Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Unfortunately, by living in a society, you are inherently under the 'social contract' where you agree to give up your less valued rights to have the rights that you consider more important to be protected. One of the rights that you surrender is complete freedom of actions - you're bound by the laws of the society that you live in. Otherwise, I could make a law that says you should be shot, because you're an Ohio driver and Ohio drivers rammed the hell out of my car for the five years that I lived there. Who are you to tell me differently? You're arguing a case for moral relativism, which doesn't stand up to logical inspection at any level. Therefore, if you don't like laws prohibiting your behavior, feel free to vote accordingly or, if you feel that strongly about it, move elsewhere. This country was founded and based on Christian principles, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Actually I think the argument is that imposing laws on a society to protect people from each other is different than imposing personal religious beliefs on people to make them behave a certain way, whether or not it hurts anyone.
There is a difference, I hope you can see that.
I hope you see that that in no way contradicts what I said. Our society's laws are not all about protecting people from each other, nor are any of our laws imposing religious belief on anyone - that would, by definition, be unconstitutional.
The problem is he automatically assumed that the only reason anyone would disagree with his viewpoints is due to religion, which is not true. I can argue against abortion, assisted suicide, stem cell research, and so on using only science. In fact, I went to the library today and checked out a pretty good stack of books on the subject so I probably will soon.
Kerouactivist
Diamond Member
- Jul 12, 2001
- 4,665
- 0
- 76
Then stick your arm in and shake it all about. Didn't they teach you that back at the skating rink when you were 5?
Kerouactivist
Diamond Member
- Jul 12, 2001
- 4,665
- 0
- 76
untrue...Osama is from a distinct Islamic sect known as wahabism. Most muslims despies wahabis because they base their teachings on killing whoever does not follow their beleliefs.
Chrsitianinty as in the pure form that existed in Jesus's time has long ceased to exist.
hatim, that's what the post you are quoting is saying. ReiAyanami is saying that Osama does NOT represent mainstream Islam. And Jerry Falwell, the idiot, does not represent modern mainstream Christianity.
And any 'pure' form of religion (of any kind) is impossible, as time eventually neccessitates change and adaptation.
You're wrong about the President Daveshel.
He is doing alot of good for our country and trying his best to do God's will.
The republicans are doing more to help the little people by promoting policies where everyone is equal, not divided by class and race. Everyone can make it in America and stand on their own two feet. They won't if democrats regain power. Telling people they need handouts and special standards because they are not good enough to make it on their own or to qualify based on merits just keeps people from being inspired to succeed.
I believe what was being disputed, was the fact that you said that "Christ said rich people would not go to heaven" which is blantantly false. The Bible says it's "hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God" (NKJV, Luke 18:21). Two verses later, it says that with God, all things are possible. Hard != impossible, especially with God (if believe in Him, and if you don't, you have no right to speak on how God works).
Right. It's also possible that you can be a gay pedophile genocidal maniac and go to heaven. But did Jesus sanction such things? Hardly. In the same way, he was obviously against being wealthy. Nice try to weasel out of it though. :laugh:
I'm talking about what Jesus Christ did and said and what Paul wrote down. And since you assume I don't believe in God, I will assume you are a non-Christian who worships mammon and idols.
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Word.
Another thing I find problematic with Bush and those like him is the love your enemy / turn the other cheek thing. I remember when there was that special on how he responded to 9/11, the first thing he said to Cheney is, "someone's gonna' pay for this" or something to that nature. Not only was that immature, it was unchristian.
I don't understand why more protestants, who are supposed to read the actual bible a lot, don't see this. Also, are there any preachers that actually make this argument? It would be nice to hear a religious voice that wasn't in league with warmongers and their ilk.
Turning the other cheek on a personal level is not the same thing as letting a group of people terrorizing those you were elected to protect. I see nothing in the scriptures that would deny me the right from protecting my family with whatever means possible from those who intend on hurting them. You speak as though turning the other cheek implies that you should standby watching someone rape your wife and then offer your daughter. This is in no way, shape or form Biblical.
Now whether or not what Bush allegedly said was mature or unChristian-like, probably not. Does slipping up occasionally nullify someone's belief's altogether though? Certainly not! Everyone is a sinner from the day they're born until the day they die.
I'm not here to spout pro-Bush/conservative whatever, personally I'm more of libertarian than anything else. My view is that a government's responsibility is to protect the people, their rights, and provide some basic infrastructure. Free will is one of the greatest gifts God gave us, and if someone chooses to use that right in a manner non-destructive to someone elses rights, then they should be entitled to that (which by no means implies that I condone their actions). But what do I know, I'm just a Christian.
You're talking about two very different things. There is nothing inherently wrong with wealth and riches. It's the love of money that's the root of evil, not money in and of itself (I'll find the reference if you really want). It's the fact that people with money have the tendency to want more and more and use on material things. So much that the desire to accumulate wealth consumes them and their focus is on that. "Man can not serve two masters, for he will hate one and love the other" -Matt 6:24. In essence money becomes a persons 'god' and he then is serving that god instead of the true living God.
For the whatever person you described above. Those things are sins in and of themselves, whereas money is not.
I'm talking about what Jesus Christ did and said and what Paul wrote down. And since you assume I don't believe in God, I will assume you are a non-Christian who worships mammon and idols.
[/quote]I was just trying to cover in advance for the unbelieving person that usually chimes with something having to do with how God functions and what he thinks without having a clue as to what it's all about. Was not intending on pointing out anyone in particular about anything said previously (although I haven't read the entire thread).
Originally posted by: jaydee
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Word.
Another thing I find problematic with Bush and those like him is the love your enemy / turn the other cheek thing. I remember when there was that special on how he responded to 9/11, the first thing he said to Cheney is, "someone's gonna' pay for this" or something to that nature. Not only was that immature, it was unchristian.
I don't understand why more protestants, who are supposed to read the actual bible a lot, don't see this. Also, are there any preachers that actually make this argument? It would be nice to hear a religious voice that wasn't in league with warmongers and their ilk.
Loving your enemy and turning the other cheek are radical ideas. Do you really think that only was meant to apply with small offenses? I doubt it. The more serious the offense, the more serious the need to turn the other cheek. Remember, the meek shall inherit the earth. Jesus has radical ideas, and this was definitely one of them. Would most people turn the other cheek? No, would Jesus. yes. And your comparison is out of place. Bush was happy to attack people OTHER than those who "raped his wife": e.g., Iraq. And even if it was a rape your wife thing, let's face it, Jesus was a radical in his time. His ideas were radical. He might have prevented the rape (and that I'm not so sure of since he wasn't exactly fighting the Romans with violence), but he wouldn't have had anger in his heart. Sure people make mistakes. But Bush is so big on projecting his religiosity. He obviously pays little heed to the words of Jesus. A true Christian leader, or leader of most other faiths, would probably retialiate with measure but their hearts would not have anger in them. That's the main thing. By saying "somebody's gonna' pay" Bush really showed he has no care for true Christian values. Yes, Christians can sin and be forgiven. You could say a repeat rapist is a Christian who just keeps making mistakes. But there I say that rapist is not following the path of Jesus. In the sense he doesn't act Christian, he is not a Christian IMHO. Same goes for GWB. At what point is someone just giving lipservice? At what point am I going around lying that I am a christian and should not be called a christian anymore? I say GWB and many Americans are only giving lip service.
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: jaydee
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Word.
Another thing I find problematic with Bush and those like him is the love your enemy / turn the other cheek thing. I remember when there was that special on how he responded to 9/11, the first thing he said to Cheney is, "someone's gonna' pay for this" or something to that nature. Not only was that immature, it was unchristian.
I don't understand why more protestants, who are supposed to read the actual bible a lot, don't see this. Also, are there any preachers that actually make this argument? It would be nice to hear a religious voice that wasn't in league with warmongers and their ilk.
Loving your enemy and turning the other cheek are radical ideas. Do you really think that only was meant to apply with small offenses? I doubt it. The more serious the offense, the more serious the need to turn the other cheek. Remember, the meek shall inherit the earth. Jesus has radical ideas, and this was definitely one of them. Would most people turn the other cheek? No, would Jesus. yes. And your comparison is out of place. Bush was happy to attack people OTHER than those who "raped his wife": e.g., Iraq. And even if it was a rape your wife thing, let's face it, Jesus was a radical in his time. His ideas were radical. He might have prevented the rape (and that I'm not so sure of since he wasn't exactly fighting the Romans with violence), but he wouldn't have had anger in his heart. Sure people make mistakes. But Bush is so big on projecting his religiosity. He obviously pays little heed to the words of Jesus. A true Christian leader, or leader of most other faiths, would probably retialiate with measure but their hearts would not have anger in them. That's the main thing. By saying "somebody's gonna' pay" Bush really showed he has no care for true Christian values. Yes, Christians can sin and be forgiven. You could say a repeat rapist is a Christian who just keeps making mistakes. But there I say that rapist is not following the path of Jesus. In the sense he doesn't act Christian, he is not a Christian IMHO. Same goes for GWB. At what point is someone just giving lipservice? At what point am I going around lying that I am a christian and should not be called a christian anymore? I say GWB and many Americans are only giving lip service.
The seriousness of the offense is not the issue. It's the fact that the well-being of people other than yourself are involved. Jesus in the quoted verse is talking to an individual at a personal level. Translating that into an individual offering other people be taken advantage of or killed is completely nonsense. Whether or not GWB did the right thing is, for one, not my call and furthermore not the real issue here.
The meek shall inherit the earth, I will not dispute that.
Jesus absolutely was radical in his ideas, you will also not find me disputing that. The fact that no one can replicate what he did is perfect proof of that.
On Bush: again, I'm not here to defend him, his actions or what he says. But a Christian in general is expected to sin, everyone does. Saying that Bush "obviously pays little heed to the words of Jesus; has no care for true Christian value" is not something anyone other than God can do. "Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart". No one can accurately say what's going on in GWB's heart but God, which is why I will not judge him or any other specific person.
At what point is someone just giving lipservice? That's not my call or any other human's call and don't let anyone fool you otherwise. If you think GWB and many Americans are giving lipservice, well that's your opinion. I don't find it to be a very informed opinion (based on my previous sentence), but you are entitled to it nonetheless.
It's not religion in general that's the problem, it's the people perverting religions in most cases.
Similarly, it could be said that from a purely objective point of view, whenever people are murdered, guns are usually at the helm. While it seems true on the surface, the real problem is with the people behind them, not the guns themselves.
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
While that is true...
Guns are not designed to manipulate the behavior of the person that owns one.
Religion is designed from its conception as a control mechanism, and it is often used as a scapegoat for people to blame their decisions on.
Guns are not a reason people do things, just a tool by which to do them
Religion is often a motivating reason that people do things, sometimes WITH guns.
Well, I can't speak for all religions. After much studying of the Bible, I can confirm that Christianity is not designed to be a "control-mechanism", but a way to know our Creator better, find salvation through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and have a personal relationship with Him. Anyone who tells you differently about Christianity, is selling something else.
For a slightly more involved debate, I could argue that guns (more specifically, the power that a gun gives a person), can change a person (power corrupts), but that's not really the issue here, so you don't have to respond to that.
Religion is often a motivating reason that people do things with guns, I'll agree to that. I don't find it funny however, I find it unfortunate.
I'm done for the night, be back tomorrow.
Unfortunately for you, you're not the resident Bible expert. If you'd care to read the whole Gospel, you'd see that Jesus did, indeed, get angry and kicked people out of the temple, throwing all their tables over and whatnot.
For the last time, your judgment is not required for someone to hold themselves as Christian or otherwise, nor is it welcome
Exactly. As the huge guy in Happy Gilmore's shirt says "Guns don't kill people, I kill people!"
Religion is not a control mechanism in its essence. Those who are ignorant may be controlled by it, which is usually where you run into problems. Religion is meant to supply guidelines for people to live their lives by in a moral, upright way.
....as long as we just stop judging people.....if there is one thing i can't stand is people judging people....those people are all going to hell....damn people judgers.....that is so wrong....
LOL. I don't care if you want to hear my judgment, I'm gonna give it to you.
For the reasons given above, you ain't no Christian. Have arguments or more rhetoric about me being informed despite the fact you don't present any verse? Remember people, GWB and most so-called Christians are about as Christian as prostitutes are. Sure, they can be forgiven for worshipping mammon and being warmongers. So can the prostitute for selling herself. But do you generally look to prostitutes as examples of Christians or Christian leaders? That's how I feel about GWB and so many disciples of Paul. Have fun and thanks.
Your position is based on bigotry, not logic. I'll not attempt to argue logically to someone who refuses the value of logic.Originally posted by: Infohawk
LOL. I don't care if you want to hear my judgment, I'm gonna give it to you.
Remember people, GWB and most so-called Christians are about as Christian as prostitutes are. Sure, they can be forgiven for worshipping mammon and being warmongers. So can the prostitute for selling herself. But do you generally look to prostitutes as examples of Christians or Christian leaders? That's how I feel about GWB and so many disciples of Paul. Have fun and thanks.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter