Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Momma Angel wrote:

Oh, and Momma Angel did not chicken out there Mesquite. Momma Angel just knows better to argue politics. I know less about politics than anything else in this world

Does that mean that you did not vote?

0 Replies

Mesquite,

So you think God should just give them a slap on the wrist and send them to bed without their dinner?

He just brought all the slaves out of Egypt and destroyed their enemy. I would think that deserves a bit of obedience, don't you?

He is God. He created us. He is the father and we are the children. You point these things out as if you think this is what He is doing today. CoastalRat tried explaining all this but you still do not see it.

I would think it would be more important to be concerned with what's going on now in the world instead of what happened how many years ago?

May I make a suggestion? Read the New Testament. Read the beatitudes. Read how Christ intervened for us. You are only dealing with a small piece of the puzzle when you only use the Old Testament. You have to take everything into account. The whole picture.

0 Replies

Msquite Wrote:

Quote:

Does that mean that you did not vote?

Well, I don't know how you came to think that might have meant I did not vote. But yes, I did vote. Now, I suppose you want to know who for too?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Mesquite,

So you think God should just give them a slap on the wrist and send them to bed without their dinner?

He just brought all the slaves out of Egypt and destroyed their enemy. I would think that deserves a bit of obedience, don't you?

He is God. He created us. He is the father and we are the children. You point these things out as if you think this is what He is doing today. CoastalRat tried explaining all this but you still do not see it.

I would think it would be more important to be concerned with what's going on now in the world instead of what happened how many years ago?

May I make a suggestion? Read the New Testament. Read the beatitudes. Read how Christ intervened for us. You are only dealing with a small piece of the puzzle when you only use the Old Testament. You have to take everything into account. The whole picture.

The Beatitudes is nice. If you you followed that advice you would not be discriminating against gay folk.

People that look at verses such as Leviticus 26 and are not repulsed scare me.

0 Replies

Mesquite Wrote:

Quote:

The Beatitudes is nice. If you you followed that advice you would not be discriminating against gay folk.

People that look at verses such as Leviticus 26 and are not repulsed scare me.

Yes, the Beatitudes are nice. And just how am I discriminating against gay folk? Uh, because I believe homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes? I do not gay bash. I do not treat them any differently than I do anyone else in this world. And, according to this definition of discriminate in Websters-Dictionary, I am not discriminating against gay folk.

2 : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>

Just because I think same sex marriage is wrong does not mean I am discriminating against gays. I have the right to lobby for the laws of the land just like you do. Have I accused you of discriminating against Christians because you want prayers taken out of schools? Have I accused you of discriminating against Christians in any way? No, I have not. I have merely stated what I believe and you have done the same.

And will you show me just where I said it did not repulse me? I did not say that. I never said that the punishments weren't harsh or what I would consider cruel. I said I do not understand all of God's ways and you have to take into account the times, and I would just be repeating myself again so I won't.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
Mesquite,

So you think God should just give them a slap on the wrist and send them to bed without their dinner?

He just brought all the slaves out of Egypt and destroyed their enemy. I would think that deserves a bit of obedience, don't you?

He is God. He created us. He is the father and we are the children. You point these things out as if you think this is what He is doing today. CoastalRat tried explaining all this but you still do not see it.

I would think it would be more important to be concerned with what's going on now in the world instead of what happened how many years ago?

May I make a suggestion? Read the New Testament. Read the beatitudes. Read how Christ intervened for us. You are only dealing with a small piece of the puzzle when you only use the Old Testament. You have to take everything into account. The whole picture.

The Beatitudes is nice. If you you followed that advice you would not be discriminating against gay folk.

People that look at verses such as Leviticus 26 and are not repulsed scare me.

Bottom line.... If the people did as God instructed then none of these things would actually happen. If you do not steal you do not go to jail. If you do not kill somebody during that theft, you do not get the death penalty. Is there a difference? You and Frank make it seem that these things were happening all the time back then....Nobody knows.

Why is it that Leviticus and Deuteronomy are always quoted by those who try to attack the bible? Why is only what appears, by human standards, to be harsh brought up? My post on some of the history of this was ignorned and we go on and on and on with this. I am tired and am going to bed. But first, I will pray. Goodnight

0 Replies

And that folks, is where the rubber meets the road!

Good night Intrepid, I am off to bed myself. I will be doing a lot of praying myself.

Sweet dreams.

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

Earth calling Frank...Earth calling Frank...

LMTO!! ROTFL! Priceless, SLk! You are just what we needed here in this charnel house. Long may you endure the sparring! Very Happy

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

Once again you've dismissed my response without a lick of substance to support your claim. You say these passages are people thanking God for healing, babies, etc. and that somehow each is not an act of God.

Earth calling Frank...Earth calling Frank...

How do you get that???? The verses are clear..."God healed...", "God sent...", etc.

The god was not on the scene doing the action.

A person has a baby...and claims "god have me the baby."

A person is healed...and claims "god healed me.

A great victory is won and lots of enemies are slaughtered...and the people claim that god have them the victory and helped them slaughter the enemy.

What good is that.

My original point is that whenever the god is on the scene...the god is there to punish, threaten, kill, or ask others to kill.

I challenged the Christians here to produce passages that show the god of the scene where the thrust of the action is not to punish, threaten, kill, or ask others to kill.

Produce passages like that...and stop pretending that you already have.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

slkshock7,
You will find, as you no doubt already have, that Frank will only accept what Frank wants to accept. He thinks on a different plane than most of us and just as God said "I change not"....so does Frank

All I've done is to issue a challenge.

Most of you have not even tried to meet the challenge...and Shock here has simply decided to change the challenge.

But...all this nonsense is providing some much needed merriment for me this moring.

Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Why is it that Leviticus and Deuteronomy are always quoted by those who try to attack the bible?

Because that is about the only place in the Bible where the god of the Bible is actually on the scene. (Not the only place, but the huge majority of god's appearances in the Bible occur during the first five books...and most of those appearances are in Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

And if you want to judge what the god is like...much better to look at what the god actually says and does...than what frightened people want to give it credit for.

That's why.

Quote:

Why is only what appears, by human standards, to be harsh brought up?

Well I guess we could use Klingon standards, but if we did, you would question that also.

Holy catfish...now we are being asked why we are using human standards!!!

Quote:

My post on some of the history of this was ignorned and we go on and on and on with this. I am tired and am going to bed. But first, I will pray.

I'm sure the sleep will help. I question whether the praying will...unless you ask your god to open your eyes and not be too afraid to question all this nonsense.

0 Replies

diagknowz wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:
Earth calling Frank...Earth calling Frank...

LMTO!! ROTFL! Priceless, SLk! You are just what we needed here in this charnel house. Long may you endure the sparring!

Yeah...that was really, really clever. Wonder where you ever came up with that.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:

Well I guess we could use Klingon standards, but if we did, you would question that also.

Holy catfish...now we are being asked why we are using human standards!!!

Frank,
I was referring to Godly standards. Something that you would not be too familiar with.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Well I guess we could use Klingon standards, but if we did, you would question that also.

Holy catfish...now we are being asked why we are using human standards!!!

Frank,
I was referring to Godly standards. Something that you would not be too familiar with.

I think "Godly standards" is what we have been discussing. They are reprehensible.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Epicurus

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Well I guess we could use Klingon standards, but if we did, you would question that also.

Holy catfish...now we are being asked why we are using human standards!!!

Frank,
I was referring to Godly standards. Something that you would not be too familiar with.

And of course, you would want to be the one to choose which god's standards to use...and after that...which of that's god's standard you would use and which you would throw out.

Makes no sense either way, Intrepid.

0 Replies

Oh yes, another glorious day here at the forum! Sounds more like the forums the Romans had the Christians facing lions in.

I just find it absolutely fascinating that man will quote man and accept it as full of wisdom and when God is quoted or referenced it's driven into the ground.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I just find it absolutely fascinating that man will quote man and accept it as full of wisdom and when God is quoted or referenced it's driven into the ground.

I don't think that anyone has proven that the scriptures were written anything more than primitive human beings. You are taking a lot for granted when you say that you are "quoting God!"

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Mesquite Wrote:

Quote:
That is the reason I asked if you read the links. It would be easier if you just read the short article. I has pictures that help make the point.

Ok, I understand.

Quote:
Do you have a reference for where ten commandments are listed as such? There are at least three main versions for Hebrew, Catholic, and Protestant. Once again I provided a link to illustrate the point. It is much easier to view the graphic there.

Exodus 20:1-17. Don't understand why the Catholics don't have the graven image one.

Quote:
"1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Ignoring this, our government has not outlawed Hinduism. That's understandable, since the First Amendment directly contradicts the First Commandment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ok, now I don't know if I am just tired or what but God says have no other Gods. So, If I understand this correctly, the law contradicts this because it allows religious freedom? I am not good at politics whatsoever so please bear with me. But, if I am correct then that means that it is legal to have other gods, thereby being in contradiction? But, it still doesn't mean that it is morally right. It just makes it legal.

Quote:
"2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..."

The first amendment does not allow us to create laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

So here again, it contradicts because the law allows it? Again, may be legal but still is not right in God's eyes.

Quote:
"3. You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain."

We have repealed our blasphemy laws, which discriminated against non-Christian religions. Our free-speech laws directly contradict this Commandment. See first amendment.

Still, may be legal but it doesn't make it morally right.

Quote:
"4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:"

Same as above, would be a violation of the first amendment.

True, but are you not implying that man's laws are more important than God's laws? If that is not what you mean, then I apologize and could you explain further.

I think you have it. The laws of the United States of America are what we are governed by. The Constitution of the United States of America is the guidline for what laws can and cannot be enacted. The Constitution of the United States of America prevents you from being forced to worship someone elses god or even your god in a manner that is not agreeable to you.

Unless I am reading you wrong, you disagree with that arrangement and would prefer to construct our laws according to your interpretation of the Bible.

Morality is in the eye of the beholder. In my book our social morality has advanced far beyond the morality of your antiquated text book. The moral lessons taught in that book should be R rated. Read that as not fit for consumption by minors.

Momma Angel wrote:

Quote:
If by "that building" you mean the Kentucky court house case that went to the Supreme Court this past March, they had not been hanging all that long. They were put up in 1999 primarily as a provocation and sparked litigation almost immediately.

Frankly, I really do not understand this in your face mentality that the right is displaying about their religion. I feel it is the cause of much of the current divisiveness we are experiencing.

Well, could not we Christians also call your wanting to remove God from schools, courthouses, etc., an in your face mentality? Like I have said before, we differ, we lobby to change the laws. I just believe there is a compromise somewhere. It has to be a compromise that both sides can live with. If you take these things away, then I feel my rights are violated, if you don't take them away, then you feel your rights are violated. So, wouldn't the prudent thing to do be come up with a compromise we can all live with?

They have not been taken away from you. They have simply been removed from a court of law which is a totally inappropriate place for display of religious proclamations.

Momma Angel wrote:

But, I do think it's safe to say that the majority of the world would not think that it was God condoning the actions of 9/11. At least I sure hope so. There has to be some discernment.

I agree, and that is why I qualified that example as belonging at the far end of the spectrum. I do however hope that you understand that in the places where such actions are condoned, there is no freedom of religion. Government is by theocracy. The second highest crime, second only to murder is apostasy.

Think very hard indeed before you attempt to tamper with the concept of religious freedom.

0 Replies

mesquite, Good responses to Momma. Thank you. c.i.

0 Replies

Phoenix Wrote:

Quote:

I don't think that anyone has proven that the scriptures were written anything more than primitive human beings. You are taking a lot for granted when you say that you are "quoting God!"

Let me rephrase. It seems that it is much more widely acceptable to quote or reference what we know to me a mere mortal man and are expected to accept it as "truth?", yet, in instances where God is being referenced (or perhaps in some individual's opinion) quoted, the reference is rather readily thrown away, trashed, ignored, etc.

Mesquite Wrote:

Quote:

I think you have it. The laws of the United States of America are what we are governed by. The Constitution of the United States of America is the guidline for what laws can and cannot be enacted. The Constitution of the United States of America prevents you from being forced to worship someone elses god or even your god in a manner that is not agreeable to you.

Unless I am reading you wrong, you disagree with that arrangement and would prefer to construct our laws according to your interpretation of the Bible.

Morality is in the eye of the beholder. In my book our social morality has advanced far beyond the morality of your antiquated text book. The moral lessons taught in that book should be R rated. Read that as not fit for consumption of minors.

Reading me wrong? Maybe just a bit. I follow God's laws. I obey man's laws. If those laws are in conflict I defer to God's laws. Now, in order for our society to survive, we have to have laws and those laws have to be acceptable to the majority. That's why we vote. If something is made into a law then it is legal. Then I cannot accuse anyone of breaking the legal law. But, I can, however, still disagree as to whether it is God's law that is being broken.

Morality is in the eye of the beholder? Oh yes. And vision ranges anywhere from 20/20 to ???/???.

The moral lessons of the Bible (that book?) should be rated R? Perhaps. But, it is not fit for consumption of minors? Boy, did you open a can of worms here, Mesquite. What about these video games that are out? Sexually explicit, murderous, violent, foul language, hateful video games that are so often in the news media. If you feel the Bible should be rated R, or perhaps just done away with, what about these games? Would you abolish them? Sure, they have ratings, but we all know how ill effective those ratings have been.

In your book, social morality has advanced far beyond the morality of your antiquated text book? And what book (your book) would that be, Mesquite? I again bring up school shootings, serial killers, rampage killings, pedophilia, all these things running rampant in our society. How is this advancement? Advancement for the common good?

You said anyone that can read that verse in Leviticus and not be repulsed scares you. Well, I am scared by those that refuse to look at society today and compare it to the society of even 50 years ago and think we have advanced in our morality.

Oh yes, I know, we had problems in society then too. But, were they really on the same scale as they are today?

Mesquite Wrote:

Quote:

They have not been taken away from you. They have simply been removed from a court of law which is a totally inappropriate place for display of religious proclamations.

In your opinion it is a totally inappropriate place. But, anytime only one side is accommodated, then someone's rights have been violated. I ask for a compromise, not just one side being satisfied.

Mesquite Wrote:

Quote:

I agree, and that is why I qualified that example as belonging at the far end of the spectrum. I do however hope that you understand that in the places where such actions are condoned, there is no freedom of religion. Government is by theocracy. The second highest crime, second only to murder is apostasy.

Think very hard indeed before you attempt to tamper with the concept of religious freedom.

You call theocracy a crime. I don't. Freedom of religion means the right to[/i] or not to[/i] practice one's religion. It doesn't just mean that you have the right to not have religious proclamations made or artifacts not placed in buildings. It also means I have the right to make those proclamations or to want to have the artifacts in a building.

Again, if they are taken out, how is this a compromise? It's like silent prayer in school, give us a room where we can have our own silent prayer not led by anyone. Why not give us a room in a building where these things can be held for those that want them. That way, they are not in your face and yet they are available to me?

It's about compromise and making it acceptable for both sides.

Mesquite Wrote:

Quote:

Think very hard indeed before you attempt to tamper with the concept of religious freedom.

Advice we would all do well to heed.

0 Replies

Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know