crystalklear64
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Ugh. Its a violation of free will if its true.
Are my spirtual beliefs wrong?
- Thread starter Friend of Sonic
- Start date
My god is my heart and soul.. not what people preach.. the bible is simply to provide moralistic beliefs for those people who need that support. I believe whole heartedly that I do what is right for my family and loved ones no matter what. My wife says sometimes I get walked on, but that is the type of person I am. My idea of faith might be different from people on this board.. i'm not one to argue about what people believe in, because no religion is wrong...
[quote name='DJSteel']My god is my heart and soul.. not what people preach.. the bible is simply to provide moralistic beliefs for those people who need that support. I believe whole heartedly that I do what is right for my family and loved ones no matter what. My wife says sometimes I get walked on, but that is the type of person I am. My idea of faith might be different from people on this board.. i'm not one to argue about what people believe in, because no religion is wrong...[/quote]
sounds like your a humanist to me. Good mentality!
sounds like your a humanist to me. Good mentality!
Kirin Lemon
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
[quote name='daroga']In other words, the Bible is not just the ideas of some guys or some guys take on what God said but it was God using the human authors to write exactly what he wanted.[/QUOTE]
Oh, so God condones this one?
[quote name='Deuteronomy 25:11-12']"When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand."[/QUOTE]
And how about all the stonings? Blasphemy, adultery, being a disrespectful son... all of those are punishable by death. Is God really that big a dick?
Oh, so God condones this one?
[quote name='Deuteronomy 25:11-12']"When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand."[/QUOTE]
And how about all the stonings? Blasphemy, adultery, being a disrespectful son... all of those are punishable by death. Is God really that big a dick?
[quote name='crystalklear64']Ugh. Its a violation of free will if its true.[/quote]Look previously in this thread for our length discussion on free will, and whether or not (or to what extent) it exists.
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']And how about all the stonings? Blasphemy, adultery, being a disrespectful son... all of those are punishable by death. Is God really that big a dick?[/quote]Once again, context. The lion's share (if not all--it's early the brain's not in full gear) of those laws were the civil laws for the nation of Israel. God was maintaining order with at times seemingly heavy-handed capital punishment. Of course a lot of the things you just mentioned (in fact, all of them) are part of the universal, moral law as well. Not the punishment exacted for them, but the fact that they're sins across the board.
The purpose of the law is not to earn God's favor or show how awesome you are because you can do what God says. You can't. I can't. We're all covered in the filth of our sins that leads to God's just punishment. And that's the point of Christianity. Not leading a moral life so you can look down on others (what an insane thought!), but finding the free forgiveness in Jesus. His life was lived in our place, perfectly. His death was suffered in our place; though he never sinned he was punished for our sins. That's how God's wrath over sin is appeased and we are forgiven, completely, and fully.
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']And how about all the stonings? Blasphemy, adultery, being a disrespectful son... all of those are punishable by death. Is God really that big a dick?[/quote]Once again, context. The lion's share (if not all--it's early the brain's not in full gear) of those laws were the civil laws for the nation of Israel. God was maintaining order with at times seemingly heavy-handed capital punishment. Of course a lot of the things you just mentioned (in fact, all of them) are part of the universal, moral law as well. Not the punishment exacted for them, but the fact that they're sins across the board.
The purpose of the law is not to earn God's favor or show how awesome you are because you can do what God says. You can't. I can't. We're all covered in the filth of our sins that leads to God's just punishment. And that's the point of Christianity. Not leading a moral life so you can look down on others (what an insane thought!), but finding the free forgiveness in Jesus. His life was lived in our place, perfectly. His death was suffered in our place; though he never sinned he was punished for our sins. That's how God's wrath over sin is appeased and we are forgiven, completely, and fully.
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Oh, so God condones this one?
And how about all the stonings? Blasphemy, adultery, being a disrespectful son... all of those are punishable by death. Is God really that big a dick?[/QUOTE]
Kirin you're smart. You should know shit like the Old Testament was clearly written to get people to bow down to authority. You ever heard that saying behind Balzak about "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."? The Bible is or was a way to inspire order in the masses, especially of a don't fight against the law because some big, bad being will punish you. You think those people who have become fabulously rich have done that? No those Robber Barons have done no such thing. Don't get me wrong, I believe in following most laws in general because so much of them are just common respect, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Also I could just argue it's wrong and I want to be the better person or being if you will.
Seriously otherwise it's such a fallacy it's absurd, think about it. If someone is suppose to be better then you, more evolved, more thoughtful, where does being so petty come into it? Oh you don't believe in me?
you you're going to Hell. Oh you still lived a good live? you you're still going to Hell.
Anyone who wants me to believe someone who lived a good life is still going to Hell for not believing in that being, how can I or could ANYONE believe in a God like that? That's not an evolved being, it's a petty asshole.
Correct me if wrong anyone here but this same fallacy occurs in the New Testament if you don't believe in Jesus right?
And how about all the stonings? Blasphemy, adultery, being a disrespectful son... all of those are punishable by death. Is God really that big a dick?[/QUOTE]
Kirin you're smart. You should know shit like the Old Testament was clearly written to get people to bow down to authority. You ever heard that saying behind Balzak about "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."? The Bible is or was a way to inspire order in the masses, especially of a don't fight against the law because some big, bad being will punish you. You think those people who have become fabulously rich have done that? No those Robber Barons have done no such thing. Don't get me wrong, I believe in following most laws in general because so much of them are just common respect, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Also I could just argue it's wrong and I want to be the better person or being if you will.
Seriously otherwise it's such a fallacy it's absurd, think about it. If someone is suppose to be better then you, more evolved, more thoughtful, where does being so petty come into it? Oh you don't believe in me?
you you're going to Hell. Oh you still lived a good live? you you're still going to Hell.Anyone who wants me to believe someone who lived a good life is still going to Hell for not believing in that being, how can I or could ANYONE believe in a God like that? That's not an evolved being, it's a petty asshole.
Correct me if wrong anyone here but this same fallacy occurs in the New Testament if you don't believe in Jesus right?
Hell is not simply for "not believing" in that being but rejecting the forgiveness he offers. God's not looking for simply acknowledgment of his existence.
What you are suggesting is that people shouldn't die when they get the prescription of medicine from a doctor, they throw it away because they feel they can make it on their own. "Who does that guy think he is? Who is he to tell me what medicine I should take? He's obviously an egotistical maniac!" Is the doctor looking for self-indulgence by you taking that medicine? No; he wants you to take the medicine so it can fight your illness and you can live.
Likewise, God freely offers his forgiveness (no insurance needed! No copay! Nothing!) because he doesn't want you to suffer in hell. But if you reject that forgiveness and thus you lean on yourself and not Jesus' death for you, you'll have to face God's justice, and therefore the punishment for sins, yourself. Thus, hell.
What you are suggesting is that people shouldn't die when they get the prescription of medicine from a doctor, they throw it away because they feel they can make it on their own. "Who does that guy think he is? Who is he to tell me what medicine I should take? He's obviously an egotistical maniac!" Is the doctor looking for self-indulgence by you taking that medicine? No; he wants you to take the medicine so it can fight your illness and you can live.
Likewise, God freely offers his forgiveness (no insurance needed! No copay! Nothing!) because he doesn't want you to suffer in hell. But if you reject that forgiveness and thus you lean on yourself and not Jesus' death for you, you'll have to face God's justice, and therefore the punishment for sins, yourself. Thus, hell.
[quote name='Sleepkyng']my faith comes from delicious tasty snacks - like nachos![/quote]Amazingly, Christianity and Nachos are NOT mutually exclusive!
That's really what this topic needs. Spiritual discussion along side warm chips and spicy cheese. Who's in?
That's really what this topic needs. Spiritual discussion along side warm chips and spicy cheese. Who's in?
crystalklear64
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='daroga']Hell is not simply for "not believing" in that being but rejecting the forgiveness he offers. God's not looking for simply acknowledgment of his existence.
What you are suggesting is that people shouldn't die when they get the prescription of medicine from a doctor, they throw it away because they feel they can make it on their own. "Who does that guy think he is? Who is he to tell me what medicine I should take? He's obviously an egotistical maniac!" Is the doctor looking for self-indulgence by you taking that medicine? No; he wants you to take the medicine so it can fight your illness and you can live.
Likewise, God freely offers his forgiveness (no insurance needed! No copay! Nothing!) because he doesn't want you to suffer in hell. But if you reject that forgiveness and thus you lean on yourself and not Jesus' death for you, you'll have to face God's justice, and therefore the punishment for sins, yourself. Thus, hell.[/QUOTE]
A doctor prescribing medicine is something that can be tested and analyzed on a biological level, proof of benefit. Theres also many different doctors to go to for different things, though they still share the title of doctor.
Alternatively, a doctor is still a doctor, if you're feeling sick, its good to go the nearest hospital to seek some immediate attention. You're not gonna care which doctor it is if they can help you. So this would suggest picking any religion that offers salvation in one form or another.
Someone who believes in a god or gods is not given a biological benefit, and only a psychological one at best. The idea of a doctor also suggests to me that you would support a system of polytheism or at least the idea of the holy trinity.
As for free will. Yea, its still a violation of it.
What you are suggesting is that people shouldn't die when they get the prescription of medicine from a doctor, they throw it away because they feel they can make it on their own. "Who does that guy think he is? Who is he to tell me what medicine I should take? He's obviously an egotistical maniac!" Is the doctor looking for self-indulgence by you taking that medicine? No; he wants you to take the medicine so it can fight your illness and you can live.
Likewise, God freely offers his forgiveness (no insurance needed! No copay! Nothing!) because he doesn't want you to suffer in hell. But if you reject that forgiveness and thus you lean on yourself and not Jesus' death for you, you'll have to face God's justice, and therefore the punishment for sins, yourself. Thus, hell.[/QUOTE]
A doctor prescribing medicine is something that can be tested and analyzed on a biological level, proof of benefit. Theres also many different doctors to go to for different things, though they still share the title of doctor.
Alternatively, a doctor is still a doctor, if you're feeling sick, its good to go the nearest hospital to seek some immediate attention. You're not gonna care which doctor it is if they can help you. So this would suggest picking any religion that offers salvation in one form or another.
Someone who believes in a god or gods is not given a biological benefit, and only a psychological one at best. The idea of a doctor also suggests to me that you would support a system of polytheism or at least the idea of the holy trinity.
As for free will. Yea, its still a violation of it.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
Nobody that died before I was ever born could have died because of my sins. I wasn't born yet, and didn't have time to sin.
Also Jesus was Jewish, which means that his mom and dad must have been Jews, which means all christians are praying to a Jew. Ya gotta love it!
Wasn't there some story about an inn keeper (maybe Sodom) who gave his daughter to an angry mob so they could rape her instead of bothering his guests?
Also Jesus was Jewish, which means that his mom and dad must have been Jews, which means all christians are praying to a Jew. Ya gotta love it!
Wasn't there some story about an inn keeper (maybe Sodom) who gave his daughter to an angry mob so they could rape her instead of bothering his guests?
Thank you for stretching my metaphor well beyond any original intent. I appreciate it.
The point was comparing doctoral and divine intent and motive, not the effectiveness of medicine or anything else you decided to throw in there as illogical potshots.
Congrats.
The point was comparing doctoral and divine intent and motive, not the effectiveness of medicine or anything else you decided to throw in there as illogical potshots.
Congrats.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
So jesus being a jew, sort of makes WWJD stand for What would a jew do? Doesn't it? If it doesn't, and the question remains "What would jesus do?", isn't the answer "be jewish" because that is, in fact, what he did. Am I missing something?
Also whats up with all the christians w/ bumber stickers saying "Real men love jesus"?
How come other religions don't do this? Whats with the need to tell people of other religions that they are not "real"? Is it some sort of insecurity or inferiority complex?
Another question: Do you believe that G-d is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent?
Also whats up with all the christians w/ bumber stickers saying "Real men love jesus"?
How come other religions don't do this? Whats with the need to tell people of other religions that they are not "real"? Is it some sort of insecurity or inferiority complex?
Another question: Do you believe that G-d is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent?
Zen Davis
Banned
[quote name='pittpizza']Nobody that died before I was ever born could have died because of my sins. I wasn't born yet, and didn't have time to sin. [/quote]
According to Christian mythology, in a modern sense, you are an original sin that is passed on through your genes. A sin of your fathers kind of thing. Jesus fixed that.
According to Christian mythology, in a modern sense, you are an original sin that is passed on through your genes. A sin of your fathers kind of thing. Jesus fixed that.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Zen Davis']According to Christian mythology, in a modern sense, you are an original sin that is passed on through your genes. A sin of your fathers kind of thing.[/quote]
So then it follows that christian mythology holds that one is to be judged by what/who they are, not what they've done. Bloodlines, skin color, and other things you have no control over are more important than the acts of the individual!??
No thanks, "I'll accept responsibility for what I've done, but not for who I am." -NoFX
The G-d I beleive in won't punish me for sins other people committed.
So then it follows that christian mythology holds that one is to be judged by what/who they are, not what they've done. Bloodlines, skin color, and other things you have no control over are more important than the acts of the individual!??
No thanks, "I'll accept responsibility for what I've done, but not for who I am." -NoFX
The G-d I beleive in won't punish me for sins other people committed.
[quote name='pittpizza']So then it follows that christian mythology holds that one is to be judged by what/who they are, not what they've done. Bloodlines, skin color, and other things you have no control over are more important than the acts of the individual!??
No thanks, "I'll accept responsibility for what I've done, but not for who I am." -NoFX
The G-d I beleive in won't punish me for sins other people committed.[/quote]
do you think Hitler's family is responsible for what Hitler did?
No thanks, "I'll accept responsibility for what I've done, but not for who I am." -NoFX
The G-d I beleive in won't punish me for sins other people committed.[/quote]
do you think Hitler's family is responsible for what Hitler did?
[quote name='pittpizza']From my previous post I'd think you could figure my answer out, but I'll spell it out for you:
I think (insert ANY name here) is responsible for what (insert the same name here) did.[/quote]
It's much easier thinking like that when you are talking about yourself.. When you are the kids or relative to a notorious person, you might feel different..
I think (insert ANY name here) is responsible for what (insert the same name here) did.[/quote]
It's much easier thinking like that when you are talking about yourself.. When you are the kids or relative to a notorious person, you might feel different..
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='DJSteel']It's much easier thinking like that when you are talking about yourself.. When you are the kids or relative to a notorious person, you might feel different..[/quote]
Ah ha! Now I see what you're getting at. It was not clear from the question you posed in your previous post. Now I see your point.
It's sort of a grudge-holding mentality isn't it? Even though little Petey never did anything wrong, he still catches shit because his dad was a mass murderer.
Well guess what: while Lil' Petey might catch shit for his dad's acts by most christians and "christian mythology" as Zen put it, he doesn't catch shit from me.
Again, I'll accept responsibility for what I've done, not for who I am.
Conversly when judging people (I try not to but alas, we're only human) sin and righteousness should be judged on the basis of one's acts (volitional things) not on one's genetics, last name, skin color, or any other myriad factors that are outside of one's control.
Ah ha! Now I see what you're getting at. It was not clear from the question you posed in your previous post. Now I see your point.
It's sort of a grudge-holding mentality isn't it? Even though little Petey never did anything wrong, he still catches shit because his dad was a mass murderer.
Well guess what: while Lil' Petey might catch shit for his dad's acts by most christians and "christian mythology" as Zen put it, he doesn't catch shit from me.
Again, I'll accept responsibility for what I've done, not for who I am.
Conversly when judging people (I try not to but alas, we're only human) sin and righteousness should be judged on the basis of one's acts (volitional things) not on one's genetics, last name, skin color, or any other myriad factors that are outside of one's control.
[quote name='pittpizza']Ah ha! Now I see what you're getting at. It was not clear from the question you posed in your previous post. Now I see your point.
It's sort of a grudge-holding mentality isn't it? Even though little Petey never did anything wrong, he still catches shit because his dad was a mass murderer.
Well guess what: while Lil' Petey might catch shit for his dad's acts by most christians and "christian mythology" as Zen put it, he doesn't catch shit from me.
Again, I'll accept responsibility for what I've done, not for who I am.
Conversly when judging people (I try not to but alas, we're only human) sin and righteousness should be judged on the basis of one's acts (volitional things) not on one's genetics, last name, skin color, or any other myriad factors that are outside of one's control.[/QUOTE]
you're going to be a lawyer? :lol:
this is the stupidest grounds for a theological argument i have ever seen.
sin and righteousness judged by on the basis of one's actions? - what does that imply? that actions dictate and necessitate SIN and RIGHT?
you're just throwing terms out without grounding them in any moral construct - who's sins are you talking aboug? what type of righteousness?
also, if you're looking for religions with inferiority complexes, why don't you talk to these guys
yeesh... heaven help us if you ever pass the bar.
It's sort of a grudge-holding mentality isn't it? Even though little Petey never did anything wrong, he still catches shit because his dad was a mass murderer.
Well guess what: while Lil' Petey might catch shit for his dad's acts by most christians and "christian mythology" as Zen put it, he doesn't catch shit from me.
Again, I'll accept responsibility for what I've done, not for who I am.
Conversly when judging people (I try not to but alas, we're only human) sin and righteousness should be judged on the basis of one's acts (volitional things) not on one's genetics, last name, skin color, or any other myriad factors that are outside of one's control.[/QUOTE]
you're going to be a lawyer? :lol:
this is the stupidest grounds for a theological argument i have ever seen.
sin and righteousness judged by on the basis of one's actions? - what does that imply? that actions dictate and necessitate SIN and RIGHT?
you're just throwing terms out without grounding them in any moral construct - who's sins are you talking aboug? what type of righteousness?
also, if you're looking for religions with inferiority complexes, why don't you talk to these guys
yeesh... heaven help us if you ever pass the bar.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Sleepkyng']you're going to be a lawyer? :lol:
this is the stupidest grounds for a theological argument i have ever seen.
sin and righteousness judged by on the basis of one's actions? - what does that imply? that actions dictate and necessitate SIN and RIGHT?
you're just throwing terms out without grounding them in any moral construct - who's sins are you talking aboug? what type of righteousness?
also, if you're looking for religions with inferiority complexes, why don't you talk to these guys
yeesh... heaven help us if you ever pass the bar.[/quote]
Ooooooo....must have struck a nerve there eh sleepkyng? :lol: Take it easy bro, the interwebs can be serious business.
Please allow me to clarify for you. I guess you got confused by the words "sin" and "righteous." My entire point, which is probably very clear to most reading this, is as follows:
One should be judged on their actions, not the acts of others.
So "right and wrong", "good and bad", "righteous and sinful", or any other normative words you would like to use, should...IMO...be allocated according to one's (anyone's) ACTIONS! Not their bloodline, genetics, race, or any other factor over which they have no control.
Maybe some examples would help:
1. Joe is walking down the street and curb stomps a bum because he smells bad.
this is the stupidest grounds for a theological argument i have ever seen.
sin and righteousness judged by on the basis of one's actions? - what does that imply? that actions dictate and necessitate SIN and RIGHT?
you're just throwing terms out without grounding them in any moral construct - who's sins are you talking aboug? what type of righteousness?
also, if you're looking for religions with inferiority complexes, why don't you talk to these guys
yeesh... heaven help us if you ever pass the bar.[/quote]
Ooooooo....must have struck a nerve there eh sleepkyng? :lol: Take it easy bro, the interwebs can be serious business.
Please allow me to clarify for you. I guess you got confused by the words "sin" and "righteous." My entire point, which is probably very clear to most reading this, is as follows:
One should be judged on their actions, not the acts of others.
So "right and wrong", "good and bad", "righteous and sinful", or any other normative words you would like to use, should...IMO...be allocated according to one's (anyone's) ACTIONS! Not their bloodline, genetics, race, or any other factor over which they have no control.
Maybe some examples would help:
1. Joe is walking down the street and curb stomps a bum because he smells bad.
Kirin Lemon
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
[quote name='Zen Davis']According to Christian mythology, in a modern sense, you are an original sin that is passed on through your genes. A sin of your fathers kind of thing. Jesus fixed that.[/QUOTE]
So as long as science can isolate and destroy the "sin gene" before birth. we're off the hook? Sweet.
So as long as science can isolate and destroy the "sin gene" before birth. we're off the hook? Sweet.
[quote name='pittpizza']Ooooooo....must have struck a nerve there eh sleepkyng? :lol: Take it easy bro, the interwebs can be serious business.
Please allow me to clarify for you. I guess you got confused by the words "sin" and "righteous." My entire point, which is probably very clear to most reading this, is as follows:
One should be judged on their actions, not the acts of others.
So "right and wrong", "good and bad", "righteous and sinful", or any other normative words you would like to use, should...IMO...be allocated according to one's (anyone's) ACTIONS! Not their bloodline, genetics, race, or any other factor over which they have no control.
Maybe some examples would help:
1. Joe is walking down the street and curb stomps a bum because he smells bad.
Please allow me to clarify for you. I guess you got confused by the words "sin" and "righteous." My entire point, which is probably very clear to most reading this, is as follows:
One should be judged on their actions, not the acts of others.
So "right and wrong", "good and bad", "righteous and sinful", or any other normative words you would like to use, should...IMO...be allocated according to one's (anyone's) ACTIONS! Not their bloodline, genetics, race, or any other factor over which they have no control.
Maybe some examples would help:
1. Joe is walking down the street and curb stomps a bum because he smells bad.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
I have no idea what's going on here anymore.
I'll admit I just started skimming by post 429.
I'll admit I just started skimming by post 429.
[quote name='homeland']Not to jump in between your argument but where do you think laws come from?[/QUOTE]
are you asking me personally? i think laws probably stem from a Rawlsian idea of "the difference principle" - basically you, me and everyone else believes in equality not because we believe in "good" but because we want our fair share of the pie.
but that's neither here nor there.
are you asking me personally? i think laws probably stem from a Rawlsian idea of "the difference principle" - basically you, me and everyone else believes in equality not because we believe in "good" but because we want our fair share of the pie.
but that's neither here nor there.
crystalklear64
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='daroga']Thank you for stretching my metaphor well beyond any original intent. I appreciate it.
The point was comparing doctoral and divine intent and motive, not the effectiveness of medicine or anything else you decided to throw in there as illogical potshots.
Congrats.[/QUOTE]
How about this then. A doctor helps people. A god does not.
Just like having faith in a doctor won't cure you, having faith in a god will not save you.
The point was comparing doctoral and divine intent and motive, not the effectiveness of medicine or anything else you decided to throw in there as illogical potshots.
Congrats.[/QUOTE]
How about this then. A doctor helps people. A god does not.
Just like having faith in a doctor won't cure you, having faith in a god will not save you.
[quote name='Sleepkyng']are you asking me personally? i think laws probably stem from a Rawlsian idea of "the difference principle" - basically you, me and everyone else believes in equality not because we believe in "good" but because we want our fair share of the pie.
but that's neither here nor there.[/quote]
ok just curious, from your tone I thought you were implying our laws came from the bible
but that's neither here nor there.[/quote]
ok just curious, from your tone I thought you were implying our laws came from the bible
[quote name='crystalklear64']How about this then. A doctor helps people. A god does not.
Just like having faith in a doctor won't cure you, having faith in a god will not save you.[/quote]Faith by itself? No. As I stated before, faith needs an object. You take the medicine the doctor gives you because you have faith that he didn't give you some sort of poison or sugar pill. The crux of the matter is not how strong your faith is in the doctor's skills and knowledge but how well he actually performs. The faith is simply what gets you to take the medicine.
Likewise, faith trusts that God forgives sins. It's not the strength of faith or simply having faith in general, but it's God's declaration that because Jesus' death paid for my sins, I am forgiven. Faith simply trusts God's promise and receives that forgiveness from him, not by its own merit, but by God's undeserved love.
It ain't a perfect metaphor, but it's fairly to the point.
If anyone is just curious about Christianity as a whole, but find the huge book of the Bible to be a tad daunting (which it is), I'd recommend taking a spin through the Gospel of Luke and then read Paul's letter to the Romans. Neither are very long and get right to the point about what this faith is all about.
Just like having faith in a doctor won't cure you, having faith in a god will not save you.[/quote]Faith by itself? No. As I stated before, faith needs an object. You take the medicine the doctor gives you because you have faith that he didn't give you some sort of poison or sugar pill. The crux of the matter is not how strong your faith is in the doctor's skills and knowledge but how well he actually performs. The faith is simply what gets you to take the medicine.
Likewise, faith trusts that God forgives sins. It's not the strength of faith or simply having faith in general, but it's God's declaration that because Jesus' death paid for my sins, I am forgiven. Faith simply trusts God's promise and receives that forgiveness from him, not by its own merit, but by God's undeserved love.
It ain't a perfect metaphor, but it's fairly to the point.
If anyone is just curious about Christianity as a whole, but find the huge book of the Bible to be a tad daunting (which it is), I'd recommend taking a spin through the Gospel of Luke and then read Paul's letter to the Romans. Neither are very long and get right to the point about what this faith is all about.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Sleepkyng']you didn't strike a nerve at all, but you still haven't really clarified anything.
you want to paint this picture in black and white - actions committed, judgement made - but that's not always how things pan out.
surely you know that, or are you a divorce attorney? :lol:
again, you bring up joe curb stomping an individual and you deem this act as... i'm not sure, you've used many different words here which have several different meanings - sinful/righteous, good/bad, right/wrong - you can't just say these exist without establishing a moral construct... do you know what that is? let me know if you don't, because I can use a term that will be easier to discuss/debate.
for someone who is an attorney (i really can't believe that, sorry, i mean, i know that's rude, but the way you construct arguments is awful.) - you tend to just throw words around assuming we all agree with you on their definitions.
where do you think law came from? do you think a bunch of monkeys just sat around and decided things were "right" and "wrong?"
whether or not you believe in God, the decision to define actions in a community as "sinful" or "righteous" is totally a constructed HUMAN process, which means that it is open to definition and debate.
Personally I don't agree with curb stomping another person - now if I was an African during Apartheid and had experienced years of hatred, murder, terror and overall hell, I may be so inclined to curb stomp another person.
where is the right and wrong in that situation? are you prepraed to be adamant in your judgement, irregardless of cultural/historical or emotional aspects that you may not be privy to?
FWIW - in regards to bumper stickers and religions: you've obviously never been to Lebanon and you can't read Arabic. I have, and I can.[/QUOTE]
This entireing post is complete stupidity. Seriously are you even readingn what I've wrote at all?
You keep talking about the way I constuct arguments, what is my argument? What was my point? What words did I assume other people shared my definitions of? I purposefully used a few normative words so as to catch em all. That is the result of one's judgement.
Lemme lay it out for you again. My entire point from the beginning, and which I have now repeated three, maybe four times, is this. I'll italizice it for you so you know exactly what it is...trust me it wont be the first time you've seen this sentence. Here it comes:
One should be judged on their acts, their actions, not on things that are out of thier control like geneology, bloodlines, race, national origin etc.
Thats it man. THats all I've been saying. Here it is once more: "I'll take responsibility for what I've done, not for who I am." On the flip side, when judging people (i try not to, but perhaps G-d or St. Peter or whoever you beleive does it) I would judge them by their actions.
Also, the entire context for this point, as you have seem to forgotten, does not have HUMANS in the judgment chair. This is a religion thread and in the context about being freed of sins and sent to heaven or hell, it is G-od doing the judging. So all your uselessin drabble about things not being black and white and moral constructs have zero in relevance.
It wasnt even necessary to pointn out whether curbstomping is right or wrong to get my point across, only that the stomping is an act that Joe should be judged for, the bloodlines of his parents is not.
Do you see what I'm saying at all? Im not saying any act whatsoever is right or wrong, or any variation of those words, or any other words for that matter. All I am saying is that people should be judged on what they do...aka things they have control over...aka volitional actions....and NOT judged on thier ancestor's hubris, thier blood line, thier skin color or any other damn thing that is outside of their control. Thats it, that is my point at its broadest. Now do you get it?
And please, do tell me about these Arabic bumperstickers. Please enlighten us oh multilingual one...por favor.
BTW, none of any of this is an argument, it is all my opinion. Here is an argument: If you accept the above, which I do, then it must follow (daroga I'm talkin to you here) that one cannot be forgiven of a sin they never committed.
you want to paint this picture in black and white - actions committed, judgement made - but that's not always how things pan out.
surely you know that, or are you a divorce attorney? :lol:
again, you bring up joe curb stomping an individual and you deem this act as... i'm not sure, you've used many different words here which have several different meanings - sinful/righteous, good/bad, right/wrong - you can't just say these exist without establishing a moral construct... do you know what that is? let me know if you don't, because I can use a term that will be easier to discuss/debate.
for someone who is an attorney (i really can't believe that, sorry, i mean, i know that's rude, but the way you construct arguments is awful.) - you tend to just throw words around assuming we all agree with you on their definitions.
where do you think law came from? do you think a bunch of monkeys just sat around and decided things were "right" and "wrong?"
whether or not you believe in God, the decision to define actions in a community as "sinful" or "righteous" is totally a constructed HUMAN process, which means that it is open to definition and debate.
Personally I don't agree with curb stomping another person - now if I was an African during Apartheid and had experienced years of hatred, murder, terror and overall hell, I may be so inclined to curb stomp another person.
where is the right and wrong in that situation? are you prepraed to be adamant in your judgement, irregardless of cultural/historical or emotional aspects that you may not be privy to?
FWIW - in regards to bumper stickers and religions: you've obviously never been to Lebanon and you can't read Arabic. I have, and I can.[/QUOTE]
This entire
ing post is complete stupidity. Seriously are you even readingn what I've wrote at all? You keep talking about the way I constuct arguments, what is my argument? What was my point? What words did I assume other people shared my definitions of? I purposefully used a few normative words so as to catch em all. That is the result of one's judgement.
Lemme lay it out for you again. My entire point from the beginning, and which I have now repeated three, maybe four times, is this. I'll italizice it for you so you know exactly what it is...trust me it wont be the first time you've seen this sentence. Here it comes:
One should be judged on their acts, their actions, not on things that are out of thier control like geneology, bloodlines, race, national origin etc.
Thats it man. THats all I've been saying. Here it is once more: "I'll take responsibility for what I've done, not for who I am." On the flip side, when judging people (i try not to, but perhaps G-d or St. Peter or whoever you beleive does it) I would judge them by their actions.
Also, the entire context for this point, as you have seem to forgotten, does not have HUMANS in the judgment chair. This is a religion thread and in the context about being freed of sins and sent to heaven or hell, it is G-od doing the judging. So all your useless
in drabble about things not being black and white and moral constructs have zero in relevance. It wasnt even necessary to pointn out whether curbstomping is right or wrong to get my point across, only that the stomping is an act that Joe should be judged for, the bloodlines of his parents is not.
Do you see what I'm saying at all? Im not saying any act whatsoever is right or wrong, or any variation of those words, or any other words for that matter. All I am saying is that people should be judged on what they do...aka things they have control over...aka volitional actions....and NOT judged on thier ancestor's hubris, thier blood line, thier skin color or any other damn thing that is outside of their control. Thats it, that is my point at its broadest. Now do you get it?
And please, do tell me about these Arabic bumperstickers. Please enlighten us oh multilingual one...por favor.
BTW, none of any of this is an argument, it is all my opinion. Here is an argument: If you accept the above, which I do, then it must follow (daroga I'm talkin to you here) that one cannot be forgiven of a sin they never committed.
tlsar
CAG Veteran
[quote name='pittpizza']FWIW, I never saw a bumper sticker that says "Real men love Mohammed." Only ones that read "Real men love Jesus" and my questions about these still stand unanswered.[/quote]
its cool to be chritian now
but its not good enough to just be christian.
people think they have to preach to everyone
i say we all have our own beliefs, what you believe is none of my business;
stop pushing your beliefs onto me.
[quote name='Sleepkyng']FWIW - in regards to bumper stickers and religions: you've obviously never been to Lebanon and you can't read Arabic. I have, and I can.[/quote]
honestly, i dont believe you.
and nothing you say can make me believe you.
sorry.
its cool to be chritian now
but its not good enough to just be christian.
people think they have to preach to everyone
i say we all have our own beliefs, what you believe is none of my business;
stop pushing your beliefs onto me.
[quote name='Sleepkyng']FWIW - in regards to bumper stickers and religions: you've obviously never been to Lebanon and you can't read Arabic. I have, and I can.[/quote]
honestly, i dont believe you.
and nothing you say can make me believe you.
sorry.
crystalklear64
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='tlsar']its cool to be chritian now
but its not good enough to just be christian.
people think they have to preach to everyone
i say we all have our own beliefs, what you believe is none of my business;
stop pushing your beliefs onto me.
[/QUOTE]
I haven't really experienced people preaching any religion, unless you count the occasional door to door mormons. Almost everyone I know is either atheist or theist with no set religion.
That doesn't stop it from being fun to talk about.
but its not good enough to just be christian.
people think they have to preach to everyone
i say we all have our own beliefs, what you believe is none of my business;
stop pushing your beliefs onto me.
[/QUOTE]
I haven't really experienced people preaching any religion, unless you count the occasional door to door mormons. Almost everyone I know is either atheist or theist with no set religion.
That doesn't stop it from being fun to talk about.
Travelsized
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='tlsar']
honestly, i dont believe you.
and nothing you say can make me believe you.
sorry.[/QUOTE]
Here you go. In english, not arabic, but it still proves the point that the bumper stickers do exist for other religions.
honestly, i dont believe you.
and nothing you say can make me believe you.
sorry.[/QUOTE]
Here you go. In english, not arabic, but it still proves the point that the bumper stickers do exist for other religions.
tlsar
CAG Veteran
[quote name='crystalklear64']I haven't really experienced people preaching any religion, unless you count the occasional door to door mormons. Almost everyone I know is either atheist or theist with no set religion.
That doesn't stop it from being fun to talk about.[/quote]
for me, its mainly my family, on my dads side.
theyre always saying i should have god in my life and all this religious hoo-hah.
its annoying.
[quote name='Travelsized']Here you go. In english, not arabic, but it still proves the point that the bumper stickers do exist for other religions.[/quote]
okay, okay...
but i still think hes lying about the reading part
That doesn't stop it from being fun to talk about.[/quote]
for me, its mainly my family, on my dads side.
theyre always saying i should have god in my life and all this religious hoo-hah.
its annoying.
[quote name='Travelsized']Here you go. In english, not arabic, but it still proves the point that the bumper stickers do exist for other religions.[/quote]
okay, okay...
but i still think hes lying about the reading part
[quote name='pittpizza']This entire ing post is complete stupidity. Seriously are you even readingn what I've wrote at all?
You keep talking about the way I constuct arguments, what is my argument? What was my point? What words did I assume other people shared my definitions of? I purposefully used a few normative words so as to catch em all. That is the result of one's judgement.
Lemme lay it out for you again. My entire point from the beginning, and which I have now repeated three, maybe four times, is this. I'll italizice it for you so you know exactly what it is...trust me it wont be the first time you've seen this sentence. Here it comes:
One should be judged on their acts, their actions, not on things that are out of thier control like geneology, bloodlines, race, national origin etc.
Thats it man. THats all I've been saying. Here it is once more: "I'll take responsibility for what I've done, not for who I am." On the flip side, when judging people (i try not to, but perhaps G-d or St. Peter or whoever you beleive does it) I would judge them by their actions.
Also, the entire context for this point, as you have seem to forgotten, does not have HUMANS in the judgment chair. This is a religion thread and in the context about being freed of sins and sent to heaven or hell, it is G-od doing the judging. So all your uselessin drabble about things not being black and white and moral constructs have zero in relevance.
It wasnt even necessary to pointn out whether curbstomping is right or wrong to get my point across, only that the stomping is an act that Joe should be judged for, the bloodlines of his parents is not.
Do you see what I'm saying at all? Im not saying any act whatsoever is right or wrong, or any variation of those words, or any other words for that matter. All I am saying is that people should be judged on what they do...aka things they have control over...aka volitional actions....and NOT judged on thier ancestor's hubris, thier blood line, thier skin color or any other damn thing that is outside of their control. Thats it, that is my point at its broadest. Now do you get it?
And please, do tell me about these Arabic bumperstickers. Please enlighten us oh multilingual one...por favor.
BTW, none of any of this is an argument, it is all my opinion. Here is an argument: If you accept the above, which I do, then it must follow (daroga I'm talkin to you here) that one cannot be forgiven of a sin they never committed.[/QUOTE]
...anyways
sorry, but your "opinion" which i've bolded on top of your italics, is an argument, and frankly I disagree with the statement when inserted into a conversation about the basis of morality and beliefs of things fundamentally "right" and "wrong."
a muslim/christian/jew can outright tell you what they believe is right and wrong based on divine scripture, you can't tell me anything is 100% right or wrong based on whatever beliefs you hold if you don't believe in some sort of divine existence.
human laws are like laws of science, in that they are not actually 100% because it would take infinity to prove them as 100% right or wrong. religious faith is 100%, a christian believes there is a right and wrong which works ad infintum off into the expanse forever. for christians, the actual sin will always be sin.
NOW, if you challenged this by saying, "I don't believe in divine right and wrong, instead I believe in establishing a code of ethic based on past experiences and communal agreements," I would agree with you completely - but at this point you (and me) have to accept that your (our) contribution is moot to the discussion of spirituality.
we have no place to judge or interject our opinions into the matter of "beliefs" unless they deal directly with the realm of HUMAN and furthermore AMERICAN law.
so perhaps it's not that i disagree with what you are saying, but how you are saying it and where you are saying it.
you are confronting the idea of "sin," (from the first post I responded to) with a totally secular stand point and changing the definition to suit your needs, trying to make it seem as if your opinion is as thus:
be judged only for your actions
and that others are as thus:
be judged by a number of things including your genes/skin color/ race/ history etc.
when in fact, that is a distortion of the christian argument. If you can't see that that is a blatant distortion, then i suggest you meet some christians who are patient enough to listen to you pontificate on your high horse, while still explaining their views of sin and the nature of sin.
for the record, i'm not muslim, christian, jewish or budhist. I'm aethiest to the core, always have been, always will be.
ok, commence at yelling and saying and restating your argument (excuse me, opinion) for the fourth time.
ing post is complete stupidity. Seriously are you even readingn what I've wrote at all? You keep talking about the way I constuct arguments, what is my argument? What was my point? What words did I assume other people shared my definitions of? I purposefully used a few normative words so as to catch em all. That is the result of one's judgement.
Lemme lay it out for you again. My entire point from the beginning, and which I have now repeated three, maybe four times, is this. I'll italizice it for you so you know exactly what it is...trust me it wont be the first time you've seen this sentence. Here it comes:
One should be judged on their acts, their actions, not on things that are out of thier control like geneology, bloodlines, race, national origin etc.
Thats it man. THats all I've been saying. Here it is once more: "I'll take responsibility for what I've done, not for who I am." On the flip side, when judging people (i try not to, but perhaps G-d or St. Peter or whoever you beleive does it) I would judge them by their actions.
Also, the entire context for this point, as you have seem to forgotten, does not have HUMANS in the judgment chair. This is a religion thread and in the context about being freed of sins and sent to heaven or hell, it is G-od doing the judging. So all your useless
in drabble about things not being black and white and moral constructs have zero in relevance. It wasnt even necessary to pointn out whether curbstomping is right or wrong to get my point across, only that the stomping is an act that Joe should be judged for, the bloodlines of his parents is not.
Do you see what I'm saying at all? Im not saying any act whatsoever is right or wrong, or any variation of those words, or any other words for that matter. All I am saying is that people should be judged on what they do...aka things they have control over...aka volitional actions....and NOT judged on thier ancestor's hubris, thier blood line, thier skin color or any other damn thing that is outside of their control. Thats it, that is my point at its broadest. Now do you get it?
And please, do tell me about these Arabic bumperstickers. Please enlighten us oh multilingual one...por favor.
BTW, none of any of this is an argument, it is all my opinion. Here is an argument: If you accept the above, which I do, then it must follow (daroga I'm talkin to you here) that one cannot be forgiven of a sin they never committed.[/QUOTE]
...anyways
sorry, but your "opinion" which i've bolded on top of your italics, is an argument, and frankly I disagree with the statement when inserted into a conversation about the basis of morality and beliefs of things fundamentally "right" and "wrong."
a muslim/christian/jew can outright tell you what they believe is right and wrong based on divine scripture, you can't tell me anything is 100% right or wrong based on whatever beliefs you hold if you don't believe in some sort of divine existence.
human laws are like laws of science, in that they are not actually 100% because it would take infinity to prove them as 100% right or wrong. religious faith is 100%, a christian believes there is a right and wrong which works ad infintum off into the expanse forever. for christians, the actual sin will always be sin.
NOW, if you challenged this by saying, "I don't believe in divine right and wrong, instead I believe in establishing a code of ethic based on past experiences and communal agreements," I would agree with you completely - but at this point you (and me) have to accept that your (our) contribution is moot to the discussion of spirituality.
we have no place to judge or interject our opinions into the matter of "beliefs" unless they deal directly with the realm of HUMAN and furthermore AMERICAN law.
so perhaps it's not that i disagree with what you are saying, but how you are saying it and where you are saying it.
you are confronting the idea of "sin," (from the first post I responded to) with a totally secular stand point and changing the definition to suit your needs, trying to make it seem as if your opinion is as thus:
be judged only for your actions
and that others are as thus:
be judged by a number of things including your genes/skin color/ race/ history etc.
when in fact, that is a distortion of the christian argument. If you can't see that that is a blatant distortion, then i suggest you meet some christians who are patient enough to listen to you pontificate on your high horse, while still explaining their views of sin and the nature of sin.
for the record, i'm not muslim, christian, jewish or budhist. I'm aethiest to the core, always have been, always will be.
ok, commence at yelling and saying
and restating your argument (excuse me, opinion) for the fourth time.[quote name='tlsar']
okay, okay...
but i still think hes lying about the reading part[/QUOTE]
you don't think anyone on cag is from arabic descent?
or that some CAGs have studied other languages or traveled in their lives?
it's fair enough that you think i'm lying, there isn't any way i can prove it to you, but if it had been spanish, would you have felt the same way?
okay, okay...
but i still think hes lying about the reading part[/QUOTE]
you don't think anyone on cag is from arabic descent?
or that some CAGs have studied other languages or traveled in their lives?
it's fair enough that you think i'm lying, there isn't any way i can prove it to you, but if it had been spanish, would you have felt the same way?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Travelsized']Here you go. In english, not arabic, but it still proves the point that the bumper stickers do exist for other religions.[/quote]
Plenty more here: http://www.northernsun.com/n/s/car-plaques.html
Plenty more here: http://www.northernsun.com/n/s/car-plaques.html
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
Sleepkyng, everything you wrote about "right" and "wrong" is...once again..irrelevant to my point.
I never once interjected any normative views onto any actions (except the curb stomp but that was tangential). All I've been saying is that people's acts are what they should be judged on (by humans and by whoever you beleive does the final judgment, if you think there is one) and that they should not/will not be judged on things they have no control over.
The above really has nothing to do with normative assessments of "right" and "wrong" and it only addresses what factors should be taken into consideration when making them (acts), not the outcome of them. You seem to be focusing on the outcome and morality when all I've been discussing is what factors should be taken into account...a procedual point, not a dispositive point.
Oh and I never distorted anything. I never portended to recite other's positions, only my own. You have daroga and Zen to argue with about this:
I never once interjected any normative views onto any actions (except the curb stomp but that was tangential). All I've been saying is that people's acts are what they should be judged on (by humans and by whoever you beleive does the final judgment, if you think there is one) and that they should not/will not be judged on things they have no control over.
The above really has nothing to do with normative assessments of "right" and "wrong" and it only addresses what factors should be taken into consideration when making them (acts), not the outcome of them. You seem to be focusing on the outcome and morality when all I've been discussing is what factors should be taken into account...a procedual point, not a dispositive point.
Oh and I never distorted anything. I never portended to recite other's positions, only my own. You have daroga and Zen to argue with about this:
tlsar
CAG Veteran
[quote name='Sleepkyng']you don't think anyone on cag is from arabic descent?
or that some CAGs have studied other languages or traveled in their lives?
it's fair enough that you think i'm lying, there isn't any way i can prove it to you, but if it had been spanish, would you have felt the same way?[/quote]
spanish is a lot more believable than arabic..
but were getting off track here.
its been proven people have pride in their religions, muslims included
(assuming those pics are real...)
and yes pittpizza youre right.
we should only be held responsible for things that are under our control.
but sleepkyng, i cant tell what you are saying in response to pittpizza's comment.
could you clarify?
or that some CAGs have studied other languages or traveled in their lives?
it's fair enough that you think i'm lying, there isn't any way i can prove it to you, but if it had been spanish, would you have felt the same way?[/quote]
spanish is a lot more believable than arabic..
but were getting off track here.
its been proven people have pride in their religions, muslims included
(assuming those pics are real...)
and yes pittpizza youre right.
we should only be held responsible for things that are under our control.
but sleepkyng, i cant tell what you are saying in response to pittpizza's comment.
could you clarify?
Friend of Sonic
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 185 (100%)
I can't believe this thread is still alive. There's a lot of interesting discussion and it's shocking how civil its remained.
Until the previous page I hadn't really thought about the one thing that really struck my nerve about being a Christian-- being born a sinner. Really, no matter what you do you're a sinner. No matter how many great things you do in your life, how many times you apologize to God and how many times you perform CPR on drowned kittens and puppies, you're still a filthy, dirty bitch sinner. I think that's why I switched to being an Atheist in the first place.
I don't want to live in a world where Tay Zonday is a sinner.
(
Until the previous page I hadn't really thought about the one thing that really struck my nerve about being a Christian-- being born a sinner. Really, no matter what you do you're a sinner. No matter how many great things you do in your life, how many times you apologize to God and how many times you perform CPR on drowned kittens and puppies, you're still a filthy, dirty bitch sinner. I think that's why I switched to being an Atheist in the first place.
I don't want to live in a world where Tay Zonday is a sinner.
(
Access_Denied
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 89 (100%)
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']I can't believe this thread is still alive. There's a lot of interesting discussion and it's shocking how civil its remained.
Until the previous page I hadn't really thought about the one thing that really struck my nerve about being a Christian-- being born a sinner. Really, no matter what you do you're a sinner. No matter how many great things you do in your life, how many times you apologize to God and how many times you perform CPR on drowned kittens and puppies, you're still a filthy, dirty bitch sinner. I think that's why I switched to being an Atheist in the first place.
I don't want to live in a world where Tay Zonday is a sinner.([/quote]
Why should we have to apologize to God in the first place? Just because he 'made' us, doesn't mean he owns us. My parents made me, but they don't try to control me, or act like they own me. I'm a fellow Atheist, but I don't share the same sense of confusion as you do. I'm positive that God does not exist, and I know that when I die, I'm going into a hole in the ground, no where else. But if you find you questioning yourself, just know that Christians believe that other religions are a path to the same fate, and that as long as your intentions are good, you'll go to heaven.
Until the previous page I hadn't really thought about the one thing that really struck my nerve about being a Christian-- being born a sinner. Really, no matter what you do you're a sinner. No matter how many great things you do in your life, how many times you apologize to God and how many times you perform CPR on drowned kittens and puppies, you're still a filthy, dirty bitch sinner. I think that's why I switched to being an Atheist in the first place.
I don't want to live in a world where Tay Zonday is a sinner.
([/quote]Why should we have to apologize to God in the first place? Just because he 'made' us, doesn't mean he owns us. My parents made me, but they don't try to control me, or act like they own me. I'm a fellow Atheist, but I don't share the same sense of confusion as you do. I'm positive that God does not exist, and I know that when I die, I'm going into a hole in the ground, no where else. But if you find you questioning yourself, just know that Christians believe that other religions are a path to the same fate, and that as long as your intentions are good, you'll go to heaven.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
So... late... to... party...
Also, my continued campaign to get people to stop capitalizing the "a" in "atheist" is a miserable failure, I see.
Also, my continued campaign to get people to stop capitalizing the "a" in "atheist" is a miserable failure, I see.
bread's done