Frank wrote:And if you continue on this dead end...I will simply withdraw the Deuteronomy passages...and go to only passages where your god IS STILL ON THE SCENE...and doing its punishing, threatening, killing routine.
And if you withdraw the Deuteronomy passage...I will declare victory....and cheerfully wait for your next challenge
Cicerone Imposter:
Quote:Intrepid, I know you can't see it, but there's a contradiction to christians who claim they love homosexuals, but work to deny them equal rights in this country. And your generality, "nothing wrong with loving the sinner and hating the sin" is based on myth. "Sin" is a creation of man in an attempt to identify what the christian god supposedly said. For many of us, we do not find homosexuality to be a sin or anything else that is considered bad or negative. That's only a christian mind-set. We have laws that most of us can agree on to keep society in check that is considered bad or negative to society. Please don't include on your list with "religious," moral and civil laws. If past history of what christians have done in the past is any indication of what we can expect from christians in the future, "moral and civil laws" in relation to your religion is an oxymoron - so please stop preaching to us about morals and ethics. We'll do just fine without christians.
Oh, let me interject, please. So Cicerone, are all your friends perfect? None of them do anything legally wrong? Civilly wrong? How about just plain wrong? You still love your friends? I guess you don't understand the concept of loving the sinner and hating the sin because you do not understand the concept of Christ's love.
And, I guess what you can probably expect if you were to have (what seems to be) your way, is a society that would quickly become much like Sodom and Gomorrah, seeing that they didn't believe in Christianity and felt they could do whatever they wanted to do.
It seems you would have a society that can do whatever it pleases? And that comment about it only being a Christian mind-set? Oh no, my friend. I know many people who are not Christian and believe homosexuality is wrong.
And you will do just fine without us Christians? My, that's a very loving thought Cicerone, especially coming from someone who not so long ago in this very thread (I believe) apologized to me and the other Christians for belttleing us for our beliefs.
You guys know anything about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral? I'm sure nonbelievers have not inquired much on it.
Quote:
Properly understood, the Wesleyan quadrilateral provides us with a bridge enabling us to carry our basic Christian beliefs into the world. It offers us a way to practice our faith and grow in our discipleship in the midst of our evolving postmodern context.
cicerone imposter wrote:Intrepid, I know you can't see it, but there's a contradiction to christians who claim they love homosexuals, but work to deny them equal rights in this country. And your generality, "nothing wrong with loving the sinner and hating the sin" is based on myth. "Sin" is a creation of man in an attempt to identify what the christian god supposedly said. For many of us, we do not find homosexuality to be a sin or anything else that is considered bad or negative. That's only a christian mind-set. We have laws that most of us can agree on to keep society in check that is considered bad or negative to society. Please don't include on your list with "religious," moral and civil laws. If past history of what christians have done in the past is any indication of what we can expect from christians in the future, "moral and civil laws" in relation to your religion is an oxymoron - so please stop preaching to us about morals and ethics. We'll do just fine without christians.
I guess you are right, CI. You will get along without morals or ethics. Seems to me that your laws that keep everything in check are failing you. How many are in the U.S. jail system? You have a closed mind and do not read what I write. You are so engrossed in how you perceive Christians in your own country that you dismiss anything that someone from another country tries to say. I don't think you even bother to read what is written. You just see a post that you can respond to with your hate. May God bless you and have mercy on you.
Hey Husker!
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is a theory that is credited to John Wesley, one of the leaders of the Methodist movement of the Protestant church in the late 18th Century. It is designed to work for Christians, but its basic idea can apply to virtually anyone.
The Quadrilateral says that there are four authorities that we should use for making decisions - the Bible, Reason, Tradition, and Experience - explaining them as follows:
The Bible: Assuming that a theistic God (omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent) exists, the logical course of action would be to do whatever He says. He is God, therefore He can say what He wants to, even if His statement seems to contradict logic. If there is some sort of transcendent god, any form of special revelation that is received from him/her/it should be treated as the ultimate authority, since it comes from the being who created logic itself.
Reason: Most people in modern society would probably use reason before revelation, but to do so would be illogical. At its most basic form, logic does nothing more than distinguish between what is true and what is not true. God is necessarily the ultimate truth, so (again) anything that He says would supersede the human understanding of logic because His truth would be more true than ours. In most cases, though, there is no conflict between God and logic, so there usually is no need to choose between the two.
Tradition: While tradition1 is rarely the determining factor in an argument, it should never be discounted simply because it is tradition. Traditions, customs, and historical beliefs exist for some reason, and while that reason can sometimes be proven wrong, it is often valid. Traditions of a church or society can lend support to a position or belief, but they should never be used as a stand-alone argument.
Experience: Personal experience can be difficult to use in an argument because it is virtually impossible to prove day-to-day experiences after they have happened. However, one could say, 'Poodles cannot fly because a) I have never seen them fly, b) no one in my experience has seen them fly, and c) they do not have wings or rocket- packs, and I have seen few things that can fly without wings or rocket- packs'. There is no need to resort to tradition, reason, or revelation to make such a point. Like tradition, though, experience very often can only lend support to an argument.
The idea of a Quadrilateral comes into play in that all four parts are connected. Ideally, a statement or proposition should agree with all four parts, but revelation takes the ultimate precedence. Reason comes next, and tradition and experience tag along after that.
husker wrote:You guys know anything about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral? I'm sure nonbelievers have not inquired much on it.
Quote:
Properly understood, the Wesleyan quadrilateral provides us with a bridge enabling us to carry our basic Christian beliefs into the world. It offers us a way to practice our faith and grow in our discipleship in the midst of our evolving postmodern context.
Not bad for Methodist teachings :-)
Our friends will had a hard time with it.
Husker,
Great to see you! I found it very good thinking.
Intrepid wrote:mesquite wrote:Hi Snood, good to see you are still with us.
Did you catch the part where MA said that she knew squat about politics, but she does vote. She even hinted that she supports those thay display that they lead a god clean life. Any idea who she could be thinking of?
I know squat about how to build a TV, but I do watch it.
Do you know anything about strawmen?
Are you equating the relationship of passive TV viewing vs building TVs
to the relatioship of
knowledge of political issues and candidates vs responsible voting?
Mesquite Wrote:
Quote:Do you know anything about strawmen?
Are you equating the relationship of passive TV viewing vs building TVs
to the relatioship of knowledge of political issues and candidates vs responsible voting?
Oh, so now I am an irresponsible voter too? I will add that to my growing list.
Momma Angel wrote:Mesquite, I will not discuss politics, especially those concerning the war in Iraq.
I did not ask you to discuss politics. I merely asked you to read the quotations with the hope that you may gain some knowledge from them. If they were of no value to you, then perhaps someone else may have learned a small bit of history, history that was recorded word for word.
mesquite wrote:Intrepid wrote:mesquite wrote:Hi Snood, good to see you are still with us.
Did you catch the part where MA said that she knew squat about politics, but she does vote. She even hinted that she supports those thay display that they lead a god clean life. Any idea who she could be thinking of?
I know squat about how to build a TV, but I do watch it.
Do you know anything about strawmen?
Are you equating the relationship of passive TV viewing vs building TVs
to the relatioship of
knowledge of political issues and candidates vs responsible voting?
I know squat about strawmen, but I loved the Wizard of Oz
Mesquite Wrote:
Quote:I did not ask you to discuss politics. I merely asked you to read the quotations with the hope that you may gain some knowledge from them. If they were of no value to you, then perhaps someone else may have learned a small bit of history, history that was recorded word for word.
That's cool. And I did read them and I did gain knowledge from them. Thank you.
Intrepid Wrote:
Quote:I know squat about strawmen, but I loved the Wizard of Oz
I am a cowardly lion fan myself, but then I do run a cat shelter.
Momma Angel wrote:
Quote:I am a cowardly lion fan myself, but then I do run a cat shelter.
Momma,
What the talk of lions...Setanta will come and chastise you ;-)
Momma Angel wrote:
Oh, let me interject, please. So Cicerone, are all your friends perfect? None of them do anything legally wrong? Civilly wrong? How about just plain wrong? You still love your friends? I guess you don't understand the concept of loving the sinner and hating the sin because you do not understand the concept of Christ's love.
No that is not it. The concept that we are having difficulty with is saying you love the sinner and hate the sin while actively lobbying against the human rights of the person rather than against the sin. Since when did loving and sharing hopes and dreams become a sin.
The simple way of phrasing that is hypocrisy.
mesquite, Thanks for your obvious answer. "Hypocrisy" defines it very well.
Thanks c.i. Why is it not obvious to them?
Frank,
Other than Adam and Eve I can only think of Hagar, Jacob and Moses being in the company of God here on earth. See the following passages.
Genesis 16:13 And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?
Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Exodus 24:9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.
12 And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
13 And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua: and Moses went up into the mount of God.
Exodus 33:17 And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.
18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
Numbers 12:5 And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth.
6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
Intrepid Wrote:
Quote:Momma,
What the talk of lions...Setanta will come and chastise you
OH NO! Not Setanta!
Mesquite Wrote:
Quote:No that is not it. The concept that we are having difficulty with is saying you love the sinner and hate the sin while actively lobbying against the human rights of the person rather than against the sin. Since when did loving and sharing hopes and dreams become a sin.
The simple way of phrasing that is hypocrisy.
I am a hypocrite because I can care about a person and not like something they do? When did loving and sharing hopes and dreams become a sin? Well, Mesquite, that's an easy one for me to answer. When God said it was a sin to practice homosexuality, sexuality immorality, etc. That's when.
Lobbying against something I think is morally wrong (a sin according to God) in no way effects how I treat a person. You call me a hypocrite because I don't go along with your views about homosexuality? I'm a hypocrite because I can love a person and not like what they do?
So, you also have only friends that are perfect?
