Any serious Christians left?

Arella Mae wrote:

Echi,

I have answered these questions. Go back and read through the thread and you will see that I have answered them. Let's let the thread get back on focus.

I really wanted to see three simple answers, all in one place, so that a member just seeing this thread won't have to wade through all of it. I can't seem to remember that you have addressed my third question, although you have alluded to the first two.

[quote="I"]how is your line of thinking appreciably different from that of the Taliban, except for the fact that they adhere to a different set of rules based on their religion? [/quote]

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Arella Mae- I think that we can boil down this entire tome of a thread into a few questions for you:

All right. I'm going to answer these because of your last post (on next page). I came back to this one so didn't have to cut and paste.

Quote:

In deciding how to vote, which is primary, to you, the U.S. Constitution or the Bible?

Well, since you flat out want to know Bible or Constitution my answer is Bible. I am not going to vote for anything contrary to God's laws.

Quote:

Do you believe in separation of church and state, or would you rather that the U.S. be run according to the teachings of the New Testament?

Yes, I believe in separation of church and state. I said that yes, I wish everyone could be Christian because I know that Jesus' teachings, etc., are right. However, religion is a personal choice and cannot be dictated by anyone or anything in my opinion. Of course, I'd like to see God left in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc., but if it gets voted out, then it gets voted out. You cannot force anyone to live according to any religious belief. The most you can do is cast your vote for what you feel is the right thing.

Quote:

If so, how is your line of thinking appreciably different from that of the Taliban, except for the fact that they adhere to a different set of rules based on their religion?

You'll have to excuse me here Phoenix but I think this is really stretching it, don't you? I do understand yes, history in Christianity has been violent and there are those in Christianity today that are violent, however, I have not displayed any violent traits and making this kind of a leap in a discussion with me is well, rather offensive.

I would never threaten to kill anyone or cut their head off because they wouldn't convert to Christianity. I do not believe that God would have me strap a bomb to myself and walk into a crowd of people. I do not believe that is what God is about. Equating my beliefs with the Taliban is apples and oranges in my opinion, though I'm beginning to understand how it might not be in yours.

Quote:

I think that if you are honest in your answers, we don't have to go around in circles in reference to this subject.[/color][/b]

Like I said, I was honest in answering even though I knew it would draw ridicule for my answers. I sincerely hope this once and for all answers the questions for you and others.

0 Replies

Arella Mae,
Just a couple of things to ponder, in no particular order.

A serious Christian is not concerned with ridicule.

Not all Taliban would cut your head off or strap a bomb to their body. I don't think that Phoenix was referring to you as an individual when she mentioned Taliban. If you step back and look at what she said about this, you may see the insight with which she made these comments.

Not everybody agrees on everything. Even amongst Christians.

Sometimes we need to step back and look at the big picture of things to see how our tiny part affect and effects the world within which we live.

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

You'll have to excuse me here Phoenix but I think this is really stretching it, don't you? I do understand yes, history in Christianity has been violent and there are those in Christianity today that are violent, however, I have not displayed any violent traits and making this kind of a leap in a discussion with me is well, rather offensive.

Intrepid is correct. I was not talking about you, personally.

As far as the Taliban is concerned, I was referring to the way that they would beat up a woman if an ankle was showing etc., and attempted to enforce their religious views on the entire population.

I wrote:

In deciding how to vote, which is primary, to you, the U.S. Constitution or the Bible?

You replied: "Well, since you flat out want to know Bible or Constitution my answer is Bible. I am not going to vote for anything contrary to God's laws."

I wrote:

Do you believe in separation of church and state, or would you rather that the U.S. be run according to the teachings of the New Testament?

You replied: Yes, I believe in separation of church and state. I said that yes, I wish everyone could be Christian because I know that Jesus' teachings, etc., are right. However, religion is a personal choice and cannot be dictated by anyone or anything in my opinion. Of course, I'd like to see God left in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc., but if it gets voted out, then it gets voted out. You cannot force anyone to live according to any religious belief. The most you can do is cast your vote for what you feel is the right thing.

Interesting. Do you realize that you have contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you would not vote for anything "contrary to god's laws". Implicitly, what you are saying is that you would not vote for anything contrary to god's laws, even if it went against the Constitution, yet later you say that "you cannot force anyone to live according to any religious belief."

So, if the majority of Christians decided to amend a part of the Constitution that violated "god's laws", apparently you would have no problem with that.

Don't you see the contradiction in your words????

0 Replies

Consider 20th Century Taliban rule in Afghanistan compared to Christian rule in medeival Europe. Strip away technology, allow for geography, adjust for dogma, and there's damned little functional difference; an infidel beheaded in Kabul's soccer stadium is just as dead as a heretic burned at the stake in a cathedral's courtyard, and both are dead for and by much the same rationale. The primary functional difference is a few centuries.

0 Replies

Some of us have progressed. :wink:

0 Replies

I have explained how I feel and why. That is the best I can do. If you don't understand it then you don't understand it. I'm not asking you to agree with me. But, it's my honest answer to all your questions.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Some of us have progressed. :wink:

One would expect a few centuries would do that - of course, not all expectations are met.

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

I have explained how I feel and why.

OK, so you have acknowledged that your "take" on the subject is based on your subjective feelings. Now, do you think that you can look at the situation from an objective, rational viewpoint?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Consider 20th Century Taliban rule in Afghanistan compared to Christian rule in medeival Europe. Strip away technology, allow for geography, adjust for dogma, and there's damned little functional difference; an infidel beheaded in Kabul's soccer stadium is just as dead as a heretic burned at the stake in a cathedral's courtyard, and both are dead for and by much the same rationale. The primary functional difference is a few centuries.

The blame for religious atrocity falls not on God but on man.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Consider 20th Century Taliban rule in Afghanistan compared to Christian rule in medeival Europe. Strip away technology, allow for geography, adjust for dogma, and there's damned little functional difference; an infidel beheaded in Kabul's soccer stadium is just as dead as a heretic burned at the stake in a cathedral's courtyard, and both are dead for and by much the same rationale. The primary functional difference is a few centuries.

You are right on target!

0 Replies

Pun intended?

Laughing

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Arella Mae wrote:
I have explained how I feel and why.

OK, so you have acknowledged that your "take" on the subject is based on your subjective feelings. Now, do you think that you can look at the situation from an objective, rational viewpoint?

You know, I just love it when someone implies that I'm not being objective or rational. I just disagree with your point of view. End of story.

I don't mean to sound smart mouthed here Phoenix but I have told you how I feel and why. Now, if you consider it irrational and non objective then that is what you consider it.

0 Replies

AM has a big problem if she uses God's word/ commandments as her guide.

Deuteronomy mandates stoning for a wide variety of sins, ranging from a woman have premarital sex, to a child disobeying his parents, to a person eating ostrich. For each of these sins, and countless others, the sinner is to be placed in the public square, surrounded by townspeople who are to throw large rocks at the sinner's head and limbs and "stone him until he is dead."

Has AM ever stoned anybody to death?

0 Replies

CI, you are only helping to boil the pot over. Nothing constructive in your post..

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

AM has a big problem if she uses God's word/ commandments as her guide.

Deuteronomy mandates stoning for a wide variety of sins, ranging from a woman have premarital sex, to a child disobeying his parents, to a person eating ostrich. For each of these sins, and countless others, the sinner is to be placed in the public square, surrounded by townspeople who are to throw large rocks at the sinner's head and limbs and "stone him until he is dead."

Has AM ever stoned anybody to death?

You trying to start trouble or what? We've been through this about us not being under the Mosaic law. Now, this may be part of a discussion about the Bible but I am not having this discussion with you. CLICK!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Has AM ever stoned anybody to death?

I don't think that's a fair question, CI.

It isn't even possible to stone someone to death.

(Although I have stoned myself to sleep a few times!)

0 Replies

CI, you really should broaden your horizons and read more than the book of Deuteronomy in the bible. There is a whole lot more to it. Really.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

CI, you really should broaden your horizons and read more than the book of Deuteronomy in the bible. There is a whole lot more to it. Really.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

0 Replies

Just what part of the bible are you able to pick and choose which parts apply? Isn't the "whole" bible the word of god?

0 Replies

Any serious Christians left?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know