assuming of course a republican winning would help you keep them tax cuts). heck, you might even pull some strings to PUT it on the ballot, and then make sure every person in the state knows about it--not to mention the drastic negative impact homosexual marriage would have on the fabric of space-time. All the sudden? You're more a part of the Christian Right than most Christians. That's how I think the two got "married."
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 07:08 PM (EST)
|
|
34. "RE: on the wealth thing..." |
True. Jabez is probably more a tool of this than a cause of it.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
J I M B O 6839 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-10-06, 01:49 AM (EST)
|
|
95. "RE: So Now What?" |
No, I wasn't worried about being a part...but I gotta know if my parents are a$$holes or not.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
Snidget 44369 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 02:01 PM (EST)
|
|
4. "RE: So Now What?" |
Well, if we are lucky they will get down to work doing the things that the people want. The change people wanted when they voted different people in.Or they'll get bogged down in a witch hunt for the corruption that the people obviously don't like, not much will get done, and lead to another round of throw the bums out because the power will corrupt and any moment the which party is the corrupt one sentiment will change. I think you risk corruption more when there is actually something you can do for the people with the money trying to buy your soul. Easier to not take bribes when no on is offering you any. Some will depend if both the House and Senate are the same party or not. Also how much people get into obstructing the other guy. There is a chance everything will just gridlock up if the House and Senate are different parties and refuse to agree on anything, or the President just vetoes everything the Democratic Congress sends him. You know the first one that says "Permanent Democratic Majority" is the one who rang the bell signalling the death of this revolution. I kinda figured when they were crowing Permanent Republican Majority that they were doomed. I just didn't think it would happen in two years, I figured more like 2008 or 2010. After all I think that attitude is part of what led to the Republican downfall after consolidating such a strong hold on the Government. Seemed like they felt that no matter what they did, no matter how corrupt they got, no matter how much their agenda and the average citizen's agenda were out of sync, they would be elected into office every election until the end of time, or the second comming of Christ whichever came first.  
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SherpaDave 8326 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 03:51 PM (EST)
|
|
23. "RE: The plan for 'pubs" |
You really want to get shot? And then have to apologize for having gotten shot?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 04:26 PM (EST)
|
|
26. "A few good things about yesterday" |
I'm glad to see some of the Republicans lose, especially Santorum, Burns and Tallent in the Senate. I was sorry to see Mike DeWine lose, but it was his bad luck to come up for re-election after the massive fraud and thefts pulled by the Republicans controlling Ohio state government. (The question is whether Bob Taft was more like Dick Nixon, masterminding the fraud, or Ulysses S. Grant, oblivious to the fraud.)I was also happy to see that one of the anti-same sex marriage amendments FINALLY went down to defeat. Congratulations to the people of Arizona. And I'm happy that we won't have to hear any more calls from the far right about how the rest of us need to pander to them because they put Republicans in power. Well, the Bush administration and Congress spent two years pandering to them -- and now Republicans no longer are in power. But the one really good thing about yesterday? Two states (California and Oregon) defeated parental-notification laws on abortion. My feeling about these laws is about the same as Cathy Seipp's: http://www.cathyseipp.net/ Leaving aside the obvious problem that some of these girls are pregnant because they were raped by their fathers or stepfathers or brothers, who would perhaps not react kindly upon hearing such news about their young relatives — or their families are dysfunctional in other ways, and the girls worry about being kicked out of their homes — an abortion is not like other medical procedures. If a girl wants, say, a nose job, and can’t get it because her parents say no, the alternative to getting the nose job is simply not getting the nose job — she remains free of a medical procedure, with its attendant risks, that her parents don’t want her to have. And I agree that in such a case this should be the parents’ decision. But if a girl wants an abortion as soon as she finds out she’s pregnant and her parents say no — or she can’t work up the nerve to tell them, at least not right away (not an uncommon situation) — the alternative is not that she remains free of a situation requiring a medical procedure, but that she is forced instead to endure others (staying pregnant, or having a later term abortion) which, whatever you think of embryos’ rights, are certainly riskier to the girl, especially a young one. Perhaps if the men and boys who get underage girls into these medical situations in the first place were legally required to notify the girls’ parents, <such a law> would make a certain amount of sense. As it stands now, however, it’s just pandering to those whose real agenda is making even early term abortions more difficult, not helping parents know everything that goes on in their daughters’ lives.... What really sticks in my craw is the dishonest smarm of the pro-parental notification people. “We believe strongly that this law has removed a barrier between parents and their small children,” Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life, which successfully backed a similar law in that state, told the Los Angeles Times last fall. A barrier? Does Pojman actually mean that until such laws are passed, there’s something keeping parents and children from having discussions about whatever they like? And small children? Is he really implying that four-year-olds get pregnant?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 08:46 PM (EST)
|
|
36. "RE: A few good things about yesterday" |
But it still failed. In most (or at least a lot of) states, a bill as broad as that one would have passed.Every trend has to start somewhere. This was the first one to lose at the ballot box. It may have lost narrowly and because it was overly broad, but it lost. Right now, Massachusetts stands alone as the only state that permits same-sex marriage -- at least until New Jersey (and maybe Rhode Island?) approve it in 2007. 40+ states may ban it by law, but every trend has to start somewhere. Attitudes change. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, a popular vote (which is prevented by the Massachusetts Constitution, one of the least democratic in the nation) on a state constitutional amendment to block it would have passed easily. According to opinion polls, it wouldn't pass now. Why? Because it became a non-issue. We now have the first same-sex divorces in the courts, too -- and people see that the Commonwealth hasn't come to an end. At least, not yet. 
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
Ice 9 288 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Network TV Show Guest Star"
|
11-08-06, 11:46 PM (EST)
|
|
50. "RE: A few good things about yesterday" |
LAST EDITED ON 11-08-06 AT 11:47 PM (EST)>I was also happy to see
>that one of the anti-same
>sex marriage amendments FINALLY went
>down to defeat. Congratulations
>to the people of Arizona. We were too busy piling on illegals. There were 4 or 5 pretty mean-spirited (and often redundant or ineffectual) propositions dealing with the undocumented and the non-native speakers (same thing in eyes of most voters) that passed by huge margins. And AZ_Leo? No lottery for us. We'll just have to buy a ticket like the rest of the country.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
mysticwolf 10692 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-11-06, 01:17 AM (EST)
|
|
179. "RE: A few good things about yesterday" |
I'm with geg in her lvoe for you - except for one thing... I live in NW OH - think Toledo. We don't have a city that starts with a "C", or a "D". Mike DeWine's done nothing for this part of the state. Not one darn thing. And, since the area was gerrymandered, neither has our "Representative" Gillmore. History in retrospective... Had we lost the Toledo War we'd be the second largest city in the State of Michigan, instead of the 4th largest city in the State of Ohio. Columbus, Cleveland, Cinncinati, Dayton. Yeah... We're still larger than Dayton - I think (but that may have changed recently) - but because of proximity and ease of access no one actually believes that, including the government of Toledo. (Battled that one regularly when I was in government service here. Had to keep trotting out census reports. And, even then none of the elected officials would believe it and act like it.) Ohio. More large cities (concentrated by % of population) in one State than any other in the Union. Up here in the NW portion we'd be much better off if we were part of MI. We're about as marginalized as you can get. Being pretty much the only Democratic stronghold in the State (Lucas County - not Fulton, where I actually live now) hasn't helped. Maybe it will now. But, I'm not holding my breath.
An Autumn Tribe
blogging's scary
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 09:42 PM (EST)
|
|
44. "RE: So Now What?" |
The Dems aren't in charge, they have only gained marginal control of one house. They haven't the clout to push through anything radical; they could maybe get some things passed in the House (but not all the Dems are hardcore liberals, some of them are genuinely conservative) but nothing radical they pass would get passed in the Senate. And even if it did, the Dems don't have the numbers to override a Dubya veto.The one possible exception here is embryonic stem cell research which has wide support across the board and is only opposed really by the religious right. (And the Pubs would be wise to take this issue off the table even if it means embarrassing Dubya by overriding his veto.) The socalled "homosexual agenda" gains virtually nothing from this election, abortion will continue to be a divisive issue, the government will continue to be topheavy. There may be some good results in terms of healthcare and social security, though I'm not holding my breath. And if the Dems make a push on raising the minimum wage perhaps the Pubs will be smart enought to concede and take that issue off the table as well. The one issue this election should make a tremendous impact on is the war in Iraq, of course. I'm not going to make any predictions, though. There are too many possibilities.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
RudyRules 8360 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-08-06, 10:04 PM (EST)
 |
|
46. "RE: So Now What?" |
LAST EDITED ON 11-08-06 AT 10:09 PM (EST)Ah, the famous line from "The Candidate." As dabo rightly pointed out, the Dems have only a very narrow majority and in fact several very conservative Democrats were among the victors last night. The question is how easily will Nancy Pelosi cow them into voting against their stated principals?
Embryonic stem cell research will probably be funded by the feds.
Abortion... no change at federal level.
Taxes... if things don't change in 2008, then some of the Bush cuts will expire in 2010 which would be a very bad thing for the economy. Bush would likely veto any new taxes.
Preventing another terrorist attack and Iraq... if we cut and run in Iraq we will be inviting another attack. We won't leave Iraq any time soon.
Any new Justice of the SCOTUS... Bush would have trouble getting a strict constructionist through the Senate.
Accountability in Congress... yeah sure, think William Jefferson D-LA. ETA: The borders... here is where we may have the biggest setback. We may be trading real border security for the amnesty program that Bush wanted, the Senate wanted, and only the GOP controlled house was able to stop. Mostly though... gridlock, which isn't neccessarily a bad thing. 
"A man's soul can be judged by the way he treats his dog."
- Charles Doran
Rudy's Place
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-09-06, 01:09 PM (EST)
|
|
64. "Blame the Democrats" |
It's all their fault.http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55018 (Just read the link)
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - President J. Adams
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
geg6 14941 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-09-06, 01:26 PM (EST)
|
|
67. "RE: Embarrasses our allies....." |
Tony Blair?Jordan? Poland? Cry me a river. I'd rather embarrass them than ourselves any longer.
Democrats make better lovers. Whoever heard of a good piece of elephant?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-09-06, 02:55 PM (EST)
|
|
76. "Richard Armey's take" |
LAST EDITED ON 11-09-06 AT 02:57 PM (EST)For those who don't remember, Dick Armey was a former economics professor at North Texas who was the primary author (with Newt Gingrich) of the Contract with America, which led to the Republican takeover in 1994. He lived up to his pledge to leave Congress in 2002, despite the fact that he was majority leader at the time. He was always very quotable. One I particularly remember at the time of the Clenis incident was this, when a reporter asked him, "If you were in the President's position..." and he quickly replied: http://snopes.com/quotes/armey.htm "If I were, I would be looking up from a pool of blood and hearing my wife say, 'How do I reload this thing?'" Here's what he said about Tuesday's elections: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009218 In 2006, instead of heavy lifting on substantial reforms, House and Senate leaders attempted to rally their political base on wedge issues like illegal immigration and gay marriage. Instead of dealing with spending bills or retirement security, the Senate dedicated two full legislative days to a constitutional ban on gay marriage that no one expected to pass. No substantive legislation was passed dealing seriously with border security and legitimate guest workers (funding for a 700 mile fence was finally authorized, but no funds were appropriated). In both instances, it was pure politics, designed to appeal to angry factions of the GOP base. While Republicans managed to hold conservative Christians, they alienated independents, who represent 26% of the voting population. For the first time in 10 years, independents sided with Democrats by a wide margin. Candidates that bet on the high demagogy coefficient associated with illegal immigration, notably in Arizona, lost. In my view, that pretty much sums it up. Goodbye to the Do-Nothing Congress.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
newsomewayne 9353 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-13-06, 02:48 PM (EST)
|
|
211. "And in conclusion..." |
Rather than go through this post by post, I will attempt to reply here and hopefully prevent repeating myself and/or inadvertantly contradicting myself. I will also point out names and post #s in an attempt to clarify where my thoughts/responses are coming from and not in an attempt to "call someone out". They should be in the order that I reach them in reading down the thread. Thank you for your patience.Cahaya post 166:
For most of the people that I worked and socialized with, religion wasn't an issue of sin and repentance leading to heaven or hell, as it is a way of life. That's the crux of it -- a way of life. And in all of them, as far as I could tell, the way of life involves goodness, compassion, and acceptance (more than just tolerance), even toward those who do not believe in and practice the same religion.
An excellent point. And not a part of the debate, AFAIK. And it shows a major difference, according to your description, between Christianity and religions.
So, it pains me to see on TV, read in the media, and even read in some of these posts, that some proponents of a particular religion suggest that those who do not practice the same religion are in some fundamental way flawed, either in this life or in the hereafter.
Maybe that's how it was read, but it's not what was meant. We are all fundamentally flawed. And will remain so until death.
To me, to tell another human being that they are damned because of what they believe and practice (even though they sincerely believe it with goodness and unqualified compassion for others), is not only intolerant, but simply wrong.
why is it intolerant? Sure, you may not agree with my conclusions. It may even offend you, but just because you don't like what I say doesn't mean I'm intolerant. It just means we have a major disagreement. I think it would be intolerancy if I were to spout my views and then tell 'you' to just shut up because I have no desire to hear your views. I do not have to accept your views as correct to show tolerancy.
I realize that some of these posts are Christian-to-Christian dialogs, but it's clear that some Christians view non-Christians as being someone or something less than themselves.
Here? With all sincerety, if it's me point it out please and I will apologize, correct my behavior, and attempt to make it right. mysticwolf post 169:
first off, boy is orange type hard to read on this page
Judgement belongs to God, alone. - And, I know that I am not on any kind of par with God, so as to know It's mind.
But God does give us the ability to reason, discern, and understand the Word He has given us. Judging the eventual state of someone else's soul is well outside anything I think I'm qualified to do - encroaching far beyond any boundaries God created for me.
I agree 100% for me also. As a matter of fact, IMO, making those judgements - attempting to speak for God - is possibly the most egregious sin.
If you are saying that as mere humans we are not allowed to take what the Bible says and apply it to our lives and to help others see where they could apply it to their lives, I disagree. For my part, I'll worry about my own soul, and my own connection to God, in my own way. Feel free to do the same about yours. Just leave mine alone, thanks.
I'll try to answer this here to avoid repetition. In the 2.5 years I've been here, I've only started one major religion thresd. It was one of my first thresds here at OT. Pepe may remember it. Since then I've joined in several but started none (to the best of my recollection). The reason I've not started any is precisely what many want to imply, that I'm actively engaging in unwanted and unwarranted evangelism, forcing my viewpoint down the throats of an unreceptive audience. The reason I've joined in several most every religion thresd since then is because I hate to see misinformation about Christianity get tossed about as fact. Sometimes I find myself trying to explain faith. Sometimes it involves the accuracy of the Bible over the years. And many times, like now, it involves proper interpretation of what the Bible says and what it means to Christian theology. In no case (except for that first thresd) have I intentionally tried to convert anyone. What I have intentionally done is tried to present the facts about the Bible and Christian theology as many Christians see it. As you can see from this thresd, not even all Christians agree on in 100%. Sherpa Dave post 153:
(from my post) Christ lived as a man, enduring every temptation and lived for 33+/- years without sin. Not one sin. Because of this, He was the perfect sacrifice. (Dave asks) In light of that, can you illuminate something for me? In the sermon on the mount, Christ says that anger is sin. Was Christ not angry when he overturned the tables of the money-changers in the temple? That might sound like nitpicking, but it's always bugged me. There seem to me to be clear examples of places where Christ was angry.
Rahter than give a lengthy and incomplete answer, I'd like to refer you to a commentary on Matthew 5:21-48, to which I think you are thinking of: Angry enough to kill. History Detective post 154:
(from me)Again, please reason with me on this based on Scriptural passages. (HD)Do I have to find them myself? Or can I just rely on a google search and crib from websites that support my beliefs? If so, you can do a google search for the scriptural roots of universalism just as easily as I can.
Or it could be you don't know your own position enough to debate it. I guess it all comes down to a matter of whether you're interested in "proving" that your interpretation is right (and thus have no motivation to do the research yourself) or interested in understanding an alternate interpretation (and thus might possibly do a little reading on your own).
I've done the research to give the conclusions I have. Why should I argue your point for you? It's your belief, you prove it. Here's the most important one: Jesus said, "Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing." Luke 23:34 You may remember that he uttered these words while hanging on the cross. It looks to me like God Incarnated as Man just reversed everything that he may have previously said about punishment. Forgiveness was pronounced --- and it wasn't just forgiveness for the beleivers. I'm sorry but I believe you have quoted out of context. Who was Jesus speaking about. It seems to me He is praying for His executors. 32Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed. 33When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other on his left. 34Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. And why would Jesus reverse what he had said before. It wasn't like He didn't know what was coming. He'd prophesied His own death many times before. JIMBO post 157:
19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Is it just me, or does that say both law breakers and law keepers will be in the kingdom of heaven?? This is from Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount, a message to Jesus' followers. Readers should contemplate the message of this sermon. Having summarized Jesus' message as repentance in view of the coming kingdom (4:17), Matthew now collects Jesus' teachings that explain how a repentant person ready for God's rule should live. Only those submitted to God's reign now are truly prepared for the time when he will judge the world and reign there unchallenged. This sermon provides examples of the self-sacrificial ethics of the kingdom, which its citizens must learn to exemplify even in the present world before the rest of the world recognizes that kingdom (6:10). In this passage Jesus also warns that teachers who undermine students' faith in any portion of the Bible are in trouble with God. This text addresses not only obedience to the commandments but also how one teaches others (and teaches others to do the same; compare James 3:1). Critical thinking is important, but it functions best with the firm foundation of the fear of God (Prov 1). For the full commentary, read this. Ante Bellum post 184:
And I'm completely truthful and earnest about that.
Thank you, I totally believe you. If your God wants to point me to the right path, I have made clear that I am MORE than willing to consider it. In fact, I will rush headlong down the right path at the very moment it is revealed to me.
Again, thank you. I sincerely hope this happens. If you want to SHOW me God, show me how God works in your life. I'm not going to listen if you "talk the talk," but I can SEE if you "live the life."
Good advice. I'll try to remember that. Please respect that.
I do. More than you probably imagine. And since my postings have been religious, not political, I'll leave the rest to Rudy.  JIMBO post 202:
and that is the one bummer about this method of communicating. i'd love to go through that whole thing piece by piece. some of it was wronger than the fifth word of this sentence. all of it would make for good discussion. too big a discussion to work well here though. I agree. But I won't start it. i will say, in general response to it, one thing. it sounded to me like the argument relies on some deep general morality or "psychological law" governing morality. i don't know if that is similar to a "moral compass" idea, but in my view, that type of argument supports logic of "something" beyond us. Hence my quote from Romans 1 and 2 in post 149. mysticwolf post 203:
The only thing I can say with any certainty is that moral values and beliefs predate Jesus Christ - and exist, and have existed, in cultures that have never heard of Jesus Christ, so He most certainly didn't patent the concept. However great a man He might have been, however much He may deserve veneration - as may other great and worthy men and women, He, and by definition, Christians, certainly have no lock on morality. Unless, of course, one holds the belief that Christ pre-dates existance and because He was invovled in the Creation, He does have a lock on morality. Also, please see my post 149 on cultures that have never heard of Christ. Pepe post 189:
>That's a cute story.
>
>Now show it to me in the Bible somewhere. Proves my theory that the biggest Bible-thumpers are the most brainwashed people ever. Are you able to think independently - on your own - without referring to the Bible, wayne? No? Didn't think so. Is it not reasonable, in a sub-thresd discussing Christian theology, to ask someone to use the Christian text to prove their point? Yes? I thought so. And isn't that also part of the point in referencing the Bible, that my thoughts (brilliant as they are) are nothing compared to the wisdom of God. Mysticwolf post 175:
After He gets done blessing all others He gets around to saying that, if all else fails, you can ask for His intercession and it will be granted.
No, this is wrong. This whole sermon is a message to those who believe in Him as the Messiah and is intended to give them direction on how to live their life now as His followers. So, He is one way to salvation. If nothing else, a way of last resort, - no, as the only resort - if you don't measure up in any other way. In proof he sat Damien on the right hand of His Father. The only "Saint" that Jesus proclaimed, Himself. A thief. Who had no other way into Heaven except by Jesus' word. Are you referring to the theif on the cross? I never read he had a name. Wat He offered, and died for, was to give a means for a final intercession - if you really meant it. Not a single shot opportunity. Again, no. It is quite clear from Scripture that what He died for was to be the final sacrifice. A perfect sacrifice without blemish. Something no other person could do. Mysticwolf post 178:
And, how do you respond to the idea that we are all children of God? Can we not honor and worship our Father without adding worship of our Brother as a condition, as well? Because we are not all His children. We are His creation. John 8:42-44:
42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 4 Whatever happened to "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me..."?
Christ is God. He, the Father and the Spirit are One. *"Christ" is a Greek word. Not Hebrew. Not Aramaic. Not Latin. Greek. So, He would have been so called looooong after His crucifiction. So much for The Bible being the literal word of anyone other than whoever wrote/edited/translated (emphasis on the edited/translated part) whatever section is being read. Umm, this proves nothing. It especially doesn't prove your point. Christ is a Greek word. So what. The word Christ, Christos, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Messias, means "anointed." You do recognize the word Messias, or Messiah, don't you? Are you sure The Bible isn't essentially an ancient version of a collection of blogs? Although it may seem blasphemous on the surface, I'm not. I can see any number of parallels there. And, I think we all know that blogs, no matter who writes them, have an inherent slant/bias/purpose/?? based upon who is doing the writing. Name me one writing that doesn't have slant/bias/purpose. Just one.
Okay, that's it. I'm done for now. I hope everyone has a good day.
It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas. Yeah, little people do all the work and a fat, bald guy takes all the credit.
Christmas cheer by Syren, 2004
“For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.”- 1 Peter 2:15-16
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-13-06, 05:46 PM (EST)
|
|
212. "RE: And in conclusion..." |
HD: Do I have to find them myself? Or can I just rely on a google search and crib from websites that support my beliefs? If so, you can do a google search for the scriptural roots of universalism just as easily as I can.Wayne: Or it could be you don't know your own position enough to debate it. Or it could be that I don't accept that you get to set the terms of the debate all on your lonesome. I already told you that I am a Methodist and, as a Methodist, I rely on Wesley's quadrilateral of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. Why should I have to base my beliefs and my faith on Scripture alone just because that is how you want to think about God and Its Creation? HD: I guess it all comes down to a matter of whether you're interested in "proving" that your interpretation is right (and thus have no motivation to do the research yourself) or interested in understanding an alternate interpretation (and thus might possibly do a little reading on your own). Wayne: I've done the research to give the conclusions I have. Why should I argue your point for you? It's your belief, you prove it. Frankly, Wayne, I have no interest in "proving" my belief. I wasn't even aware that faith was something that could be proven. Nor did I ask you to argue for my point of view. Instead, I suggested that perhaps you could take a little less of a narrow-minded view and read something out of your comfort zone, whether you chose to let it influence you or not (keeping in mind that you have quite recently confessed to not wanting to do a lot of reading on your own but instead relying on others of us here to break certain concepts down into bite-sized pieces for you). It seems really one-sided to me to say "I've done the research to give the conclusions I have" because it appears that you are saying "I have discovered an interpretation I like so there is no need for me to do any further research or, indeed, thinking on my own. It just doesn't matter what else might be out there that I have not yet discovered. I have decided that it is all irrelevant." HD: Here's the most important one: Jesus said, "Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing." Luke 23:34 You may remember that he uttered these words while hanging on the cross. It looks to me like God Incarnated as Man just reversed everything that he may have previously said about punishment. Forgiveness was pronounced --- and it wasn't just forgiveness for the believers. Wayne: I'm sorry but I believe you have quoted out of context. Who was Jesus speaking about. It seems to me He is praying for His executors. 32Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed. 33When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other on his left. 34Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. And why would Jesus reverse what he had said before. It wasn't like He didn't know what was coming. He'd prophesied His own death many times before. No, I don't think I took that out of context at all. You chose to give a very narrow interpretation to the word "you" by confining it to a select few individuals. I believe the word was meant more universally. And why wouldn't Jesus reverse what he had said before? Yes, he prophesied his own death, but that was probably completely different than actually experiencing it, having the same sensations as any common human would have, giving him a human perspective. If anybody has ever been allowed to change their mind, I would think that God as Man Incarnate gets first chance to do so. Maybe in the final hours of being human he decided to exercise compassion, maybe going through the process of being crucified as a man caused a change of heart, realizing how wicked we could be to each other and choosing not to perpetuate wickedness and spite and suffering by condemning part of Creation to eternal torment under the supervision of a wicked overlord. Maybe that turned out to be the reason that God needed to walk the earth as a man. I think that we both believe that one day we will both know for certain. Until then, I don't have a monopoly on the Truth --- and I don't think that you do either.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
cahaya 19891 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
11-14-06, 03:31 PM (EST)
|
|
228. "RE: And in conclusion..." |
(cahaya) To me, to tell another human being that they are damned because of what they believe and practice (even though they sincerely believe it with goodness and unqualified compassion for others), is not only intolerant, but simply wrong.(newsomewayne) why is it intolerant? Sure, you may not agree with my conclusions. It may even offend you, but just because you don't like what I say doesn't mean I'm intolerant. It just means we have a major disagreement. I think it would be intolerancy if I were to spout my views and then tell 'you' to just shut up because I have no desire to hear your views. I do not have to accept your views as correct to show tolerancy. You're right in saying that tolerancy doesn't mean accepting others' beliefs as being correct - something that's not possible, given that various beliefs are sometimes contradictory. What tolerance does mean, though, is accepting that others have the fundamental right and freedom to believe what they think is correct (at least to them) based on their own experience and knowledge, without damning them. I'm not asking you to accept my views as being correct. How can I, when I'm not sure myself whether my beliefs are totally correct? Seeking and finding the truth is a continuous life-long learning process, with the understanding and wisdom to know that there are inevitably more questions than answers. What I do ask (from anyone) is to respect others by allowing them the freedom to embrace whatever beliefs they feel is correct for them, without judging (or damning) them based on one's own opinion of whether their beliefs are correct or not. (cahaya) I realize that some of these posts are Christian-to-Christian dialogs, but it's clear that some Christians view non-Christians as being someone or something less than themselves. (newsomewayne) Here? With all sincerety, if it's me point it out please and I will apologize, correct my behavior, and attempt to make it right. With all due respect, I'm not (nor do I want to be) the judge of this.
A colorful multicultural creation by tribephyl.
Rest assured, I'm not offended. If I ever initially take offense with what someone says, I look first within myself rather than at another person why I took offense. I'm accustomed to asking questions and seeking the truth from positions of alternative beliefs and worldviews, so I'm comfortable discussing them with anyone who is willing to engage in a meaningful dialog about them. What matters in the end is not that we both agree with each other, but that we both learn from it.
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
Sigs by Bob about chalk dust. Pretty exciting stuff
Soylent Green: recycling America, one person at a time.
Thanks Uncle Tribe, I lvoe it!
