The Last Homely House
General => Council of Cobra => Topic started by: Yanko Markovic on October 23, 2010, 08:53:14 PM
-
Have you guys seen this???
http://www.chimpout.com/forum/index.php (http://www.chimpout.com/forum/index.php)
I was friggin' blown away, in the bad sense. W-T-F.
-
This world is Rotten.
But you know
the saying:
'play with fire,
and you're
bound to get burned.'
-
Yeah, I hope other people will take this seriously.
-
Don't you just love it how those people take themselves seriously? They are pathetic in the true sense of the word. We should pity them, and ignore the things they say...since ignorance is the way they obviously are going...
-
Well, that makes a lot of sense! You know, I actually am aware that I shouldn't have even posted this in the first place, but the thing is, I'm a journalist, I just cannot help showing the other people the things that shock me.
-
Don't you just love it how those people take themselves seriously?
Most people do.
They are pathetic in the true sense of the word.
No they aren't. Pathetic comes from the Greek word 'pathetos' and means “one who has suffered, subject to suffering”. They are hardly suffering, just taking pot-shots at a race of people.
We should pity them, and ignore the things they say...since ignorance is the way they obviously are going...
Let's be morally superior, and feel sorry for these poor people who were obviously raped by their parents and now take it out on blacks. While we're at it let's ignore them, and make sure they notice that we don't even notice them. Also, let's enjoy how informed we are above these obvious ignoramuses and the obviously uninformed things they say.
Good luck with that. :up:
-
Great comment, it has made a lasting impact.... Wonder what your church has to say about how to deal with these people? Sigh, I shouldn't be tempted to even react. But some of your assumptions about enjoying being superior, people being raped, well, I thought they were far-stretched. But it could be just me....
-
Wonder what your church has to say about how to deal with these people?
Boosh! Really though, this stuff is kind of funny. Not the website, but the bigoted Christian who condemns hate speech against another race but use slurs against the homosexual community and adds callous, offensive statements about rape to previous inappropriate statements like chastising a new father for not being married or casually using the words like "gay" and "retarded."
Haven't we had the conversation before that if you are going to proclaim a religious affiliation you shouldn't be an embarrassment to it?
-wtk
-
Great comment, it has made a lasting impact.... Wonder what your church has to say about how to deal with these people? Sigh, I shouldn't be tempted to even react. But some of your assumptions about enjoying being superior, people being raped, well, I thought they were far-stretched. But it could be just me....
I apologize for that. It was completely unwarranted, but with the slightly self-righteous dismissive way you wrote all that I just couldn't resist picking it apart. No offense intended, and I certainly am not trying to support the racists. Don't get me wrong, I think racism is utter stupidity.
Wonder what your church has to say about how to deal with these people?
Boosh! Really though, this stuff is kind of funny. Not the website, but the bigoted Christian who condemns hate speech against another race but use slurs against the homosexual community... ...or casually using the words like "gay" and "retarded."
If it isn't the most offensive member of TLHH telling me I'm offensive. Wonders never cease...
I like how you try to slam me for having a double standard, and being a "bigoted Christian who condemns hate speech against another race but use slurs against the homosexual community." Homosexuals are perverts, and I will make no bones about that. Homosexuality is up there with bestiality and child molestation as far as sick, sexual obsessions go.
As for saying 'gay' too freely: I seem to remember that after you 'called me out' for doing that, you proceeded to drop words that would offend blacks, jews, mexicans, and plenty of other people groups. Check out this link (http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php?action=search2), type in 'gay', and hit 'search' if you think I'm the only person to use 'gay' in the pejorative sense and just use it because I'm a 'bigoted Christian'. As for me being insensitive to retards, cut the crap and read your own post right here (http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,2975.msg37915.html#msg37915).
...and adds callous, offensive statements about rape to previous inappropriate statements like chastising a new father for not being married
Haven't we had the conversation before that if you are going to proclaim a religious affiliation you shouldn't be an embarrassment to it?
-wtk
I believe in marriage before sex, not only for all of the moral reasons (which I'm sure you have no respect for, seeing as you openly admit to looking at porn) but also for the fact that parents that have made some sort of binding commitment to each other are much more likely to work towards a relationship that will guarantee their children a stable home.
How is all of that, which is in the Bible, an embarrassment to Christianity?
Awaiting your response...
-GT
-
I never claimed to live a life based on another's moral guidelines irrefutably or to be a beacon to the world of a perfect human capable of saving humanity. I never said I am a representative of a purportedly magic Jew who loved everyone. In fact, I think I have made it clear that I see no redeeming qualities in humanity and that every race, sexuality, culture, nationality, cognative faculty, gender, etc., is equally hopeless.
As it happens, publicly proclaiming anything puts a target on one's back if that person falls trap to a relative hypocrisy. That is Sunday School 101 and Real Life 101.
I think I am pretty good about calling people out for using the word "gay" if I happen upon the topic. And I think my quote with "words that would offend..." was "the word ' gay' is as offensive as '#$&*@!' or ' spick.' The topics trend to tangent then get deleted by TJ though.
The Bible also says to emulate Jesus, watch what you say, and love the sinner wile hating the sin. Then again, the Bible also says that Jesus cursed a fig tree, God killed children for calling Elijah "bald," and that if a group of guys want to rape a man, offer the man's hooker who will be raped repeatedly, left on a porch to die, cut into twelve pieces, and sent to the corners of Israel. I forgot the moral of that one.
Can't wait until TheJord gets his hands on this one.
-wtk
-
I never claimed to live a life based on another's moral guidelines irrefutably or to be a beacon to the world of a perfect human capable of saving humanity. I never said I am a representative of a purportedly magic Jew who loved everyone. In fact, I think I have made it clear that I see no redeeming qualities in humanity and that every race, sexuality, culture, nationality, cognative faculty, gender, etc., is equally hopeless.
So you're a cynical atheist then, eh?
-
My beliefs are irrelevant to the conversation. What does anything beyond the points I have raised have to do with the topic at hand.
-wtk
-
Just asking.
EDIT: Wait a cotton-picking-second-
Haven't we just been discussing my beliefs?
Are mine relevant to the conversation, but not yours?
EDIT#2: This whole argument should probably be moved or deleted.
-
Well, I brought your beliefs to the debate, since I saw in your profile that you have a link to your church. I never ment to be self-rightenous. I condemn racist behaviour, but I try to live by the last words of Christ when he said: forgive them, since they don't know what they are doing....ingnorance.....
And please Door Orc, don't be offended too easily. It is everyone's good right to question someone's beliefs, especially when that belief comes with high moral standards. Be glad people do, because the Bible self teaches us that God will hold us responsible for our actions..those who are trusted with much, will be hold responsible for much. Also, you cannot expect other to have understanding for your belief, as Paul self said that the message is foolisness. "Instead, God chose to save only those who believe the foolish message we preach." 1 Cor 1:21.
And, when you are questioned, if you are singled out, please keep in mind what Peter has written in his letter, first letter, 3 chapter: Honor Christ and let him be the Lord of your life.
Always be ready to give an answer when someone asks you about your hope.
16 Give a kind and respectful answer and keep your conscience clear
Well, so far my 2 cents....
-
Heh, I guess the thread title I put proved to be useless now... But I guess it's kind of inevitable with these topics.
Yeah, maybe this whole thing should be deleted, though, to be honest, I really like and value what Gil just said. Some great verses there and very good way of using them.
-
I believe in marriage before sex, not only for all of the moral reasons but also for the fact that parents that have made some sort of binding commitment to each other are much more likely to work towards a relationship that will guarantee their children a stable home.
This is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever read on these forums. If you ever said that in my presence in real life, I would probably punch you in the face.
-
Ok, ok, guys, clean up the act before I have to start cutting and shredding posts left and right. Seriously. Use the chat system, for God's sake, but keep certain opinions to yourself in a non-exclusive Forum, will ya? I mean, I've grown to respect other people's beliefs, and if GT wants to call homossexuals "perverts", well, there's nothing I can do about it, except hope he'll have a gay son or daughter someday to make him learn the hard way what we've learned the easy way. Other than that, I can't do a thing about his beliefs, and that's ok, but posts in this regard belong in religious Forums, not an open one where it's BOUND to stir up trouble. And the same goes for everyone else. It's ok to point out the fact that there's a Forum on the web doing such a stupid thing so we can discuss a bit, but refrain from stirring up trouble, will you?
-
As long as it stays civil and within the rules of the forum, feel free to continue. It would be nice to see more activity on here :-k
Opinions are like butts, everyone's got one and usually they stink. Not to say your opinions are valueless :hey:
-
I believe in marriage before sex, not only for all of the moral reasons but also for the fact that parents that have made some sort of binding commitment to each other are much more likely to work towards a relationship that will guarantee their children a stable home.
This is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever read on these forums. If you ever said that in my presence in real life, I would probably punch you in the face.
Not this kind of activity, though... Not an offensive post, of course, I very much doubt a Forumer is ACTUALLY threatening another, but it COULD prompt an equal-to-lower response, and so on, so forth, and next thing we know, we're so down low that we are worse than the Dallas Cowboys.
-
Fair enough. Of course I can't actually punch him... that is what I would like to do to people with such pinhead opinions though.. It's okay to this but not that. Haha. Religious propaganda/garbage in any form should not be preached here by anyone.
I have a child and am not married. Uh oh.. my child does not have committed parents. What a load of crap. Moronic at best.
-
Yeah, that means you're cursed, and of course, you can just save your money right now because they're not going to college, they'll be too busy in jail since they were raised by unmarried parents. But pedophilic PRIESTS are ok, though... :P LOL.
Totally agree with you, big time garbage.
-
Other than that, I can't do a thing about his beliefs, and that's ok, but posts in this regard belong in religious Forums, not an open one where it's BOUND to stir up trouble. And the same goes for everyone else. It's ok to point out the fact that there's a Forum on the web doing such a stupid thing so we can discuss a bit, but refrain from stirring up trouble, will you?
I don't agree with you, because the section where it is posted says clearly:
All kinds of discussion and discourse going on here. Got a topic that doesn't quite seem to fit elsewhere? Here's the place to post
I don't mind discussing religion, more over, I strongly recommend it. I do realize it is often rather pointless, since both sides often start to get blunt, and this discussion is a great example. I mean, you cannot hold all Christians responsible for pedophile priest, now can you Felipe? Or should we blame all Austrians to be Hitler? Who is to blame for unchristian pedophiles? Should we go to The Hague, accusing mankind for screwing up?
Again, when claiming to have high moral standards, you can be held responsible, and that is ok. If someone, being a christian or not, makes a point with which you cannot relate at any level, you may question that, you may find it dis picable, but keep the debate clean. If you find a statement rude, don't answer in a rude fashion. Otherwise you're doing the same you're accusing someone else of.
Being a christian doesn't mean you have all the answers. That is the reason I can relate to my quote from Tolkien which I have in my signature. I am in general cautious to say how things are, or what people should do, because I know that in my faith I am flawed, so I don't have all the answers.
I hate it that every time religion is brought to this forum, people can not discuss it in an orderly fashion. Not by some Christians, not by some non Christians... There are some adults here right?
-
Atheists resent hypocrisy to all the believers of all faiths, but mostly to Christians for the sole reason that Christianity is "the most popular" religion in the so called advanced societies and those same societies hold the most atheists as well.
I know more then a few Christians who really live by their faith and it's not a blind faith they have, but they really love and help and I'm always glad to know them as friends. I myself am baptised (I don't know the right word for pouring water over little children to free them from sin), but I declare myself as being an atheist or agnostic (haven't yet decided ;) ) and while I have no problem with people believing anything, I have a problem with Church and other similar political parties. Going to church, marriage, baptism and other ceremonies that have absolutely no connection with any god I have a problem with. It's just people finding a way to in some way control other people.
In Croatia, Christianity is the most popular religion and a lot of people are very close-minded about it. Our current president declares himself as an agnostic and did you know that the most popular search in google in Croatia during election was "what is agnostic?"? The main argument against him was that he's not Christian and whoever is not a Christian is a communist. I really can't believe that people are so scared of communists. This fear is most spread in United States, because US government has the most effective means of spreading and using it, but thanks to the internet and tv, it spread all across the world. People see it more noble to kill a communist than to help a dying man.
Huh... this felt good.
I had to get it out of my system and since such a nice opportunity presented itself here, I couldn't say no ;)
I'm in shortage of good debates here and even though most of these will serve no real purpose, I like debating. Mostly because of good insults one can throw anothers way. I love good insults ;)
INSULT ME, PLEASE! ;D
-
I like debating. Mostly because of good insults one can throw anothers way. I love good insults ;)
INSULT ME, PLEASE! ;D
I perhaps could do better than Ket, because saying you smell can hardly be an insult. But what is your point, Hrcho? I like debate too, but do we need to start a new topic by insulting you and debating the various insults? Or do you want to make a point, in regards to this topic, which essentially is racism, and debate that....OR, do you want to debate people being Christian, fine by me too, but then you have to insult me first, for otherwise we have nothing to debate about ;-)
-
oooo ket, you should start a thread where people can come and ask you for a good insulting....
for example, i'll be like:
Hey, ket, i need a good insulting today...
and then you'll say: Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!!!!!!
=P
-
But what is your point, Hrcho?
Heh, I totally forgot this topic was started because of racism. I just saw some people here were saying something and I wanted to say something about that something. ;) It seems I missed my guess about what that something is, but I don't care so long as I said something. SOMETHING!
I just tried to add my point of view to Troll Gate's and MuadDib's. They represent Christianity and Atheism respectively in their own way. I tried to add my 2 cents.
I really don't have much to say about racism, mostly because there is very little of it here as opposed to religious discrimination. I think very few people hate other people or want to harm them solely on their skin color. It's many other problems they have, but choose to ignore them because they have a lot of "niggers" to kill. Such people probably had very rough childhoods if they even had anything that could be called a childhood or like so many other people, they just need to belong somewhere and it doesn't matter where, so long as their need for belonging is fulfilled. If that group requires wearing pointy white hoods and hanging something they call niggers, so what?
Insults for the sole purpose of insulting can be fun, but not as fun as insults which try to make a point. I pretty much grew up in an environment where any problems were dealt with productive insults. Fun time that. :lol:
@ket: thanks for your efforts, but you're gonna need to do better than that to earn a cookie :gp:
-
I believe in marriage before sex, not only for all of the moral reasons but also for the fact that parents that have made some sort of binding commitment to each other are much more likely to work towards a relationship that will guarantee their children a stable home.
This is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever read on these forums. If you ever said that in my presence in real life, I would probably punch you in the face.
How open-minded of you.
-
Over forty, but less than fifty, percent of marriages in the US end in divorce. Zero percent of non-married couples divorce. That is my misleading fact to follow a stated opinion with no scientific evidence.
-wtk
-
Yes, but how many non-married couples separate, a process that is much easier because it entails no legal wranglings or any other sort of problem? Marriage is the glue that holds a family together. The entire purpose of marriage is to formalize a relationship. Certain responsibilities go with marriage, and they are much easier to ignore if you are not married. I have plenty of relatives who are proof of this.
My question is, if you plan to spend your entire life with someone and raise children together, why not formalize and legalize your relationship?
If you don't plan on it, why are you having kids?
-
Common law marriages are quite common and carry legal ramifications for splitting as well. In most states, living together as little as four years legalizes a common law marriages.
If I interpret your argument correctly, it is that without a Christian marriage, a child is effectively doomed to a worse existence than a married family? Why can't someone be a family without being married? And considering the costs of weddings in America--about $20K according to the American Bridal Association--why would someone want to financially bind a foundling family when that could be put toward a mortgage or education our other real-life expenses?
Word of advice, when your arguments are already drawn into question, using a "personal, family experience" will only further draw into question your qualifications toward making any statement. Beyond being completely unprovable (though maybe not untrue), it is not the foundation of a quality argument anyways. And apparently, we know plenty of non-married folks who have a solid foundation and great coexistence, right MuadDib?
-wtk
-
Yes, but how many non-married couples separate, a process that is much easier because it entails no legal wranglings or any other sort of problem? Marriage is the glue that holds a family together. The entire purpose of marriage is to formalize a relationship.
If the only thing keeping a couple together is a piece of paper and they wont separate because of the trouble, than that is a very bad thing. They will both live out the remainder of their lives (or at least until one of them dies) in misery. If a couple (married or otherwise) has issues they cannot overcome, then it is better for everyone (in many cases even for a child if there is one) that they go their separate ways.
My question is, if you plan to spend your entire life with someone and raise children together, why not formalize and legalize your relationship?
I find "Why not?" argument the worst of them all, if it can really be called an argument.
I agree that folks who choose to have kids (and today that is almost always a choice, due to an option called abortion, whether someone likes it, or not) then they should be committed to each other, but I really can't see any connection between marriage and commitment.
-
There is of course a connection between marriage and commitment, but as with all legal commitments it can go wrong. Obviously I believe in marriage being a sacret institution, a true commitment with witnesses that are obliged to help you keeping your promise. By making a legal commitment, imho, you underwrite the seriousness of the comitment. You intend to stay together for life. I mean, there is a reason you swear to tell the truth (so help me God), rather than "yeah, sure, I guess I won't lie"
Allthough all of that is beautiful, or rubbish if marriage is not your cup of tea, it is in no way a guarantee of a prosperous life together. It is as if married people are just humans. I see a few problems:
- people getting into a marriage because of the romantic feelings they have about it. When people get married in 5 month, I always have my doubts whether it will be a lasting commitment.
- people getting out of a marriage, when ever things are getting rough. As soon the bubble has bursted, play an escape.
- people thinking that marriage is the only way of commitment. I guess those people have trouble getting a real grasp of commitment.
Like I said, marriage is a symbol of true commitment, but without commitment, it is just an empty gesture.
-
i can't believe this thread is more active than the lothlorien section hehe
-
What can you say? Religion is a hot topic.
-
lol i just saw their veryyyyyyyy loooooooong posts and i didn't bother reading any hehehe
-
i felt left out so i thought i would contribute something. I found this in my sociology book (it's very applicable). The book is called SOC and was published in 2010 by Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Benefits of Cohabitation:
1 Couples have the emotional security of an intimate relationship outside immediate family.
2 Couples save money by sharing living expenses.
3 Couples discover how much they really care for one another when they have to cope with unpleasant realities.
4 Children in cohabiting house-holds reap some economic advantage from living with 2 adult earners as opposed to 1.
Costs of Cohabitation
1 Cohabitors enjoy less legal rights (inheretence if someone dies. It's also harder to collect child support.)
2 women in cohabiting relationships do more cooking than wives (Personally I think this one is VERY situational.)
3 people in cohabiting relations tend to have fewer problem-solving skills (IE patience)
4 Children who grow up in cohabiting homes lack role models for marital success because cohabitors don't always respect or communicate as they should.
-
I've just been reading this thread and am frankly stunned by the sheer volume of unashamed bigotry it contains.
-
Well, this is all fun and stuff, but... we DO agree, though, religion aside, that said site (the thread's original topic) IS asinine and the owners SHOULD be thrown in jail, right? (heck, if that site was hosted in my country, I'd have a word with a few Federal Prosecutors about it.
-
Agreed, religion included :lol:
-
Dude, what can I say... it's one of the most terrible things I've seen in the web. And I'm not talking about shocking bloody videos that circulate around, but true disgust that this is, everything on it (I mean, did you see their Haiti forum? D:).
-
Well, this is all fun and stuff, but... we DO agree, though, religion aside, that said site (the thread's original topic) IS asinine and the owners SHOULD be thrown in jail, right? (heck, if that site was hosted in my country, I'd have a word with a few Federal Prosecutors about it.
Thrown in jail for free speech? I abhor racisim, but free speech is a protected amendment right, at least in the states. As terrible as it sounds, hate speech is a form of protected speech. Now, having said that, just because something is free and protected doesn't make it morally right. Racism is never right. I didn't investigate super deep in the aforementioned website, (after seeing what the title of their forums were, I knew I didn't need to look any deeper) so unless they are hurting people (which would then make their actions hate crimes) no one is going to be thrown in jail for expressing their opinion in written form, at least not in the states.
-
Not to be condoning racism but, unfortunately, jdizzy is right which sucks cause I would have flown felipe up here to take care of things ;)
-
Well, this is all fun and stuff, but... we DO agree, though, religion aside, that said site (the thread's original topic) IS asinine and the owners SHOULD be thrown in jail, right? (heck, if that site was hosted in my country, I'd have a word with a few Federal Prosecutors about it.
jdizzy's comments about free speech aside, I would like to see these bastards get slammed for slander or libel. That site is so bad it makes Stormfront look good.
-
And stormfront is bad stuff indeed....
-
Well, this is all fun and stuff, but... we DO agree, though, religion aside, that said site (the thread's original topic) IS asinine and the owners SHOULD be thrown in jail, right? (heck, if that site was hosted in my country, I'd have a word with a few Federal Prosecutors about it.
Thrown in jail for free speech? I abhor racisim, but free speech is a protected amendment right, at least in the states. As terrible as it sounds, hate speech is a form of protected speech. Now, having said that, just because something is free and protected doesn't make it morally right. Racism is never right. I didn't investigate super deep in the aforementioned website, (after seeing what the title of their forums were, I knew I didn't need to look any deeper) so unless they are hurting people (which would then make their actions hate crimes) no one is going to be thrown in jail for expressing their opinion in written form, at least not in the states.
You can express opinions, but there is a fine line between expressing a dislike for black people and practicing racism (which are different things, since racism is a crime - US included, they signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the related treaties), and that site crosses it. Also, they're borderline incentivating crimes against black people, which is ANOTHER crime here (instigating one to commit a crime).
-
I believe in marriage before sex, not only for all of the moral reasons but also for the fact that parents that have made some sort of binding commitment to each other are much more likely to work towards a relationship that will guarantee their children a stable home.
This is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever read on these forums. If you ever said that in my presence in real life, I would probably punch you in the face.
How open-minded of you.
I think you have it backwards. It is your mind that needs opening.
You see, my mind is open enough to tolerate married people, unmarried people, gay people and everyone else.
What I don't tolerate are morons who judge other people based on religion, I think they/you all need a smack in the head or some re-education.
-
Well, this is all fun and stuff, but... we DO agree, though, religion aside, that said site (the thread's original topic) IS asinine and the owners SHOULD be thrown in jail, right? (heck, if that site was hosted in my country, I'd have a word with a few Federal Prosecutors about it.
Thrown in jail for free speech? I abhor racisim, but free speech is a protected amendment right, at least in the states. As terrible as it sounds, hate speech is a form of protected speech. Now, having said that, just because something is free and protected doesn't make it morally right. Racism is never right. I didn't investigate super deep in the aforementioned website, (after seeing what the title of their forums were, I knew I didn't need to look any deeper) so unless they are hurting people (which would then make their actions hate crimes) no one is going to be thrown in jail for expressing their opinion in written form, at least not in the states.
You can express opinions, but there is a fine line between expressing a dislike for black people and practicing racism (which are different things, since racism is a crime - US included, they signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the related treaties), and that site crosses it. Also, they're borderline incentivating crimes against black people, which is ANOTHER crime here (instigating one to commit a crime).
well, like i said, i didn't look too much into their website, so i have no comment to add, point taken. ;)
-
I believe in marriage before sex, not only for all of the moral reasons but also for the fact that parents that have made some sort of binding commitment to each other are much more likely to work towards a relationship that will guarantee their children a stable home.
This is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever read on these forums. If you ever said that in my presence in real life, I would probably punch you in the face.
How open-minded of you.
I think you have it backwards. It is your mind that needs opening.
You see, my mind is open enough to tolerate married people, unmarried people, gay people and everyone else.
What I don't tolerate are morons who judge other people based on religion, I think they/you all need a smack in the head or some re-education.
Tolerance implies control, and having a moral problem with being gay, or with sex outside of marriage does not mean I am acting to prevent others from such behavior, merely abstaining from such behavior myself.
You 'tolerate' certain things based on your beliefs, and believe everyone who does not 'tolerate' such things must not be 'tolerated' themselves.
The very ideas expressed by the word 'tolerance' are the twin principles of allowance and endorsement, from the position of a superior passing favorable judgment, and I am neither, and thus by my position I can not be said to tolerate such things.
Romans 1:27 forbids homosexuality, and there are multiple verses condemning sexual immorality, such as the whole of Leviticus 18.
As a Christian, I place my faith in the Bible, and anything contrary to it I can not endorse, and also cannot be said to tolerate such things.
Let me ask you two things regarding 'tolerance' (assuming tolerance is the correct term)
First, is it true 'tolerance' to only 'tolerate' things that you agree with, and believe that anyone who does not 'tolerate' those things should be physically abused, and sent to the gulag for 'reeducation'?
And second, why should I comprise my beliefs to fit your idea of tolerance?
-
Well, this is all fun and stuff, but... we DO agree, though, religion aside, that said site (the thread's original topic) IS asinine and the owners SHOULD be thrown in jail, right? (heck, if that site was hosted in my country, I'd have a word with a few Federal Prosecutors about it.
Thrown in jail for free speech? I abhor racisim, but free speech is a protected amendment right, at least in the states. As terrible as it sounds, hate speech is a form of protected speech. Now, having said that, just because something is free and protected doesn't make it morally right. Racism is never right. I didn't investigate super deep in the aforementioned website, (after seeing what the title of their forums were, I knew I didn't need to look any deeper) so unless they are hurting people (which would then make their actions hate crimes) no one is going to be thrown in jail for expressing their opinion in written form, at least not in the states.
You can express opinions, but there is a fine line between expressing a dislike for black people and practicing racism (which are different things, since racism is a crime - US included, they signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the related treaties), and that site crosses it. Also, they're borderline incentivating crimes against black people, which is ANOTHER crime here (instigating one to commit a crime).
well, like i said, i didn't look too much into their website, so i have no comment to add, point taken. ;)
I was under the impression that the US was not bound by international law.
-
At the risk of triple-posting I will say this:
It appears that this thread has taken on a dual life.
First, to discuss this ridiculous, racist website called 'Chimpout', and second, thanks to ket_the_jet, to bash me and be loudly intolerant of my views in the defense of progressive feel-good 'tolerance'. Whatever. I rather enjoy it, but would prefer the topic be split and the split portion be titled
"Bashing people we disagree with in the name of tolerance."
;)
Good day TLHHers, and yes, by the way, I just took the moral high ground. See ya!
-
...second, thanks to ket_the_jet, to bash me and be loudly intolerant of my views in the defense of progressive feel-good 'tolerance'.
I think I have been largely uninvolved in this discussion since you requested my response then didn't counter my argument. I don't care if it ends or keeps going, but it is worth noting that it was Heije who first called you on your comments.
-wtk
-
Gate Troll:
What I have a problem with is you thinking it's alright to publicly state that it's wrong to be gay or wrong to be unwed and have children. That's all. I am pointing out by stating this that you have a closed mind.
I know there are people like you in the world and usually I would just ignore such petty ignorance, perhaps when you're older you'll understand that it's not okay to say such things. I can only hope.
Anyway, enjoy the moral high ground. Haha.
-
It is my belief that I function on the premise that right and wrong do not exist outside of human perception. One person's idea of right is another person's idea of wrong. My grandad used to say, wisely I think, "You can change a man against his will, but he'll have the same opinion still".
-
Well, this is all fun and stuff, but... we DO agree, though, religion aside, that said site (the thread's original topic) IS asinine and the owners SHOULD be thrown in jail, right? (heck, if that site was hosted in my country, I'd have a word with a few Federal Prosecutors about it.
Thrown in jail for free speech? I abhor racisim, but free speech is a protected amendment right, at least in the states. As terrible as it sounds, hate speech is a form of protected speech. Now, having said that, just because something is free and protected doesn't make it morally right. Racism is never right. I didn't investigate super deep in the aforementioned website, (after seeing what the title of their forums were, I knew I didn't need to look any deeper) so unless they are hurting people (which would then make their actions hate crimes) no one is going to be thrown in jail for expressing their opinion in written form, at least not in the states.
You can express opinions, but there is a fine line between expressing a dislike for black people and practicing racism (which are different things, since racism is a crime - US included, they signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the related treaties), and that site crosses it. Also, they're borderline incentivating crimes against black people, which is ANOTHER crime here (instigating one to commit a crime).
well, like i said, i didn't look too much into their website, so i have no comment to add, point taken. ;)
I was under the impression that the US was not bound by international law.
They sure act as so. Problem with International Law is exactly this: there is no coercion. So, even though countries sign treaties left and right, bottom line is: if a country decides they're not abiding by that, what can you do? Not much. But yes, the US did sign the treaty, and are SUPPOSED to abide by it, although I give it to you almost every single country has SOME treaties they simply ignore, mine included.
-
It is my belief that right and wrong do not exist outside of human perception. One person's idea of right is another person's idea of wrong. My grandad used to say, wisely I think, "You can change a man against his will, but he'll have the same opinion still".
Do you think there is a universal ethics though? And do people have the right to correct one and other? Sincere curiousity here.....
-
It is my belief that right and wrong do not exist outside of human perception. One person's idea of right is another person's idea of wrong. My grandad used to say, wisely I think, "You can change a man against his will, but he'll have the same opinion still".
People may have different opinions, but does that mean that they are all right? If I believe that I will be given something, I can be either right or wrong, and others may have opinions on whether or not I will get that same thing, but only one person can be correct.
Is every opinion valid?
Is every opinion right?
-
The way I see it, there are exactly two options when it comes to Christianity.
Option 1: Bind your life to every word written in the Bible. Acknowledge that it is completely correct, infallible, and the way to live your life. Curse homosexuality as being immoral and an affront to God, deny women the right to have opinions (Timothy 2:11, among others), keep obedient slaves (several of Paul's epistles), and paint sticks and force sheep to look at them before copulating if we want to beat science and have striped ewes (late Genesis 30).
or:
Option 2: We can understand that the Bible is a fantastic moral guideline for society; however, as instructions are historically bound to a different time period and culture, some of the stories may not apply to modern life except when viewed as a historical case. The overarching themes of loving one's neighbor and living like Jesus are fantastic themes, but you don't have to be a circumcised Anglo-Saxon who washes every inch of his body every time he "spills his seed" and slaughters a goat every time he sins.
Of course, there is also Option 3: Neither of the above.
-wtk
-
but you don't have to be a circumcised n Anglo-Saxon who washes every inch of his body every time he "spills his seed" and slaughters a goat every time he sins.
I don't know if you think Christians must be circumcised or if they're sacrificing sheep around, but here's just a clarification. The Bible does not indicate that circumcision (and other "righteous" merits among men, for that matter) guarantees salvation, but rather a true belief that Jesus Christ died for you (Philippians 3:4-9).
Neither does animal sacrifice. Why do you even think Jesus died on that cross for? Why do you think he is called "The Lamb of God"? Animal sacrifice in the Old Testament (Exodus 24:8) was a way to picture, to foreshadow the ultimate sacrifice that was Jesus. After Jesus died, no animal sacrifice was needed again (Hebrews 9:9, 9:12). In the Old Testament, many animals had to be slaughtered in order to redeem sins. But when Jesus died on the cross, He was the only sacrifice needed in order to redeem the sins of everyone who believed in Him, back then, now, and in the future (Hebrews 10:12, 7:27, 9:28, 10:10, 10:14)
Again, I don't know whether you really think we're killing sheep around or if that was just a cynical taunt. But just so all people know, in Christianity (in the biblical sense), animal sacrifice is pointless, and (hope here's no Opus Dei member who might feel offended), also is self-flagellation. Only one sacrifice was needed to redeem our sins, and only a true faith and commitment to follow Jesus is needed to gain salvation.
-
not that this isn't interesting but it has gotten off-topic, a mod needs to split this thread
-
Gate Troll:
What I have a problem with is you thinking it's alright to publicly state that it's wrong to be gay or wrong to be unwed and have children. That's all. I am pointing out by stating this that you have a closed mind.
So I'm closed-minded for not sharing the same view that you do?
Fellow TLHHer's, what's wrong with this picture?
I know there are people like you in the world and usually I would just ignore such petty ignorance...
At least I'm trying to be humorous when I'm arrogant. You really have no excuse.
...perhaps when you're older you'll understand that it's not okay to say such things. I can only hope.
Is sex taboo again? Since when? Why aren't you more 'tolerant' and 'open-minded' of me 'saying such things'?
Anyway, enjoy the moral high ground. Haha.
I'm glad you're not taking my arrogance too seriously.
-
I respect (perhaps the word I should have used to begin with instead of tolerate) you as well as everyone else (including gay people and unwed parents). Which is the difference between us, you do not.
When I feel like my family is being put down in any way by anyone at any time especially by some arrogant, moronic kid I will make known that it doesn't impress me.
As I said, usually I don't comment on such (continued) pettiness and obviously shouldn't have bothered this time either.
No matter what other rubbish you come up with, this will be my last post in this thread.
-
Too bad, my whole post gone. Will respond later...
-
It is my belief that right and wrong do not exist outside of human perception. One person's idea of right is another person's idea of wrong.
I personally find this the most interesting, Kev-La, you don't think that there are at least some absolute rights and wrongs?
-
I am disappointed that you are not responding to my posts, !Gate Troll. I feel like you are masking your inability to create an original fact with a strong foundation with your "humorous arrogance." Unfortunately, that adds even less to the conversation than your misguided* thoughts.
I would still appreciate your rebuttal to this (http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,5809.msg62843.html#msg62843) and you must've just glanced over my more recent post here (http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,5809.msg63074.html#msg63074).
-wtk
*In my opinion.
-
...you don't think that there are at least some absolute rights and wrongs?
Such as? I don't think there is anything absolute in this world. It all pretty much depends on a given situation and perception of the given situation. While killing another person might be wrong in so many situations, it may be right in many others. "For the greater good" people like to say. You can now try to counter me with the fact that probably every "villain" that ever existed did bad things for the greater good and from their perception they did. You can't know if your perception of things is right or wrong until all is done and then it's too late.
Only one sacrifice was needed to redeem our sins, and only a true faith and commitment to follow Jesus is needed to gain salvation.
This is one of the biggest problems I have with Christianity. How can a god be good if IT dooms you from the start and makes you fight to be saved. I can accept the possibility of existence of a higher being, but I cannot accept that that higher being has anything to do with bible or any other man-made book. Do you really think your god is as cruel as that?
God: Here, man, have free will, do what you want, but you can only be saved if you do this, this and this and don't do this, this and this, otherwise, you're screwed.
-
Well, Ket, I try to respond now. I think you forgot 1 step. You linked the Bible to christianity. As you have pointed out, there are a lot of different opinions about the Bible. Imho the first step is whether you believe in an allmighty God. Otherwise the whole point of the Bible is lost. You can say the Bible has great moral, but there are plenty examples in which 'human' ethics are no where to be found. Manslaugther, and so on and so forth.
However, if you believe in an allmighty God, I think there is a part surrender. If I start to cut in the bible, and only believe those parts I can accept, how fake is that? I am creating my own God, but the whole point is that I believe in somerthing bigger than me. Something I can not comprehend, but is needed for salvation. Narrow minded? Well....maybe more open minded than anything else ;)
That said, I want to emphasize the thing that there is a lot I don't comprehend, I cannot grasp. The whole debate, whether going on for ages, or in your own circle of trustees, about the Bible, as well as the points well highlighted by you Ket, shows me that a certain amount of modesty is in order.
Yet I do believe some 'basic-principals' if you will, can be drawn from the Bible.
- God has a good future in mind for us people
- Jesus taught that those who call them selves christian, should be like God
- Hence we should look after one and other, since that is what God did
- Hence we should serve one and other, because that is what Jesus did
- Hence we should be modest, because Jesus was modest in every aspect of his live
- Hence we should be very reluctant to judge, because the judgement is not ours.....
My 2 cents, for biblical support of the 'principals' just pm me....
-
I don't disagree with the points you raise Gil. But I don't think you addressed mine. If you report that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, then I would think that you also have to believe that a woman shouldn't have the right to vote and should be bound to her household or that there is no moral problem with slavery as long as you treat your slave well.
-wtk
-
Point well made, but what I wanted to say is that especially those subjects are subject of a lot of debate. What is cultural bound, what is lasting, in the 'natural order', and what is timebound...values have the tendency to change due to place and time.
What is God given, and what is for example Paul's own opinion? In Corinthians 7 Paul clearly stated he has no Godly commandment and thus he gives his own opinion.
-
Has any of you ever questioned the actual existence of Jesus Christ? I found a very good article (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html) about that question and I suggest reading it. The guy who wrote it was quite objective, even though it's obvious which side he takes.
The article is a bit lengthy, but I liked it.
-
As a person, I believe the is historical evidence of his existence, is there not? However, I, for one, do not believe he was the son of God and that he in fact did miracles. I believe he may have had a very advanced mind for the time in which he was born, and that led people to perceive him as something different and could explain some of his miracles as "tricks" (needed to get their attention). Also, he may have had the ability to tap into the potential most human beings can't use, which could explain some of the OTHER miracles. Also, I find it rather funny that HE was the son of God, but we are all also sons of God (by the same Book, I might add), so he's nothing special for having died for our sins (or, to say, in the name of Religion). For this matter, for instance, a while back a stupid pries from my country decided to make an interstate trip sitting on a chair attached to baloons, as a faith thing. Needless to say, he was found more than a month later, dead. Since he died for his Religion (doing religious work), I suppose he is Jesus Christ reborn, being a son of God and all that.
As a final note, an explanation on the expression "trick" I used above: I'm not saying Jesus might have used tricks to fool people and take advantage of them, but sometimes, you need a visual component to make words really sink in. For instance, in Brasil, while rare, we have homicide cases where no body was found (the law states that if the evidence is irrefutable, it's ok to start investigations, and if the investigation finds something, like a prime suspect, he can at least be prosecuted). However, because of that, sometimes our authorities go a little too far with that, and we end up havin a Jury judging someone based on the slight piece of evidence. Even though, people on jury duty are drawn from every segment of society, and as so, they are not familiar with legal implications, terms and have no depth in it. A common practice, in these cases, is for the defese attorney to actually state that "Not only there is no body, but said 'victim' is entering through those doors right now!" (or something to this effect). Then, after a moment of awkward silence, he proceeds to say "See, even you, from the Jury, looked to see if he was in fact coming in, which goes to prove that there is no certainty that there even was a crime in the first place!" Believe it or not, it works a fair amount of time, when the evidence is, in fact, feeble. He's not taking advantage of people, but rather using a trick to stress a point that really matters, when words do not seem to do the trick alone.
-
I am disappointed that you are not responding to my posts, !Gate Troll. I feel like you are masking your inability to create an original fact with a strong foundation with your "humorous arrogance." Unfortunately, that adds even less to the conversation than your misguided* thoughts.
*In my opinion.
Forgive me ket, but I've been waging several debates here, and I'll try to make a good rebuttal.
I will warn you that Rule #11 is quite true (http://www.rulesoftheinternet.com/index.php5?title=Main_Page), and despite all of my attempts to convey my position to MuadDib, he just ducks my points and flings insults. That 'battle' seems !hopeless, and doomed to degenerate into name-calling, so I'll attempt to address your points only from hereon out.
I would still appreciate your rebuttal to this...
The Bible also says to emulate Jesus, watch what you say, and love the sinner wile hating the sin. Then again, the Bible also says that Jesus cursed a fig tree, God killed children for calling Elijah "bald," and that if a group of guys want to rape a man, offer the man's hooker who will be raped repeatedly, left on a porch to die, cut into twelve pieces, and sent to the corners of Israel. I forgot the moral of that one.
Can't wait until TheJord gets his hands on this one.
-wtk
Certainly. I will admit it's a weakness of mine to use words too freely, and guarding my mouth is something I do put effort into.
That said, I find it strange how you see my condemnation of racist slurs and use of the word 'gay 'in a pejorative sense to be hypocritical.
I, however do not afford the same respect to a race of people and a group of people with a certain sexual orientation. I'm not gay-bashing, and I haven't once called them f*gs or any other such slur, and I do not have an irrational fear of same-sex couples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia), I simply find acceptance of their lifestyle at odds with what I believe.
As for 'God killing children for calling Elijah bald', I believe they were yelling 'Old Baldhead'! at him and trying to stone him, and they were not children, but youths.
Not sure about your last example, I will have to research that one.
...and you must've just glanced over my more recent post here:
The way I see it, there are exactly two options when it comes to Christianity.
Option 1: Bind your life to every word written in the Bible. Acknowledge that it is completely correct, infallible, and the way to live your life. Curse homosexuality as being immoral and an affront to God, deny women the right to have opinions (Timothy 2:11, among others), keep obedient slaves (several of Paul's epistles), and paint sticks and force sheep to look at them before copulating if we want to beat science and have striped ewes (late Genesis 30).
or:
Option 2: We can understand that the Bible is a fantastic moral guideline for society; however, as instructions are historically bound to a different time period and culture, some of the stories may not apply to modern life except when viewed as a historical case. The overarching themes of loving one's neighbor and living like Jesus are fantastic themes, but you don't have to be a circumcised Anglo-Saxon who washes every inch of his body every time he "spills his seed" and slaughters a goat every time he sins.
Of course, there is also Option 3: Neither of the above.
-wtk
Yes, though my question that proceeded your post was actually addressed to Kev'La.
Both #1 and #2 are not options I would choose. I am not sufficiently verbose to outline my position well, but I will say that both 'choices' only cover the letter of the law, and say nothing about the law's spirit. The Bible doesn't say that you should 'Bind your life to every word written in the Bible. Acknowledge that it is completely correct, infallible, and the way to live your life.' in order to be saved, it says 'Believe in Christ, and honor him as LORD and savior, and you shall be saved.' The Bible is not one document but a collection of 66 books, with the Old Testament mainly made up of histories, such as Kings I and II, and collections of the Israelite Law, such as Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The New Testament details the life of Christ as well as the Apostles, and contains many of their letters and writings. Christ said many times that having strict laws for their own sake alone was pointless, and condemned the Pharisees for their self-righteousness. Jesus is the fulfillment of the old law, and many of the old laws, such as not eating 'unclean animals' were revoked after his coming. I believe Paul did not instruct masters to keep slaves, but instead instructed slaves to obey their masters. Your second example seems to entail rejecting the Bible's key principles altogether and simply enjoying the morals found in the stories.
Here's the options ket gives Christians:
#1: Keep outdated Israelite law in direct violation of what Jesus said, and twist the Bible in strange ways,
or,
#2: Acknowledge that its all outdated anyway, and simple enjoy the nice generic morals to be found in some of the stories.
or
#3: Become an Atheist or Agnostic.
Might I suggest option #4?
#4: Accept Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior and believe in him alone for salvation, love your neighbor, treat your wife and children with fairness. Obey the spirit of the Old Testament Law and obey the laws of your country while doing your utmost to follow the Golden Rule and Ten Commandments and lead a life glorifying to YHWH. Spread the gospel, share Jesus' message, and do your best to mirror Christ's example in your life.
-
That said, I implore a mod to split this thread several ways.
This thread now entails:
A discussion of a racist website,
Discussion of possible hypocrisy in GT's beliefs.
Christianity in General, and
Christ's Existence
-
Yeah, I'm having a bit of trouble trying to break it down. I will, though.
-
Yeah, I'm having a bit of trouble trying to break it down. I will, though.
Why not leave it as it is? I think it will be much easier for everyone who wants to keep on discussing. Breaking will most probably end it altogether.
-
Do you think there is a universal ethics though? And do people have the right to correct one and other? Sincere curiousity here.....
I believe that there might be a universal ethics code, but I do not know whether or not there definitely is. I would first need a reason to have belief (as opposed to my current state of neither belief nor disbelief) in a supreme being who determines such things. With this in mind, I function on the basis of what I do feel I know: that the ideas of good and evil exist within the realm of individual human perception.
And yes, I do believe that any given person has the right to correct any other given person. I just don't believe that either person is somehow fundamentally correct. In other words, I think that arguing is all fine and dandy (as well as unavoidable), but brings no one closer to being truly "good", "right" or "correct".
Thank you, most sincerely, for your sincere curiosity, Gil-Estel.
-
People may have different opinions, but does that mean that they are all right?
In my opinion, no it does not.
If I believe that I will be given something, I can be either right or wrong and others may have opinions on whether or not I will get that same thing, but only one person can be correct.
For me, the "right", "wrong" and "correct" in the above statement are decided upon by a person or persons, who may themselves be called "right", "wrong" or "correct" by another person or persons. Which person or group is fundamentally right, wrong or correct? I do not know, and believe in the philosophical principle that no-one can be sure, though they might think they are.
Is every opinion valid?
I reckon so, yes.
Is every opinion right?
I work on the assumption that no opinion is right (if that's "right" meaning "right in the eyes of God" or "an ultimate, universal truth" or similar).
-
I personally find this the most interesting, Kev-La, you don't think that there are at least some absolute rights and wrongs?
To be precise, I believe I have no way of determining whether or not there are any absolute rights and wrongs, and so, in everyday life, I assume there are not any absolute rights and wrongs. However, if I am called upon to judge as to what I myself agree with or disagree with (eg. whether it would be right or wrong for me to do something), that is another matter.
In general, this kind of philosophical standpoint can seem to have little practical impact. However, I feel the importance of my own such standpoint every time I see an argument between people boiling down to "You're wrong!", "No, you're wrong!", "NO! You're wrong!", "NO, I'M NOT! You're the one who is wrong!!!" etc. etc. ad nauseum.
-
...you don't think that there are at least some absolute rights and wrongs?
Such as? I don't think there is anything absolute in this world. It all pretty much depends on a given situation and perception of the given situation. While killing another person might be wrong in so many situations, it may be right in many others. "For the greater good" people like to say. You can now try to counter me with the fact that probably every "villain" that ever existed did bad things for the greater good and from their perception they did. You can't know if your perception of things is right or wrong until all is done and then it's too late.
From what I understand, you're saying that in any given moment, it is nigh impossible to make a claim that something is right or wrong, and in most cases I would agree, but in the future I would be able to say with certainty that Hitler's genocide of the jews was evil, and I would be correct in my claim?
I personally find this the most interesting, Kev-La, you don't think that there are at least some absolute rights and wrongs?
To be precise, I believe I have no way of determining whether or not there are any absolute rights and wrongs, and so, in everyday life, I assume there are not any absolute rights and wrongs. However, if I am called upon to judge as to what I myself agree with or disagree with (eg. whether it would be right or wrong for me to do something), that is another matter.
In general, this kind of philosophical standpoint can seem to have little practical impact. However, I feel the importance of my own such standpoint every time I see an argument between people boiling down to "You're wrong!", "No, you're wrong!", "NO! You're wrong!", "NO, I'M NOT! You're the one who is wrong!!!" etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Ok I would agree that we live in the gray in our everyday lives, but I would still believe that there are absolute standards, for example would you agree that in all cases stealing is wrong? What about rape? Premeditated murder? I would hope that you would consider all of those wrong.
I'm not trying to argue with either of you per-se, I am just curious about your guys' worldviews.
-
Ok I would agree that we live in the gray in our everyday lives, but I would still believe that there are absolute standards, for example would you agree that in all cases stealing is wrong? What about rape? Premeditated murder? I would hope that you would consider all of those wrong.
I'm not trying to argue with either of you per-se, I am just curious about your guys' worldviews.
Well, it's a culture thing, really. I can't EVER see rape as not-wrong, but some cultures do (it IS ok to force you chosen wife to have sex with you in some arab cultures, for instance), and even the women in such cultures do not think it's wrong. So yeah, I need their help in this one. However, both other ones I can see. I'd probably have taken a shot at Hitler, for instance, had I had the chance. And as for stealing, I have actually seen people stealing back in my school days, and I more than once "stole back" the item and put it back. Yes, it wasn't wrong, but it was still stealing by its very own definition, since I didn't have the authority to do that, and I did that in secrecy, without alerting the burglar, so I WAS "stealing" from him.
-
...you don't think that there are at least some absolute rights and wrongs?
Such as? I don't think there is anything absolute in this world. It all pretty much depends on a given situation and perception of the given situation. While killing another person might be wrong in so many situations, it may be right in many others. "For the greater good" people like to say. You can now try to counter me with the fact that probably every "villain" that ever existed did bad things for the greater good and from their perception they did. You can't know if your perception of things is right or wrong until all is done and then it's too late.
From what I understand, you're saying that in any given moment, it is nigh impossible to make a claim that something is right or wrong, and in most cases I would agree, but in the future I would be able to say with certainty that Hitler's genocide of the jews was evil, and I would be correct in my claim?
History is written by the winning side. Hitle lost, but I'm pretty such you can find north-americans that STILL believe indian tribes were dire and they HAD to "defend themselves", thus killing them, back in the era of the gold rush. They "won", so it only stands to reason that the facts depict THEIR view of it. Had Hitler won, those affected by him would consider him evil, but the rest probably wouldn't until, say, 15-20 years ago? Which is when the world as a whole decided to grow a universal conscience about human rights? Yeah, probably so. My grandfather was a general back in the 60's, when Brasil was under a military-coup-installed-government, and he still thinks they did a great job and were, in fact, the best thing that ever happened to Brasil, despite the fact that the great majority of people disagree (specially AFTER they were removed from government, or "lost").
-
From what I understand, you're saying that in any given moment, it is nigh impossible to make a claim that something is right or wrong, and in most cases I would agree, but in the future I would be able to say with certainty that Hitler's genocide of the jews was evil, and I would be correct in my claim?
Pretty much, yes. You can in any given situation say that something is right or wrong, but that is right/wrong from your perspective. For something to be absolutely right/wrong, it must be the right/wrong thing to do in absolutely any situation that can possibly happen. So while there may be such a thing, I think it's pretty impossible to imagine every possible situation and thus pretty impossible to declare something absolutely right/wrong.
I too really can't think of a situation where rape would be the "right thing to do", but as Felipe said, both stealing and murder can be that right thing, again depending on the situation.
Were a person starving and stealing food being the only thing to keep him/her from dying, I'd say that's the right thing so long as he/she doesn't steal from someone equally starving.
-
For me, the only way for 'good' or 'evil' to exist as anything other than as labels we humans attach to things on the basis of whether or not we personally like them, would be for there to be a Supreme Being, such as Allah, God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who created the universe as well as the ultimate ethical code by which all of us in it are Judged by He/She/It.
I have no reason to either believe or disbelieve in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, God, Allah or any other Supreme Being, and so I have no reason to believe or disbelieve in 'good' or 'evil' existing as anything other than labels we humans attach to things on the basis of whether or not we personally like them.
I don't like what I label as rape. I don't like what I label as tyranny. I don't like what I label as racism. If I found the label useful, I suppose I might label these things as 'evil'. But I don't find the label useful. And I would never label anything as 'Evil' with a capital 'E'.
I, like everyone, have opinions. And I, like all true agnostics, function on the basis that my opinions are not proveably more or less than my opinions.
-
I know this is already kind of old news here, but I can't resist throwing my 2 :gp: in.
The way I see it, there are exactly two options when it comes to Christianity.
Here's your problem right here. You are someone unable to comprehend that people could approach a complicated religion based around a huge book with numerous translations from only 2 sides. I mean, haven't you heard of Catholics and Protestants? That is 2 right there. And what about Anglicans, Episcopalians, evangelicals, baptist etc. etc. etc. YOu've essentially got one massive either-or fallacy all over this entire post.
After showing why I don't really need to go over the rest of your post, I still will, because hey, I can :P
Option 1: Bind your life to every word written in the Bible. Acknowledge that it is completely correct, infallible, and the way to live your life. Curse homosexuality as being immoral and an affront to God, deny women the right to have opinions (Timothy 2:11, among others), keep obedient slaves (several of Paul's epistles), and paint sticks and force sheep to look at them before copulating if we want to beat science and have striped ewes (late Genesis 30).
I wonder if you have actually read the bible, or just scene snippets from cynical articles by cardboard atheists about why all Christians are bigoted ignorant pricks.
They are several types of commandments in the Bible, you've got your laws good for all time ( Ten Commandments basically) the law for the people of Israel, which mostly is no longer required For Christians (see the second half of acts 10 as an example) Gate Troll can correct me on this if I am wrong, but the way I see it is We are basically supposed to follow the commandments in the New Testament, but we have freedom to view them in a cultural fashion.
or:
Option 2: We can understand that the Bible is a fantastic moral guideline for society; however, as instructions are historically bound to a different time period and culture, some of the stories may not apply to modern life except when viewed as a historical case. The overarching themes of loving one's neighbor and living like Jesus are fantastic themes, but you don't have to be a circumcised Anglo-Saxon who washes every inch of his body every time he "spills his seed" and slaughters a goat every time he sins.
Yeah this is pretty much what most Christians do actually, I mean we take Jesus' commandments as more than overarching themes, and Jesus is our Lord and Savior, not just a Ghandhi like figure to emulate, but this is actually decently close. I'm mildly surprised.
And because I'm in a debating mood I'll throw out my opinion on homosexuality and premarital sex.
I would have to say I think both are wrong, but I think homosexuality is more wrong in that it is a affliction that has come about because of sin. I don't know what the answer is to it, but I do think that homosexual marriage should probably be allowed in the US, as unfortunately the government has gotten involved in marriage in the first place.
as for the second one, again I think its generally a poor idea, especially with all the predatory males out there who will manipulate women just to sleep with them, but I think in the cases of cohabitation, if two people want to be married, and act as though they are married but do not want to actually get a marriage license, I think I'm ok with that.
-
I think homosexuality is more wrong in that it is a affliction that has come about because of sin.
I, unlike many people who declare themselves as Christians, have read The Bible. More than once, actually. In my reading, I found exactly zero sentences or passages in which God condemns homosexuality. So, I'm asking you, where from do you take your stand that homosexuality comes from sin and thus is in itself a sin?
-
Here's your problem right here. You are someone unable to comprehend that people could approach a complicated religion based around a huge book with numerous translations from only 2 sides.
No, I think that is the problem. A whole lot of people make something that is obvious and simple and they complicate it themselves. Did God create Catholicism? Protestantism? If you want to beat around the bush you can say that he did through man but the point is that #$&*@! people invented those things. For what it is worth, I consider myself quite versed in your Bible and many other religious texts from various religions. The Qur'an, the Torah, the Apocryphal Bible, the Book of Mormon...to name a few of the "Western" religions of Middle Eastern decent (sorry if we have Muslim members on the boards who resent that, but I'm not going to draw in Asian religion to this conversation) all draw upon the same group of principles for the most part. I think, sickofpalantirs, that you attempting to complicate a message of universal understanding and living in a "Christ-like" fashion, is exactly what the founders of religious sects have done.
I mean why, with the exception that humans are an imperfect and ghastly creature anyways, could a group of men take the same book and come up with around forty specific sects of Christianity? It's the same book right (for the most part).
After showing why I don't really need to go over the rest of your post, I still will, because hey, I can
I think you showed why John Lennon said, "Jesus was alright; it was his disciples who were bland and ordinary." Is it okay to dish two slights at the same time? Can I say, "Why don't you grab a robe, you Pharisee?"
I wonder if you have actually read the bible, or just scene snippets from cynical articles by cardboard atheists about why all Christians are bigoted ignorant pricks.
As it happens, I don't think Christians are any more bigoted and ignorant than most other religions. If anything, atheism to me is funny. If you choose not to believe in God, big "who cares?" to that, in my opinion.
Yeah this is pretty much what most Christians do actually, I mean we take Jesus' commandments as more than overarching themes, and Jesus is our Lord and Savior, not just a Ghandhi like figure to emulate, but this is actually decently close. I'm mildly surprised.
My point with option two is that Christianity picks and chooses the commandments that are convenient. I don't know of a Catholic church that says that women aren't allowed to speak in the church; however, according to your New Testament directives that is "godly." From a convenience standpoint, I don't even know how saying homosexuality is wrong works. Romans 1:26-27 refers to homosexuality as, and I roughly translate, "shameful lust." But the Bible also refers to almost all unmarried sex in the same manner.
Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 absolves homosexuality, among a great list of other "sins," saying that sinners were "justified" in the eyes of God thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Looking at a person in lust is a sin just as carrying out the act. So I does homosexuality fall into "archaic Israeli law that doesn't fit into modern times" or "sin absolved by God through the blood of Jesus Christ?"
As for 'God killing children for calling Elijah bald', I believe they were yelling 'Old Baldhead'! at him and trying to stone him, and they were not children, but youths.
Can you cite the translation that says the "youths" were trying to stone him? On record, KJV refers to them as "little children" and the Douay-Rheims Bible refers to them as "young boys." The end result of God sending two female bears to kill 42 of them remains the same.
Not sure about your last example, I will have to research that one.
Judges 19 tells the story in pretty shocking detail.
I don't know what the answer is to it, but I do think that homosexual marriage should probably be allowed in the US, as unfortunately the government has gotten involved in marriage in the first place.
As long as separation of church and state exists (which is a joke in the US anyways), it should be allowed. That case is closed.
-wtk
-
I think I inadvertently answered hrcho's question as well.
-wtk
-
There are at least 3 parts in the bible that deal with sex with someone of the same gender.
- Lev. 18:22
- Lev. 20:13
- Rom. 1:27
There is some debate about these verses, since they all deal with pure sexuality. But I like to point out that the title of the part in Romans is: all are guilty. So that is something that should be underlined. In Christianity all are guilty, not 'just' the homosexuals.
Guilty means that things are not going the way God intended them. And since we are debating right or wrong here, Christians choose to adapt to God's moral, so they will follow that. But...there is a but. We should be concerned with our own life's first. We should not judge others, we should not forget that 1 sin is not worse than another.
It is hard to point out a small part of Christianity, and bypassing the whole of Christianity. For instance, Hrcho, you raised questions about free will. That has all to do with opinions about homosexuality, about morals, and about sin as well. What is sin? Sin is that things are not going according to God's plan. He started with men with a clear plan. There should be a relation between him and people. The free will was about life with God, with all the consequences, and life without him, also with all the consequences.
That is in basics christian faith. But then again, it is not logic's, it is faith. ;).....
-
No, I think that is the problem. A whole lot of people make something that is obvious and simple and they complicate it themselves. Did God create Catholicism? Protestantism? If you want to beat around the bush you can say that he did through man but the point is that #$&*@! people invented those things. For what it is worth, I consider myself quite versed in your Bible and many other religious texts from various religions. The Qur'an, the Torah, the Apocryphal Bible, the Book of Mormon...to name a few of the "Western" religions of Middle Eastern decent (sorry if we have Muslim members on the boards who resent that, but I'm not going to draw in Asian religion to this conversation) all draw upon the same group of principles for the most part. I think, sickofpalantirs, that you attempting to complicate a message of universal understanding and living in a "Christ-like" fashion, is exactly what the founders of religious sects have done.
Of course the Torah draws on the Bible, it's in the bible. Actually Gate troll pretty much covered this last page I'll quote
#1: Keep outdated Israelite law in direct violation of what Jesus said, and twist the Bible in strange ways,
or,
#2: Acknowledge that its all outdated anyway, and simple enjoy the nice generic morals to be found in some of the stories.
these are the options you think are ok to give to Christians.
I mean why, with the exception that humans are an imperfect and ghastly creature anyways, could a group of men take the same book and come up with around forty specific sects of Christianity? It's the same book right (for the most part).[/quote]
After showing why I don't really need to go over the rest of your post, I still will, because hey, I can
I think you showed why John Lennon said, "Jesus was alright; it was his disciples who were bland and ordinary." Is it okay to dish two slights at the same time? Can I say, "Why don't you grab a robe, you Pharisee?"
Sure. Doesn't mean it will mean anything though. Your attempted insult (If that was what is was) has gone over my tired head ;)
My point with option two is that Christianity picks and chooses the commandments that are convenient. I don't know of a Catholic church that says that women aren't allowed to speak in the church; however, according to your New Testament directives that is "godly." From a convenience standpoint, I don't even know how saying homosexuality is wrong works. Romans 1:26-27 refers to homosexuality as, and I roughly translate, "shameful lust." But the Bible also refers to almost all unmarried sex in the same manner.
we don't pick and choose, we carefully look at the cultural impetus at the time, as well as other verses for context. The second part of your argument is that since the bible declares all shameful lusts, not just homosexual ones to be wrong, than homosexual ones are right. That doesn't work. I agree that all shameful lusts are wrong. Including homosexual ones.
Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 absolves homosexuality, among a great list of other "sins," saying that sinners were "justified" in the eyes of God thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Looking at a person in lust is a sin just as carrying out the act. So I does homosexuality fall into "archaic Israeli law that doesn't fit into modern times" or "sin absolved by God through the blood of Jesus Christ?"
Were justified being the imperative word. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (New International Version)
"9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. "
were, as in did do this sin before they became Christians and were justified and stopped sinning.
As for 'God killing children for calling Elijah bald', I believe they were yelling 'Old Baldhead'! at him and trying to stone him, and they were not children, but youths.
Can you cite the translation that says the "youths" were trying to stone him? On record, KJV refers to them as "little children" and the Douay-Rheims Bible refers to them as "young boys." The end result of God sending two female bears to kill 42 of them remains the same.[/quote]
If you do research into the language, you would discover that a better translation would be young men. For what its worth.
Judges 19 tells the story in pretty shocking detail.
And you do realize that Israel went to war over the whole affair and pretty much wiped out the offending tribe? They definitely took hospitality seriously :P
I don't know what the answer is to it, but I do think that homosexual marriage should probably be allowed in the US, as unfortunately the government has gotten involved in marriage in the first place.
As long as separation of church and state exists (which is a joke in the US anyways), it should be allowed. That case is closed.
-wtk
[/quote]
Agreed. Which is pretty much what I said. I was just expressing a wish that the government didn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place.
-
I asked a wrong question. True, there are mentions of homosexuality, but nothing that cannot be discarded by the simplest of logic.
Book of Leviticus. True, there is the mention of sex with same gender (of male with male, mind you, it doesn't prohibit women sleeping with women), but I discarded that part of the Bible for one good reason: pretty much everything else in that book is discarded by not just me, but even the Church and all the other Christians. Just read the book of Leviticus and it will be easy to understand why. So to take just the parts that are good for the argument now is hypocrisy at its highest unless you abide by all the things mentioned in that same book.
Epistle to Romans as Epistle to Corinthians are both epistles by Paul. Paul is a man and not God or son of a God, so those words are not from God. Those are words from a 1st century male, written in patriarchy and to cultures he found loathsome as a Jew (he wrote to Romans and Greeks who were pretty much hedonists). Not to mention that Paul also said that women are not allowed to speak in church or that he approves of slavery, so to accept just parts of his epistles which are good for argument is, again, hypocrisy (which, I believe, is considered a sin).
-
I totally agree with Gil, as a Christian myself, I would see my sin of lying as no more or no less than another man committing murder, there is a great passage in matthew 7 that says
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
I am inclined against homosexuality but I can't condemn them because I am a sinner myself.
Hrcho, I can tell you that your questions on free will are quite common, many people have a hard time understanding why a good God would condemn us. You ask, "How can a god be good if (God) dooms you from the start and makes you fight to be saved." the answer is because we have free will, and God gave us free will because He wanted people who could truly love him in return, if He had kept our free will from us, He would have been left with robots, instead, He gave us free will so that we can truly love Him. Let me give an example, my parents love me, but it makes it so much better because I know that they don't have to love me but choose to anyway, that is what God was after, the kind of love that can only be expressed by someone who has a choice.
That said, I agree with gil's last line, Christianity is not something that can be explained logically, it requires a leap of faith.
-
He gave us free will so that we can truly love Him. And, in the end, it's a choice one has to make for themselves, and because it's a choice, no one in #$&*@! can ever say God sent them there because it was their choice to not accept him that got him into #$&*@!.
So, you're saying, that if I abide by all the rules that God gave men (mind you, those are all pretty much common sense rules) except those that proclaim that God as the one and the only and I just don't accept that God as my lord and savior, I'm going to #$&*@!? Yeah, sure, that's free will.
We are given many choices, but only one will grant us salvation, while any other will condemn us for eternity. It's like: Say my name, #$&*@!, or die!, only worse.
-
So, you're saying, that if I abide by all the rules that God gave men (mind you, those are all pretty much common sense rules) except those that proclaim that God as the one and the only and I just don't accept that God as my lord and savior, I'm going to #$&*@!? Yeah, sure, that's free will.
Do you abide by them? Let's take the 10 commandments for instance...have you ever lied? Dishonored your father and mother? Coveted your neighbor's wife? (purely for example ;))
If you have followed all the rules God gave men than you don't need salvation.
-
Do you abide by them? Let's take the 10 commandments for instance...have you ever lied? Dishonored your father and mother? Coveted your neighbor's wife? (purely for example ;))
If you have followed all the rules God gave men than you don't need salvation.
So, everyone sins and everyone needs salvation. Also, all the sins are redeemable. What's the point of those rules then?
-
One important thing to remember about free will is that we can not chose the consequences of our actions. I can choose to stick my hand in a fire, but I can't choose whether or not i will be burned. Likewise, with the commandments of God (or man-made law for that matter) we can choose to obey or disobey, but we can't choose the consequences. If I am caught by the poe-poe smoking dope (in the U.S.), I will be fined and possibly imprisoned. If I'm caught speeding, I will be cited.
Soooo, applying that to Divine law, if I chose to be disobedient I will be judged accordingly at the final judgment. Mind you, this is all based on christian philosaphy, so if one is not a christian this makes no sense since the non-christian individual would not believe in a final judgement in which their actions were judged against divine law.
It all boils down to this: We must learn to exercise our free will in a godly fashion. We are gods in embreo as it says in the bible, and if we let our passions guide us and we never learn to dominate ourself we will never become very good co-heirs with christ. All the rules are there to help us learn how to govern OURSELVES.
-
All the rules are pretty much common sense. The rules are there so that punishment can be carried out and the punisher can say: I told you so. Just a form of control.
-
nice comment Jdizzy
hrcho before i respond i want to know what you mean by free will cause i get the impression that we're thinking of two different things
when I say free will i mean the responsibility and privilege of choosing our own actions and not having them pre-ordained for us... is that what you mean too?
-
As an example of a so-called "universal truth"...
1 + 1 = 2
Right? Of course it is! One added to one must always equal two! A universal truth!
:-k
WRONG!
One man meets one woman and they engage in sexual intercourse (marital or otherwise). Nine months later, a baby is born.
Thus, 1 + 1 = 3!
And, of course, if twins are born, 1 + 1 = 4!
My advice to anyone seeking to be wise... be very wary of 'universal truths' [-X
-
In base 10 math, 1+1 always equals two, that my friend is a universal truth ;)
but I get what you are saying and why you would believe it even though I disagree
-
In base 10 math, 1+1 always equals two, that my friend is a universal truth ;)
I would call it "a truth upon which we can, in all practicality, depend". I would not call it "a universal truth". That way, my friend, if a day arrives when, in Base 10 mathematics, 1 + 1 = pi, I can enjoy telling you "I told you so!" :P
;) :gp:
-
That is why I say that we should always be modest. Socrates, not the Brasilian football player (true FOOTball for all you sportshating Americans -note the word true I use in the topic-), but the Greek philosopher, said: all I know is that I know nothing. All questions in life raise new ones. Also as Christians, we need to be modest, we need to be totally modest. Not only because the simple reason we have been granted grace, so we can't bring anything to the table, but also the simple given of 1900 years of debate about how to follow Christ, how to interpret the Bible.
The dutch word for faith is translated as: assuming/accepting something to be true.
-
when I say free will i mean the responsibility and privilege of choosing our own actions and not having them pre-ordained for us... is that what you mean too?
Yes, there is free will and that is what I think free will is. However, I am trying to point out that God as Christians represent him cannot be good in any sense of the word. IT is tyrannical at the very least, not to mention it has serious complexes and should see a god shrink. That is no perfect god, that is a human being. And it's not god who created humans in his image, but humans who created god in their image. Your god simply has too many human problems to be god. That is how Christians represent him.
As I said, I can accept the possibility of existence of a higher being, but that is something we couldn't possibly manage to describe, because we would describe as we would describe another human and that in itself is failure. So any sort of "god-given" rules, ultimatums, conditions and what not are human made and thus not perfect, most certainly not absolute and will under no circumstance bring you any sort of salvation.
Your free will, on the other hand, might. Instead of looking for salvation in the life beyond, seek salvation in this life. So many people are pretty much giving up on this life and just surviving enough so they can live prosperously in the next life of which they have no proof it even exists.
That, I believe, is fear of living, of making mistakes, of using that "god-given" free will and so many people will lead a miserable life in hope that their next one will be so much better for their misery in this one.
-
But Hrcho, the problem I see is that you are trying to get a grasp of the Christian God. You judge of Him, being tyranical, having human issues. But like you said, to descripe a higerh being, it is flawed. To judge a higher being, well, that too is flawed I assume.
Furthermore, people who are trying to survive long enough to make it into a future that is perfect, well, they haven't understood what being a Christian is all about. You have to make an effort. Not that the effort it self will make my faith work, or will bring redemption, but you need it. Just as much as I need to put effort in my marriage. Being married doesn't say much about the content of the marriage. If I don't put an effort in saying to my wife she is beautiful once in a while...which she is obviously, and helping her with stuff, spending time together, being sincere interested in her life, sharing my thoughts, my hopes, my dreams, my troubles, my lack of action can, and probably will cause marriage problems.
If I turn it around though, even with putting an effort in my marriage doesn't give me any guarantee it will work though.
Living in faith should be about being aware that the world we live in, indeed needs redemption. I for myself, if I look at the world, can not imagine this is it. Again, no logic's, pure faith. I cannot accept that children are dying due to lack of clean water, medicine or food. I can not accept people are freezing to death, being lonely, rape others, kill others for the sake of personal gain. I can not accept that people are so heartless that they gain millions without looking out for others.
Due to this, I hope, I want the Bible to be true. Cause this book says that people are acting like this and that the content of this book is saving me. Well, I can watch God, I can look at some of the actions described in the bible and ask why? Thing is I will not grasp it, I will not understand it, but someday I might.
Christian life should not be about fear, but should be about compassion, love for other individuals, serving others, and indeed hope for a better future.....
-
Christian life should not be about fear, but should be about compassion, love for other individuals, serving others, and indeed hope for a better future.....
I could not agree with you more, GE. However, some people never seem to get around to reading the New Testament...
-
But Hrcho, the problem I see is that you are trying to get a grasp of the Christian God. You judge of Him, being tyranical, having human issues. But like you said, to descripe a higerh being, it is flawed. To judge a higher being, well, that too is flawed I assume.
I made no judgment upon god, but upon the Christian representation of god.
Living in faith should be about being aware that the world we live in, indeed needs redemption. I for myself, if I look at the world, can not imagine this is it. Again, no logic's, pure faith. I cannot accept that children are dying due to lack of clean water, medicine or food. I can not accept people are freezing to death, being lonely, rape others, kill others for the sake of personal gain. I can not accept that people are so heartless that they gain millions without looking out for others.
I have no problem with faith. In fact, I endorse it. Faith is good. But I am trying to show here that The Bible is flawed as it is human made and thus should be read as any other book. This is how I read books from which I hope to learn something and to make myself better than I am:
I read it once, more or less superficially so to learn the contents of the book.
If I like the contents and see that there indeed might be something there I could use, I read the second time with much more understanding, slowly digesting word by word, chapter by chapter.
I leave the book aside.
In a few months or years or whichever time you see fit, I read it again and I try compare my perspective from reading it then and reading it now.
So, I explore myself through reading books and I believe that is what you should do also. Not read the Bible, take it is at is or even worse, take only what suits your arguments best and leave it aside to collect dust.
Christian life should not be about fear, but should be about compassion, love for other individuals, serving others, and indeed hope for a better future.....
I believe that every life should be like that and not just Christian. Except maybe for the part of serving others. I need no Bible, no god and most certainly no Church to tell me that and I think no one needs them.
-
If indeed the Bible had a pure human origin I couldn't agree with you more. Because, then I would believe in a God created by people, and I would be pathetic. I mean, how allmighty would a God be that is created by people?
And that is where our ways split. Of course I see that the Bible is flawed, when it comes to certain statements, certain time references etc. In that way it is indeed a human book. But...if I ask 30 witnesses to describe to me how the accident went, I will get at least 20 different stories, some might be flawed compared to others...but does it make the accident less real?
Also, I understand that this example is a bit flawed, cause it deals with something you can empiric experience, where as God you can't.
That is why I believe in God as source of my faith, not the Bible. If the Bible would have been my source of faith, it would be something you could reason, since the Bible would have been the 'proof' of my faith. But since you pointed out the flaws in the Bible with that article, or at least show that there are things to consider, my faith would have been not that strong, least to say.
I didn't mean my part of Christian life as being moraly superiour to those that don't believe. But I think you will understand, since this whole topic is rather understanding, well at least most people are.
Oh, and to sum it all up. First comes faith in God, than what I can read about him in the Bible, and trying to learn how to read it, what to learn from it and reflecting my own life according to it. Then comes in my opinion church which can help, but of course is flawed as being a human institute.
-
...First comes faith in God...
I find your posts to be interesting and well-written, Gil-Estel. I am sincerely curious as to your reasoning behind your faith in God. Would you say that you want this faith, need this faith, or simply find yourself feeling this faith without really understanding why?
I am myself an admirer of much that Socrates is described as having attempted to teach. If someone was to ask me if God exists, the simplest way for me to truthfully answer would be "I don't know". And I'm honestly fine not knowing.
-
...First comes faith in God...
Would you say that you want this faith, need this faith, or simply find yourself feeling this faith without really understanding why?
I would have to say the latter, since that makes least sense, and thus most sense of all. :lol:. Since there is little reason in having faith, since it cannot be proven, I would say it has to be the last. That is also how the bible tells it to be. It also should make people -and here it is again- modest. I am not a better person since I am a Christian and thus trying to make something of my life, where others, allthough maybe making a better life but not choose to follow Christ.
Thanks for the compliment, I try to make my posts easy to read, which is difficult for so many reasons. First of all, eventhough I find my way in it, english is not my native language, and with such subject I find it hard to find the right words to describe several issues. Second is that it is hard to take out a single part of Christianity and neglecting other parts. There is so much I want to add, but less is more, so I need to pick wisely.
Well, I can return the compliment, by saying yours are a pleasure to read. But let me return a question too. Can I ask you, is there a deeper meaning to life? And since the possible answer to that question is: I don't know, is it something you're after? And if it is something you're after, how?
-
Gil: We've gone a bit astray from where I wanted our discussion to go and landed in area where I cannot dispute your claims, nor can you mine, because it comes down to faith or lack of one. I was hoping to lead it more in the way of Christian perspective of homosexuality, so I wish to resume from where I left of.
I believe I made good arguments about homosexuality not being condemned by god and was hoping to see some opinions about that. Why do Christians condemn homosexuality if their God does not?
-
Well, Hrcho, you discarded Leviticus by stating that most is discarded, so this part is not necessary too. I do not agree. Certainly a lot of rules are gone but I think you need to distinguish some rules from others. That sounds cheap, but I will explain. God gave various rules to his people. Some rules for living with God, some rules in regards to living with eachother. Rules about living with God involved a lot of sacrifices, which all became 'useless' with the coming of Christ. The rules about how to live together and how to live in the right fashion, well, I think they still apply. The part where sexuality is written about, well, most rules many of us can subscribe. You don't have sex with your mother, your sister, your brother's wife, an animal etc. I know these things exist, and maybe we all have brothers with extremely good looking wives, so we might be tempted, but least to say, it is frowned upon, agreed?
But I think it goes further than just those 3 parts we come across in the Bible. If it was only that, it would have been very obvious that there would/could/should have been more debate about it. As we look to the Bible as a whole, the is something as a Godly 'order'. We can see in the Bible, in basics, how God has intended the world to be. How lame it might sound, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The whole Bible is filled with examples of man and wife, living to gether, enjoying sexuality and raising some of the consequences of sexuality, children. Based upon that Godly order there are Christians -like some found on these boards- that say that God disapproves homosexuality.
But let that be clear. God disapproves. Not the church, not the Christians -allthough I know some (http://www.godhatesfags.com/) do condemn homosexuality, which is just as wrong as the website this topic started with- God disapproves homosexuality. But remember, not the gay person!
You could say, and I would understand that you actually would -because these things have been on my mind as well- that God is cruel for not letting people being who they deeply are. If they have feelings for some other person, eventhough from the same gender, and it is true love, how can you deny them those feelings? To that it comes to 'understanding' that God is way beyond our dimensions. But let me say this: is denying something to a person, eventhough he/she wants it badly always an act of cruelty? I mean, parents that deny their child something, is that an act of cruelty? Or lack of love? Sometimes, and I think we all can come up with examples, denying something to someone, is, even when it is painful, a great act of love!
Now we are adults, no children, so you could say, we could reason with God and hold Him accountable for this. But in the comparison parent/child we must understand that parents in general are supposed to know more, know better and act more responsible than their children. In that way the comparison makes sense, since I think we could agree that if God exists, he is supposed to know more, know better and act more responsible than us. And like a child can be frustrated with the actions of it's parents, so can we be frustrated with the actions of God, but it doesn't make it more wrong. Our disagreement (people vs God) doesn't make it more wrong.
-
God gave various rules to his people. Some rules for living with God, some rules in regards to living with eachother. Rules about living with God involved a lot of sacrifices, which all became 'useless' with the coming of Christ. The rules about how to live together and how to live in the right fashion, well, I think they still apply.
There are indeed a lot of rules there that are good and would be better if more people lived by them, but there are so many more of those which make absolutely no sense and it is more than obvious that those rules were set by man and not god. Especially if you look in the punishment department.
You could say, and I would understand that you actually would -because these things have been on my mind as well- that God is cruel for not letting people being who they deeply are. If they have feelings for some other person, eventhough from the same gender, and it is true love, how can you deny them those feelings? To that it comes to 'understanding' that God is way beyond our dimensions. But let me say this: is denying something to a person, eventhough he/she wants it badly always an act of cruelty? I mean, parents that deny their child something, is that an act of cruelty? Or lack of love? Sometimes, and I think we all can come up with examples, denying something to someone, is, even when it is painful, a great act of love!
Okay, tell me where I am wrong.
God created man. God gave free will to man to choose his course in life. That man finds he has feelings for another man. It was not his choice, he simply feels. Those feelings also come from god. That man now can exercise his free will. He can either go along with his feelings and live his life fully or he can suppress them and live out the remainder of his life in misery. If he goes with the former, he is homosexual (or is he homosexual even by having those feelings?) and thus he gets an F in god's book of judgment or if he goes with the latter, he'll get an A in god's book, but the fact that he is miserable with his wife or alone doesn't matter. God was testing him and thus either making his life miserable or his afterlife.
Those feelings are god-given, so how can they be wrong?
-
In addition to Gil's comments. Gil brings up a good point, that God is greater than us and thus knows MORE than us. So it stands to reason to say that the commandments received from God are given to us from the position of experience or authority. The commandments are given to us so we can learn to use our free will (which I will refer to from now on as agency) responsibly. The end game we are shooting for, as christians, is more than just go to heaven, sit in a cloud and play a harp all day. The end game of christianity is to become a joint heir with christ. I strongly encourage everyone to learn what that means, a joint heir with Christ. Once we understand what a joint heir with Christ is and what a Joint-Heir does (here is a hint: Psalms 82:6, John 10:34 and Romans 8:16-17), the rules given to us from God make more sense. They are to prepare us to be joint-heirs.
As far as homosexualitly is concerned, 1 Cor. 6:9-10 give a pretty extensive list as to why Christians condemn homosexuality, as well as a number of other behaviors. However, this list is only valid if you believe Pauls letter to the Corinthians to be doctrine. It was brought up earlier in the blog that Paul was a man, not a god. However, I will make the arguement that though Paul is not God, he was called and given authority to speak in the name of God, giving his list godly authority. Whether by the voice of God or by his servents, it is the same.
Homosexual feelings are challenges given to a person to overcome. Do they have to marry a woman to overcome them? No. They must learn to exercise their agency in a manner which is pleasing to God. Everyone is given different trials to overcome, for some, their challange is Homosexuality, for others it is beastiality (If someone has lust towards an animal are they not living their life to its fullest by refraining to engage in sexual intercourse with the animal?), for others their challange is something completely different. Nevertheless, God will not allow us to be tempted above what we are able to bear. Everyhthing boils down to learning to exercise your agency in a manner which is becoming of a joint heir with Christ
-
Well, Hrcho, I guess I have to say this about free will. I believe indeed that God gave men free will. In the beginning how ever. Men was given the free will to live with God, or without him. Since men chose to live without him, we suffer the consequences of that choice. This is yet another example of what I tried to explain to Kev-La. Christian doctrines are hard to take apart, since they are all related.
The consequences of this choice is a life apart from God, and filled with the consequences of sin. Feelings that are not the way God has intended them, lying, sorrow, pain, stealing, betrayal, etc etc. Since the choice had been made, we could ourselves not return to the lightside. This because we were once presented the choice, along with the consequences. However, God gave menkind a second chance. A future with God or live life the way it is.... Therefor it is needed to accept Christ. Let me again emphasize...this is all faith, not logic.
-
As far as homosexualitly is concerned, 1 Cor. 6:9-10 give a pretty extensive list as to why Christians condemn homosexuality, as well as a number of other behaviors. However, this list is only valid if you believe Pauls letter to the Corinthians to be doctrine. It was brought up earlier in the blog that Paul was a man, not a god. However, I will make the arguement that though Paul is not God, he was called and given authority to speak in the name of God, giving his list godly authority. Whether by the voice of God or by his servents, it is the same.
It most certainly is not the same. If pope added his doctrines to the Bible would you accept them as if they are from God himself? No matter what those doctrines said? Because who has more "godly authority" to do that than him?
Homosexual feelings are challenges given to a person to overcome. Do they have to marry a woman to overcome them? No. They must learn to exercise their agency in a manner which is pleasing to God. Everyone is given different trials to overcome, for some, their challange is Homosexuality, for others it is beastiality (If someone has lust towards an animal are they not living their life to its fullest by refraining to engage in sexual intercourse with the animal?), for others their challange is something completely different. Nevertheless, God will not allow us to be tempted above what we are able to bear. Everyhthing boils down to learning to exercise your agency in a manner which is becoming of a joint heir with Christ
I am saddened that you think so. It stands against any reason. Do you think you could live your life in fullest if you had a great desire, great wish that you could not get? Something that is in no way a threat to anyone else, but simply the way you feel, the way you are? And if you couldn't be who you are, if you through your will do not allow yourself to be yourself, what are you? A mere shadow of a man who will attempt to live, but never succeed because some stupid man a long time ago said that homosexuality will get your soul to #$&*@!. Would you consider yourself living your life in fullest?
This because we were once presented the choice, along with the consequences. However, God gave menkind a second chance. A future with God or live life the way it is.... Therefor it is needed to accept Christ. Let me again emphasize...this is all faith, not logic.
I hope you are not saying what I think you're saying. Are you saying that we are guilty for the sins of our ancestors? So far, (most of) your words I could not easily dispute, because your words were ones of faith, thus this comes unexpected. You cannot possibly believe that we must redeem the sins of our mothers and fathers, can you? Can you explain to me what kind of god what ask of you to do that? One that would be good as bank manager, no doubt, but not as a perfect, all loving and all caring being.
----------
You Christians keep saying how perfect and beyond our understanding is god and then you go and give him human personality. ](*,)
-
I think homosexuality is more wrong in that it is a affliction that has come about because of sin.
I, unlike many people who declare themselves as Christians, have read The Bible. More than once, actually. In my reading, I found exactly zero sentences or passages in which God condemns homosexuality. So, I'm asking you, where from do you take your stand that homosexuality comes from sin and thus is in itself a sin?
Romans 1:27
-
Romans 1:27
Have you read my next post (http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,5809.msg63197.html#msg63197)?
-
So, everyone sins and everyone needs salvation. Also, all the sins are redeemable. What's the point of those rules then?
Everyone has sinned, and upon becoming a Christian everyone is amde Righteous. However, aftyer becoming a Christian you should become Holy and stop sinning. Ie, follow the rules. Or at least move towards that Essentially the rules boil down to two things though, Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and might, and Love your neighbor as yourself. For this sums up the law and the prophets.
-
Why does God, as higher being, as being of perfection, as creator to all, as "father" to all, as something beyond our comprehension and understanding require our love and our faith? More so, it's not a mere requirement, but a rule! And mind you, probably the most important rule of all. That sounds to me like he's an insecure leader who needs his followers to prostrate before him, to build him statues and worship him to bolster his ego.
That is how I see the Christian representation of God. Am I wrong?
-
Romans 1:27
Have you read my next post (http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,5809.msg63197.html#msg63197)?
Ever heard of inspired writing?
-
Quote from: jdizzy001 on Today at 09:41:41 AM
As far as homosexualitly is concerned, 1 Cor. 6:9-10 give a pretty extensive list as to why Christians condemn homosexuality, as well as a number of other behaviors. However, this list is only valid if you believe Pauls letter to the Corinthians to be doctrine. It was brought up earlier in the blog that Paul was a man, not a god. However, I will make the arguement that though Paul is not God, he was called and given authority to speak in the name of God, giving his list godly authority. Whether by the voice of God or by his servents, it is the same.
Hrcho:
It most certainly is not the same. If pope added his doctrines to the Bible would you accept them as if they are from God himself? No matter what those doctrines said? Because who has more "godly authority" to do that than him?
Jdizzy001:
As far as the Pope adding to scriptures, I'm not Catholic so I don't recognize the Pope's authority. (No offense to any catholic's out there.) However, when one who is called of god to speak, say a Moses (I use Moses because, as far as I know, all Christians would listen to what Moses had to say if he were to suddenly start teaching again.) for our time, YES, every Christian should heed the individual's words because if they are truely called of God to speak, then they are GOD'S words. That is what prophets were for during the time of the Old and New Testaments. So the objective is to learn who REALLY speaks for God.
Quote from: jdizzy001 on Today at 09:41:41 AM
Homosexual feelings are challenges given to a person to overcome. Do they have to marry a woman to overcome them? No. They must learn to exercise their agency in a manner which is pleasing to God. Everyone is given different trials to overcome, for some, their challange is Homosexuality, for others it is beastiality (If someone has lust towards an animal are they not living their life to its fullest by refraining to engage in sexual intercourse with the animal?), for others their challange is something completely different. Nevertheless, God will not allow us to be tempted above what we are able to bear. Everyhthing boils down to learning to exercise your agency in a manner which is becoming of a joint heir with Christ
Hrcho:
I am saddened that you think so. It stands against any reason. Do you think you could live your life in fullest if you had a great desire, great wish that you could not get? Something that is in no way a threat to anyone else, but simply the way you feel, the way you are? And if you couldn't be who you are, if you through your will do not allow yourself to be yourself, what are you? A mere shadow of a man who will attempt to live, but never succeed because some stupid man a long time ago said that homosexuality will get your soul to #$&*@!. Would you consider yourself living your life in fullest?
Jdizzy001:
If my greatest desire was to slay and murder people, then i should not live life to its fullest. However, I understand the point you are trying to make. Nevertheless, as a Christian I believe in restraint. If my God wants me to refrain from certain activities then I will have to take it on faith that he knows something about these activities that I don't. I would live my life in such a way so that God can bless me for obedience instead of gratifying my lusts and trying to justifiy away his mandates.
----------
Hrcho:
You Christians keep saying how perfect and beyond our understanding is god and then you go and give him human personality.
Jdizzy001:
God is a man, glorified, immortal, and perfected. Why else would Christ say if ye know me ye know the father? God doesn't need our faith. WE need it.
God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, therefore, if he called prophets in the times of the Old and New Testaments then he will call prophets in our day. If he didn't he would change and cease to be God.
Again, I apply human characteristics to God because he is a human. Immortal, Glorified, and Perfected. I don't believe in the Nicean Creed, it's confusing and doesn't make sense.
-
Sorry about the double post. By the way, this is a rousing conversation. I hope those participating are being edified in someway. This has been a real blast and a half. I hope were all taking things in stride, learning from each others Point of Views and not destroying virtual friendships =)!
-
Why does God, as higher being, as being of perfection, as creator to all, as "father" to all, as something beyond our comprehension and understanding require our love and our faith? More so, it's not a mere requirement, but a rule! And mind you, probably the most important rule of all. That sounds to me like he's an insecure leader who needs his followers to prostrate before him, to build him statues and worship him to bolster his ego.
That is how I see the Christian representation of God. Am I wrong?
It's not about God. It's about us, and how we require a relationship with God to fill fulfilled in life. Personally speaking the times when I have felt best about my life have been when I have been walking closely with God.
-
Hrcho, we must not indeed redeem the sins of our father/mothers. I want to distinguish doing sin from sin in general, which is missing the essence which has God given to us. Due to sin, we have become sinners. I realy believe Adam is a representative for menkind in general. Oh and I never said it was easy or anything. See the choice of Adam as the breaking of the world, like the closing of Valinor. Ever since, the entrance was shut and only due to the whole sacrifise cermonies and the strict laws people were reminded by the existance of God.
Why would people else need Christ? Even as a non Christian, that knows anything about Christian dogmatics, should be able to answer that question. What was it he should have made right? Only for Adam and Eve? Only for the real bad people?
Like I said, the simple fact that the world is pretty messed up. Ending recources, aid for those who need it always slowly. People denied food, safe water and medicines. People enriching themselves. And the list could go on for ever. That, to me shows the world needs redemption.
-
Well, I can return the compliment, by saying yours are a pleasure to read.
Thank you very much.
But let me return a question too. Can I ask you, is there a deeper meaning to life? And since the possible answer to that question is: I don't know, is it something you're after? And if it is something you're after, how?
As you guessed, my answer to the first question is indeed "I don't know". Also, I don't know what would qualify as a "deeper" meaning to life. Every day of my life, I find what I regard as deep meanings in things. However, for me, they never have anything to do with the question of whether or not there is a supreme being. My favourite types of entertainment involve exercising what I believe is my very able imagination, so I don't think I'm lacking anything there. And I don't find life to be generally boring, unrewarding or shallow. On the contrary, I find it to be beautiful, ugly, gratifying, terrifying and, perhaps above all, very mysterious. And I've always enjoyed a good mystery! ;)
-
the 4 noble truths of buddhism are
1 life is suffering
2 there is an end to suffering
3 end suffering by ending cravings
4 end cravings by following the 8 fold path