Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Intrepid wrote:

Momma,
What the talk of lions...Setanta will come and chastise you (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)

How very puerile of you.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

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.

As for me and my house, we do not lobby against the person or their rights. Heck, they can get married here so I would assume not too many lobbied since the law was passed. Only in Canada? Pity.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Momma,
What the talk of lions...Setanta will come and chastise you (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)

How very puerile of you.

How nice of you to notice

0 Replies

This silly, silly thread is a source of immense entertainment . . . i wouldn't miss it for the world . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

This silly, silly thread is a source of immense entertainment . . . i wouldn't miss it for the world . . .

You have made my life complete. We are here for your amusement, Setanta. Where else could you have so much fun for so little?

0 Replies

Oh many, many places . . . neither electricity nor DSL are cheap . . .

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

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?

I do really believe that you cannot see it.

1. Your OT god has a thing about dozens of various sexual acts. They are well documented. Check

2. Your NT God says all is different now. Forgive, love thy neighbor as you would yourself etc. Check

3. Two people find attraction to one another and decide to commit to one another. Check

4. They want to make a serious commitment and secure it with a legal contract called marriage. Check

5. Self rightious Christians get all upset a focus on some preconceived sex act that may or may not happen. Check

6. They pull out all stops to make sure that couple cannot execute a marriage contract. Check

7. Their action is directed at the couple, not the act that they despise. Check

8. Their motivation is...

Uh oh! I am stuck on number 8. Can you help me out MA...? Intrepid...? Anyone...?

0 Replies

"You think is morally wrong?" Give me a break! Do you mean to imply all christians live a moral life?

0 Replies

Why would a community that forbids false witness then bear false witness about the One that enforces the rule against false witness?

Did Moses grow richer and more popular because he gave the Law?

Did Jesus live in luxury and rule empires?

We don't even know for a certainty what happened to Paul.

Why would these men do what they did if their God is not true?

Logically, God is that than which nothing greater can be thought.

But such an abstract concept proves a fact only. People don't live, work and then die for facts.

We will live, work and die for Someone That Loves Us.

That's why the Blood of Christ and our word of testimony to God's love in Him overcomes all evil.

0 Replies

mesquite- The thing that has always baffled me is that one of the problems some religious people have with homosexuals is the notion that they are promiscuous. So now you have gay couples who want to marry, and lead a committed life, dedicated to one another. These same "good folk" are attempting to deprive those couples of that right.

It is a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". If THAT is love, people who lobby to prevent gays from marrying have a strange way of showing it.

0 Replies

husker, Abstracts do not prove a fact. An abstract is not theoritical or true. An abstract is very subjective to each individual. It cannot be proved.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

mesquite- The thing that has always baffled me is that one of the problems some religious people have with homosexuals is the notion that they are promiscuous. So now you have gay couples who want to marry, and lead a committed life, dedicated to one another. These same "good folk" are attempting to deprive those couples of that right.

It is a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". If THAT is love, people who lobby to prevent gays from marrying have a strange way of showing it.

I am happy to see that you are using the word SOME since it is appropriate to do so Smile

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

husker, Abstracts do not prove a fact. An abstract is not theoritical or true. An abstract is very subjective to each individual. It cannot be proved.

that your first rule in atheist tactics

0 Replies

Mesquite Wrote:

Quote:

I do really believe that you cannot see it.

1. Your OT god has a thing about dozens of various sexual acts. They are well documented. Check

2. Your NT God says all is different now. Forgive, love thy neighbor as you would yourself etc. Check

3. Two people find attraction to one another and decide to commit to one another. Check

4. They want to make a serious commitment and secure it with a legal contract called marriage. Check

5. Self rightious Christians get all upset a focus on some preconceived sex act that may or may not happen. Check

6. They pull out all stops to make sure that couple cannot execute a marriage contract. Check

7. Their action is directed at the couple, not the act that they despise. Check

8. Their motivation is...

Uh oh! I am stuck on number 8. Can you help me out MA...? Intrepid...? Anyone...?

I see just fine thank you.

1. The God of the Bible has laws concerning sexual immorality and consequences for breaking those laws.

2. The God of the Bible did not say it was all different now. Christ is now intercessory (would you please look that word up and maybe you will get it).

3. A MAN AND A WOMAN. The Bible says a man and a woman.

4. A MAN AND A WOMAN want to commit to marriage.

5. Christians get upset about God's laws being broken.

6. Christians lobby legally and peacefully for the laws, as is their right to do so.

7. The act of lobbying is directed at the sin, not the person. What don't you get about that?

8. Their motivation is to try to keep God's laws intact and help keep some decency and morality in the world.

Now, anything else I can address for you, Mesquite?

Until you accept that it is NOT THE PERSON that I am asserting my rights toward you aren't going to understand.

Unless I just let it go and say yeah, ok, pass the law, what the heck, you aren't going to be satisfied, are you?

Well, it's not going to happen. Homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes.

It's not man that contradicts the Bible, it's the Bible that contradicts man.

Cicerone Imposter Wrote:

Quote:

"You think is morally wrong?" Give me a break! Do you mean to imply all christians live a moral life?

Let me rephrase that, Cicerone. I know it is morally wrong. God says it is morally wrong. And I am not implying all Christians live a moral life. I know the difference betwee right and wrong. Hopefully, so do you.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:
mesquite- The thing that has always baffled me is that one of the problems some religious people have with homosexuals is the notion that they are promiscuous. So now you have gay couples who want to marry, and lead a committed life, dedicated to one another. These same "good folk" are attempting to deprive those couples of that right.

It is a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". If THAT is love, people who lobby to prevent gays from marrying have a strange way of showing it.

I am happy to see that you are using the word SOME since it is appropriate to do so

Intrepid wrote:

As for me and my house, we do not lobby against the person or their rights. Heck, they can get married here so I would assume not too many lobbied since the law was passed. Only in Canada? Pity.

Your comments are noted and you Intrepid are duly excluded from the "some" category of Christians that are in full a r mode concerning the same sex marriage issue.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

6. Christians lobby legally and peacefully for the laws, as is their right to do so.

No one said that you did not have the legal right, just that it was hypocritical to claim that you follow the words of Jesus when you do so.

Momma Angel wrote:

7. The act of lobbying is directed at the sin, not the person. What don't you get about that?

8. Their motivation is to try to keep God's laws intact and help keep some decency and morality in the world.

Yeah, sure. You just keep telling yourself that if it helps you to sleep at night.

0 Replies

Phoenix Wrote:

Quote:

mesquite- The thing that has always baffled me is that one of the problems some religious people have with homosexuals is the notion that they are promiscuous. So now you have gay couples who want to marry, and lead a committed life, dedicated to one another. These same "good folk" are attempting to deprive those couples of that right.

It is a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". If THAT is love, people who lobby to prevent gays from marrying have a strange way of showing it.

Well, like Intrepid said, using the word "some" is a good thing. I have never stated that I thought homosexuals were promiscuous. But using the argument that well, they want to get married and be committed to each other what's the problem? Please. As it has become legal in some states, then it is legal. Their "rights" will not be violated. So, you will have what you want. Is it going to change the way you feel about what others think about the law? I think not. Just as it won't change how I think about it.

Mesquite Wrote:

Quote:

No one said that you did not have the legal right, just that it was hypocritical to claim that you follow the words of Jesus when you do so.

I did a bit of research on that because I do not believe it is hypocritical to lobby the law and follow Jesus. This is what I came up with.

Politics is always going to be a difficult issue for Christians. We are in this world, but are not to be of this world (1 John 2:15). We can be involved in politics, but we should not be obsessed with politics. Ultimately, we are to be heavenly minded, more concerned with the things of God than the things of this world (Colossians 3:1-2). As believers in Jesus Christ, we are all members of the same political party - monarchists who are waiting for their King to return (Revelation 19:11-16).

No matter who is in office, whether we voted for them or not, whether they are of the political party we prefer or not - the Bible commands us to respect and honor them (1 Peter 2:13-17; Romans 13:1-7). We should also be praying for those placed in authority over us (Colossians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:17). We do not have to agree with them, or even like them - we do have to honor and respect them.

The Bible teaches that a leader in the church should be a godly, moral, ethical person (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). I believe this should apply to political leaders as well. If a politician is going to make wise, God-honoring decisions, he or she must have a basic morality on which to base the decisions they are going to have to make. So, if there is a clear moral distinction between candidates, I believe we should choose the more moral, honest, and ethical of the candidates.

Mesquite Wrote:

Quote:

Yeah, sure. You just keep telling yourself that if it helps you to sleep at night.

You obviously do not believe my motiviation. What, then, do you believe is my motivation?

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
slkshock7 wrote:
Frank wrote:
At Deuteronomy 20:10 the god decrees:

"When you march up to attack a city, first offer terms of peace.
If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you,
all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor.
But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you
battle, lay siege to it, and when the Lord, your God, delivers it
into your hand, put every male in it to the sword, but the women
and children and livestock and all else in it that is worth
plunder you may take as your booty and you may use this plunder
of your enemies which the Lord, your God, has given you."

Two can play that game....In above passage, The god of the Bible is not on the scene. The god is simply being given credit for something that someone said.

Well...the god is being directly quoted by Moses.

These are words actually spoken by the god to a human.

And the god was on the scene when the words were spoken.

And how do you conclude that God (or as you like to say, the god) was on the scene? If I read my Bible correctly, Deuteronomy 20:10 comes in the middle of a long directive from Moses to the Israelites. Moses' speech begins in at Deut 10:12. Just earlier, in Deu 10:4, the Lord wrote out the Ten Commandments on stone for the second time.

My point is that there is no indication that this is Moses quoting God. Yes it is Moses instructing the Israelites on a long list of do's and don'ts, but the Bible most definitely does not say God was on the scene doing the talking, nor that Moses was quoting God.

Are you just kidding here...or have you flipped?

Deuteronomy is really nothing more than a reiteration of Leviticus...and Leviticus is offered as a recitation of the laws the god of the Bible gave Moses.

The god is actually quoted in just about every instance.

The passage you offered do not even pretend that the god is speaking (with one possible exception)...but are merely imputing to the god the "good" things that have happened.

Quote:

In fact, in Deu 10:11, God dismisses Moses off Mt Sinai. Do you think God followed Moses down the mountain and then stood by Moses' side as he gave the sermon to the Israelites?

The god is being quoted in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy, Shock. In the passages you offered the people were simply giving the god credit for the "good" stuff that was happening. Huge difference.

Quote:

Frank, Frank, Frank, your insistence in taking verses completely out of context is getting you into trouble.

No...it is simply bolstering my case that the god of the Bible is disgusting...and not at all like the kind of god you people claim it is.

Quote:

And I hope you understand that I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here...(stupid me...of course you understand...you're the expert).

Whatever. Just do it ethically.

Quote:

Like Momma and others, I believe (although don't comprehend) that because the Bible is inspired, that Moses' sentiment here (and even in vs. 20:10) reflects God's sentiments as well. I just want you to acknowledge that there are more than one instances of God not acting in a "jealous, vengeful, retributive, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, abusive, tyrannical, duplicitous, petty, murderous and barbaric" manner.

I am totally willing to do that...

...but first, someone has to show me more than one instance where the god does that.

Why don't you do that...rather than dredging up more of the thousands of examples of people giving the god credit for everything that happens.

Where is even one example of your god acting in a way that does not include threatening humans, killing humans, asking humans to kill other humans, or punishing humans.

Give me two examples.

0 Replies

husker wrote:

Logically, God is that than which nothing greater can be thought.

Yeah...Anselm's "Ontological proof of the existence of god".

Well...it is not a proof in any sense of the word. It is merely an assrtion.

And if anything...it shows how unlikely it is that the god of the Bible is GOD.

Anyone who cannot think and conceive of a god greater than that pathetic cartoon simply is not capable of thinking and conceiving.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

You obviously do not believe my motiviation. What, then, do you believe is my motivation?

One more time. I think that you motivation is to superimpose your religious beliefs through changes in the law, so that ALL Americans have to behave in a way the your religion (or your particular definition of your religion) deems acceptable.

Remember if gay people are allowed to legally marry, if people are allowed to have abortions, YOU and your religious compatriots are not obliged to marry someone of the same sex or have an abortion. But you, with all your talk of God's "love", you would think it moral to have the law dictate to other people how to live THEIR lives.

0 Replies

Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know