There was a couple of letters to the editor in a local newspaper on how the "poor" owe everything to the Demon 'er Democratic party, this is the reply I submitted. -----------
I found great humor in recent letters discussing how much people owe to the Democratic Party. It was a good reminder that too many citizens do not appreciate government for what it represents.
If any politicians truly cared for the people they represent, they’d not lie to them as they had to the poor, telling them there was no need for cost of living adjustments for 3 years when everyone who buys groceries has seen them skyrocket.
We wouldn’t have politicians exempting themselves from limitations they put on people who depend on Medicare or Social Security. If our political leaders had to live on a fixed income, they might truly appreciate the hardships they impose on the poor when they cut entitlements. If they truly represented the average citizen by being an average citizen, they might not constantly make rules they exempt themselves and their families from having to follow.
Our politicians are a bunch of “king” and “queen” wannabes who are arrogant & condescending, with an entitlement mentality that would put King George to shame. They believe they deserve the best as they see themselves as better than those they represent.
Citizens need to depend on Jesus, who actually “walked the walk”. Jesus lived a sin free life, sacrificed himself on a cross, was resurrected, and offers salvation to those who believe and profess in Jesus’ divinity.
Politicians promise many things, but like Satan are liars, manipulators, and should not be revered or trusted. Putting faith in a political party is like worshipping a golden donkey or elephant. People need to learn that all good things they have are from God’s mercy, not politician’s lies.
Regardless of people’s economic, employment, or other status, the good in their lives is because of God’s mercy, and his greatest mercy is in Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and resurrection, not a political party.
Quote: Citizens need to depend on Jesus, who actually “walked the walk”. Jesus lived a sin free life, sacrificed himself on a cross, was resurrected, and offers salvation to those who believe and profess in Jesus’ divinity.
How about people need to believe within themselves rather than someone elses' "Holy Prophet" such as the politically-correct figures of the Rapethuglican/Degenerat parties such as "Bush", "Obama" or even "Jesus" for that matter? Or, better yet, let the people pick who they feel are better role models for themselves and their own families and loved ones or just delegate themselves for the task. That's true Freedom and Independence. It's essentially the heart of the founding of the United States of America and its Constitution.
If you want me to submit to who yourself consider "Holy" and "Sanctified" and anyone else, even myself, is seen as unholy or evil is the pinnacle of arrogance itself. If that works for yourself, fine. But when one wants to consider someone lesser than themselves if they don't follow a specific "Holy Prophet" or politically-correct patriarchal figure or dogma then that person that preaches such claptrap is one that people should stay away from.
My ethic is simply this: Do what you want as you want. As long as what you do doesn't harm any nonconsenting people and the property they own then it's all good.
Yes, you can be a miser or give away all your possessions. No harm there. But when it comes down to bigotry and prejudice that's where I have to call a foul. There are people who don't believe what you believe who do lead safe, ethical and happy lives. You don't hear much from them because they see no need in evangelizing to give their ways of living any cred. In fact it's really no one elses' business but their own.
In any case Jesus got a bum deal. He didn't choose to be sacrificed. He was wrongly crucified for crimes he didn't commit. Why not go after the sinners themselves rather than the wrong guy? To me that little fable is nothing more than a tale of injustice itself. I see no honor in stating that someone else was punished for my own crimes, whatever "crimes" those were I have no idea. The idea that everyone "sins" is a false assumption since it leads to the justification that just because everyone does it and the wrong person got punished for those "sins" makes it all okay in the end.
I think of "sanctified" people, such as Ken Lay of Enron, who felt that despite his crimes that he was without sin in the eyes of "His Lord". And yet he could have chose not to defraud millions of people! Go figure! People can choose to "sin" or not! What a radical concept! Only here it's okay to "sin" because some else was sacrificed! That is despicable! It's as if it's a free pass to be an unethical and irresponsible person just because, "At least I KNOW I'm going to Heaven because He died for my sins."
It makes me wonder who really drove those nails in, gave Him that crown of thorns, and loved to be awash in all of that "sanctified" blood in the first place. Can you picture someone bathing in someone elses' blood? Y'ever watch that scene in "Blue Steel" where Ron Silver is anointing himself in the blood of his victim? How revolting! And that's before considering the risk of disease through blood-borne pathogens! Icky-poo!
So I'm not against people who choose to believe in anyone or anything outside of themselves. I'm against naughty people who do horrendous things in the names of their beliefs, politics and other dogma. So be careful out there. Most people are decent people. Just beware of the select few who take advantage of that situation for their own nefarious purposes.
--Bekki
Combating functional illiteracy with latex-clad drama since the '80s, because old video games rule!
I agree with most of your response.What loses me is when you say "citizens must rely on Jesus who actually walked the walk"
How do you know he "walked the walk" when there is no credible proof that Jesus is not anything more then a figment of someones overactive imagination.
> Citizens need to depend on Jesus, who actually “walked the walk”. Jesus lived a sin > free life, sacrificed himself on a cross, was resurrected, and offers salvation to > those who believe and profess in Jesus’ divinity.
Such arrogance in believing that you're in posession of the truth. Such disrespect in thinking you know how others must live and what's what others should do. Proselitism is not going to earn you much friendship here, and for what I guess you'll get the opposite.
Wound up, can't sleep, can't do anything right, little honey / Oh, since I set my eyes on you. / I tell you the truth. I can't get it right / Get it right / Since I met you...
In a way, ...I won't say 'Politicians', but those who control money, who print it out of thin air... When money is essentially worthless... And almost all of society bases someone's status or worth on how much money they "make". This system gives everyone the illusion that we have what we need, that we are "blessed" in an abundance of material things.
Why do we need jobs? To feed, clothe, and shelter ourselves. But I'll mainly focus on food - since that is something that is needed everyday. If we had access to food without having to "Pay" for it - then we really wouldn't need jobs/occupations. Like, a garden or farm for animals as food sources. That would be our only "Job". Tending our personal food sources. These things could be considered as being provided by God. There are a LOT of things we don't need to survive, things provided by the world.
So, here we have a society based on monetary value and exchange. All based on something worthless. Those that control the money control the masses... And, in a way, have set themselves up as "God". They've made something out of nothing. Then you have to ask yourself; Who am I putting my trust in? Man or God? Well, one could say that God uses Man to help others. I'm not saying we should refuse all help or never take advantage of what's available to us. God is the true source of all that we would need or want. No need to thank man, only God.
On another note... Yeah, you did get preachy there, but that's fine. It's your God given right to express yourself. ...and it's also the God given right of others to voice their disagreement of your views - whether they like it or not (on it being a God given right). Yet, I suppose the only barbs in your remarks is when you put down anyone else. ...That's how a lot of 'non-believers' see those that profess God and living a holy life as "self-righteous". I wonder, would they call a math professor (something like) "self-matheous"? ...Saying things like "you can't tell me how to add!"
No. There's a point to living a "Holy Life", righteous or morally upright. It avoids a LOT of trouble and heartache in life. It really does have benefits. As well as being a comfort in (if/when) you truly put all of your trust in the Creator. Non-believers would call this being delusional, or believing what someone else told them. Which immediately begs the question of who did they listen to to NOT believe in God? Maybe they would say they worked this out on their own. Perhaps Christians did as well. Anyway, I can say those that deny the existence of a creator are in denial of what should be perfectly clear and evident. I guess that's why I believe. Although that shouldn't be why. You must first believe, then all these other things will be added (or revealed) to you. Chicken/Egg, Egg/Chicken.
Speaking of politics. I'm voting for Ron Paul. After W. Bush I consider myself an Independent. Still very conservative though. Not a "Republican"... Only because of the people in it's party. The war-mongering, big-business types.
> Citizens need to depend on Jesus, who actually “walked the walk”. Jesus lived a sin > free life, sacrificed himself on a cross, was resurrected, and offers salvation to > those who believe and profess in Jesus’ divinity. > +1 for writing hilarious shit.
I guess my point is politicians are about self, they see themselves as better than those they represent, whereas Jesus the Christ did the opposite. Jesus sacrificed all for others and that is why He is sitting at the right hand of God.
People can mock Christians, frag I know I'm not righteous by what I do, but I, you, and others are made right by what Jesus has done, and He is righteous.
Ron Paul? I guess you don't like Senior Citizens or the disabled 'eh? as Ron Paul wants to get rid of all entitlements, except the one's he'd (and his family) get as a politician.
Quote: "Regardless of people’s economic, employment, or other status, the good in their lives is because of God’s mercy, and his greatest mercy is in Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and resurrection, not a political party." ... "People can mock Christians, frag I know I'm not righteous by what I do, but I, you, and others are made right by what Jesus has done, and He is righteous."
Syntax error.
Doubt increasing.
Reality intruding.
How about giving human beings full credit for all the good and bad things? Then single out subgroups and individuals that do good or bad accordingly? If a person chooses not to get in trouble and lives an ethical and moral life then that person should get the credit because they're doing the work.
The problem is that religion devalues human beings in general: The human is considered lesser than what's outside of themselves and MUST submit without conflict to the forces at work. Any human capability is deemed with a snide sneer as being wretched.
And who gets to wield that power? More than likely another human being who gets their rocks off on being in charge as a "shepherd" as they call groups of human beings "the flock" and the individual a "lost sheep".
I'm not mocking religion. It just makes no sense to me for you can't win with Original Sin.
--Bekki
Combating functional illiteracy with latex-clad drama since the '80s, because old video games rule!
Let’s say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I’ll take 100,000. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth.
Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, all of that for 98,000 years. Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2,000 years ago, thinks “That’s enough of that. It’s time to intervene,” and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East.
Don’t let’s appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let’s go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can’t be believed by a thinking person. --Christopher Hitchens
> I agree with most of your response.What loses me is when you say "citizens must rely > on Jesus who actually walked the walk" > > How do you know he "walked the walk" when there is no credible proof that Jesus is > not anything more then a figment of someones overactive imagination. > > I mean,even the story of Jesus is not his own.
That's like saying an article in a newspaper isn't to be trusted because a reporter wrote it an not the person they were interviewing or quoting.
> Don’t let’s appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study > evidence and have a civilization. Let’s go to the desert and have another revelation > there. This is nonsense. It can’t be believed by a thinking person. --Christopher > Hitchens
We lived a similar experience. It's not a coincidence our population believed in many different gods for every different purpose... just like Greeks. Then suddenly Spanish came to invade our lands. We lived in heresy because of our beliefs and also refused, among other things, to take a white woman as the mother of Christ. The solution: invent a miracle where a common native meets this mother of Christ with color flesh similar to us. See, this god or their son didn't appear for millenniums and suddenly, when Spanish had trouble conquering our lands and impose their beliefs to makes us obey, they appear. This "Virgen de Guadalupe" miraculously comes to tell us we should believe in Christ and follow their path.
Conclusion: Religion is the primitiveness form of politics. Anything written or taught through a Bible is not different than doing it with a Constitution. I don't need to mention anything between differencing a priest from a politician, there is none.
EDIT: You also forgot to mention when these texts were written, none expected humans someday could fly and notice heaven's existence by themselves. And yes, humans have traveled every piece of the earth by now except underground. However we all know heaven is not there.
> People can mock Christians, frag I know I'm not righteous by what I do, but I, you, > and others are made right by what Jesus has done, and He is righteous. >
See my friend this is why so many people have such strong opinions on religion.The Arrogance.You hear it alot.4 people in a car get into a terrible accident,3 die,1 lives.first thing the survivor says "oh Jesus was watching over me!" Well what about the 3 people who lost their lives? They were not as important to God\Jesus as you?
What you are saying is not based in any fact,other then stories that neither you nor I know to be true,because we were not there.
Only thing worse then a self righteous Athiest is a Self Righteous Religious person.
> > Don’t let’s appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study > > evidence and have a civilization. Let’s go to the desert and have another > revelation > > there. This is nonsense. It can’t be believed by a thinking person. --Christopher > > Hitchens > > We lived a similar experience. It's not a coincidence our population believed in many > different gods for every different purpose... just like Greeks. Then suddenly Spanish > came to invade our lands. We lived in heresy because of our beliefs and also refused, > among other things, to take a white woman as the mother of Christ. The solution: > invent a miracle where a common native meets this mother of Christ with color flesh > similar to us. See, this god or their son didn't appear for millenniums and suddenly, > when Spanish had trouble conquering our lands and impose their beliefs to makes us > obey, they appear. This "Virgen de Guadalupe" miraculously comes to tell us we should > believe in Christ and follow their path. > > Conclusion: Religion is the primitiveness form of politics. Anything written or > taught through a Bible is not different than doing it with a Constitution. I don't > need to mention anything between differencing a priest from a politician.
The only thing worse than a politician pushing purchased beliefs on the masses is someone pushing jebus en-mass like a zealot. You are managing to combine the two into an editorial double-whammy of suck.
Listen, I get it. I was brought up through 10 years of Catholic and Lutheran schooling. I've dabbled in studies from Judaism to Islam. For you and many others, your deity of choice is the end-all be-all. Not everyone feels that way. I personally feel that anyone who pushes their deity as if everyone else walks the same path ~completely~ misses the point.
You've been taught to spread the word of god, that's fine. I just recall Jesus doing it with a little savoir faire, not grand panache. Your words aren't teaching men to fish, they are smacking men in the face with fish from your bucket.
Your life may revolve around Jesus, and that is just wonderful. It works for you, and I fully support anything that works to keep order and strength in someones life. By assuming that anyone else feels the same, or remotely gives a shit what Jesus thinks of them...well that is being just as closed minded as the politicians you are scolding.
You had points being made until you got preachy too...such a shame...
> If you want me to submit to who yourself consider "Holy" and "Sanctified" and anyone > else, even myself, is seen as unholy or evil is the pinnacle of arrogance itself.
Why is it arrogant?
I can only imagine that you think it is "arrogant" because person (A) is saying that person (B) is sinful because (A) believes themself to be better than person (B). That's not true (or it shouldn't be).
If you go to the Doctor, you get a diagnosis that you have a life threatening condition. The Doctor tells you that you need to change your lifestyle and habits so you can avoid the inevitable horrible death you'll experience. Nobody (in their right mind) would say the Doctor is being arrogant. But if they did say that... Why would they? Why is it arrogant?
> My ethic is simply this: Do what you want as you want. As long as what you do doesn't > harm any nonconsenting people and the property they own then it's all good. >
Well... Lets say you have a child. They want to play with the neighbor's "puppy". But it's not a puppy. It's a 45 lb. pit-bull. If you Live and let Live, does that also mean others are free to die (e.g. destroy themselves) if they so choose?
The point is; some people may do what they want, but in the process they could be hurting themselves.
I'd say it's a pretty high form of hatred that someone could have for another person by letting them continue on the path to their destruction. The least one could do for them is to warn them. But in the end it is their decision.
eta: Think of it this way. By telling someone to do their own thing -that is as good as telling them they can (as in: have permission to) go to hell.
> Yes, you can be a miser or give away all your possessions. No harm there. But when it > comes down to bigotry and prejudice that's where I have to call a foul. There are > people who don't believe what you believe who do lead safe, ethical and happy lives. > You don't hear much from them because they see no need in evangelizing to give their > ways of living any cred. In fact it's really no one elses' business but their own. > > In any case Jesus got a bum deal. He didn't choose to be sacrificed. He was wrongly > crucified for crimes he didn't commit. Why not go after the sinners themselves rather > than the wrong guy? To me that little fable is nothing more than a tale of injustice > itself. I see no honor in stating that someone else was punished for my own crimes, > whatever "crimes" those were I have no idea. The idea that everyone "sins" is a false > assumption since it leads to the justification that just because everyone does it and > the wrong person got punished for those "sins" makes it all okay in the end. > > I think of "sanctified" people, such as Ken Lay of Enron, who felt that despite his > crimes that he was without sin in the eyes of "His Lord". And yet he could have chose > not to defraud millions of people! Go figure! People can choose to "sin" or not! What > a radical concept! Only here it's okay to "sin" because some else was sacrificed! > That is despicable! It's as if it's a free pass to be an unethical and irresponsible > person just because, "At least I KNOW I'm going to Heaven because He died for my > sins." >
I'm afraid you're mistaken here. Jesus laying down his life didn't give us a free ticket to Sin. It just means that no matter how hard we try by our own means - we can never be worthy to enter the kingdom of heaven, regardless of how much of an upstanding citizen, or how "saintly" we are. Our righteousness is as filthy rags. We'll sin anyway, no matter what. But if we make the effort, by repenting or turning away from our sins, and asking God to forgive us, ....and I could go further by adding that we'd have to be baptized in water, - which symbolizes the washing away of our sins, and by doing this "ritual" we're showing our faith that God will do what he said he would, and afterwards should come the infilling of the Holy Spirit. With the Holy Spirit within us we will be prompted or quickened to do the will of the Father. Some would say that "If I convert to Christianity then I won't get to have any fun." And by "fun" they mean they won't get to enjoy doing "sinful" things. But what they should realize is that it's not about 'not being able to sin' as it is losing the will to sin. My father, a Navy man, drank, smoke, cussed... Until the day he received the Holy Ghost. All of that stopped, he had no desire to do any of those things. ....Back to what I was getting at; It's being covered by the blood of the lamb.. It's not a literal "blood", it's like a spiritual blood. A 'spirit' in the sense of, like, the spirit of giving, or the spirit of joy... What the blood represents is a spirit of giving yourself, dedicating your life to God, and doing His will.
I guess ^this covers your next paragraph.
> It makes me wonder who really drove those nails in, gave Him that crown of thorns, > and loved to be awash in all of that "sanctified" blood in the first place. Can you > picture someone bathing in someone elses' blood? Y'ever watch that scene in "Blue > Steel" where Ron Silver is anointing himself in the blood of his victim? How > revolting! And that's before considering the risk of disease through blood-borne > pathogens! Icky-poo! > > So I'm not against people who choose to believe in anyone or anything outside of > themselves. I'm against naughty people who do horrendous things in the names of their > beliefs, politics and other dogma. So be careful out there. Most people are decent > people. Just beware of the select few who take advantage of that situation for their > own nefarious purposes. > > --Bekki
Quote: "> If you want me to submit to who yourself consider "Holy" and "Sanctified" and anyone > else, even myself, is seen as unholy or evil is the pinnacle of arrogance itself.
Why is it arrogant? "
Simple: Because if anyone wants to deem someone as "unworthy" only because they don't worship and covet exactly they way they do then that is just wrong. That's why I'm not with any form of fundamentalism. And yes I have seen fundies as atheists and believers calling each other various permutations of the "mentally ill" trope. It's the fundamentalism that's off-putting when I can see it as just the same old crap.
Quote: Well... Lets say you have a child. They want to play with the neighbor's "puppy". But it's not a puppy. It's a 45 lb. pit-bull. If you Live and let Live, does that also mean others are free to die (e.g. destroy themselves) if they so choose?
I won't have kids. But, since you brought it up...
No one forces anyone to have kids. If you have kids then they're your responsibility. That includes not just teaching them right from wrong but also keeping them from harm. It's not my responsibility to watch your kids all the way over here. It does not take a village. The buck stops with you.
Speaking of yourself, it is in poor taste for you wanting me to have kids and wishing for them to be mauled due to parental negligence. Such drama!
And "civilized" people wonder why I won't have kids.
Quote: The point is; some people may do what they want, but in the process they could be hurting themselves.
That's life: The world is the classroom and the teacher is pain. And it's really none of my business what they do to themselves as long as it doesn't directly affect me.
Sure, there will be some people who will die to to poor decisions. Even good people suffer tragedies too, including death. But given how many humans exist upon this mudball that's called "Oith" it would be a waste to try to watch every single human being 24/7 and ensure everyone is completely safe. There are simply just not enough helmets, restraints and foam rubber to go around.
Mmm...restraints... ;-)
Besides, it's really none of my business. There are millions of paths towards pleasure just as there are millions of paths towards pain. Humans need to be their own navigators within this vast universe. And those who choose not to control themselves and don't pay the wages of death will be controlled by the criminal justice system and the social services system.
Tragic stuff. But that's reality. That's the way it is.
And that's the point missed by the junkies-in-denial known as "Good Samaritans" and those who do their damndest for "The Greater Good" (The Greater Good...shut it!): They ignore mature responsible peoples' right to be left alone!
No one needs saved. People need to learn to save themselves. It's frustrating when people don't do that but it's a part of life.
Fatalistic? Perhaps. Hateful? Not really. Real? Certainly so.
> And TBH,the story of Jesus sounds man made.Jesus is everything man wished he could > be,sin free,the son of a God,has magical powers etc...
I get the impression that a lot of what was written ~could~ have been based on someones life. The only real hangup to plausibility would be the miracles. I feel that a lot of those could be truth through ignorant eyes. Maybe Jesus was just an early version of Tony Robbins or something.
Take "Water into Wine". Weddings at that time lasted for days, and the wine-making skills probably weren't as honed as they are today. They'd probably have plenty of pomace at the bottom of the wine barrels to use as mash and distill up some decent moonshine in an hour or three. All it would take is one person who didn't understanding the process of wine making or distillation to record that as a miracle.
Most of the other miracles are healings, short of the bread 'n fish one. Healing 'miracles' happen all the time...Can't be that hard to do...
> "> If you want me to submit to who yourself consider "Holy" and "Sanctified" and > anyone > > else, even myself, is seen as unholy or evil is the pinnacle of arrogance itself. > > Why is it arrogant? " > > Simple: Because if anyone wants to deem someone [else] as "unworthy" only because they don't > worship and covet exactly they way they do then that is just wrong. That's why I'm > not with any form of fundamentalism. And yes I have seen fundies as atheists and > believers calling each other various permutations of the "mentally ill" trope. It's > the fundamentalism that's off-putting when I can see it as just the same old crap. >
The idea of being "unworthy" does carry a lot of weight. One could see it as a remark of condemnation -as something bad, or they could see it as a remark of warning, or notification of their standing. What they do with this information is what's important.
An example: If you go to the store to buy something, the cashier rings up the total, and says it's such & such amount. You go to pull the money from your wallet (or purse?), you see that you don't have enough to pay for the item. Or you hand what you have to the cashier, and they count it. They then inform you that you are (in another way of saying) "unworthy" to purchase this item. You could feel condemned by that information. Or you could use it to correct where you have this shortcoming (e.g. A fool despises correction.)
> > Well... Lets say you have a child. They want to play with the neighbor's "puppy". But > > it's not a puppy. It's a 45 lb. pit-bull. If you Live and let Live, does that also > > mean others are free to die (e.g. destroy themselves) if they so choose? > > I won't have kids. But, since you brought it up... > > No one forces anyone to have kids. If you have kids then they're your responsibility. > That includes not just teaching them right from wrong but also keeping them from > harm. It's not my responsibility to watch your kids all the way over here. It does > not take a village. The buck stops with you. > > Speaking of yourself, it is in poor taste for you wanting me to have kids and wishing > for them to be mauled due to parental negligence. Such drama! > > And "civilized" people wonder why I won't have kids. >
Nice way to divert the subject. What I was alluding to with the if you had a kid playing with a dangerous dog -scenario was that if you -as a GOOD parent- cared for and loved your child - you wouldn't let them do something to harm themself. If it were someone elses kid... As you said "it's not my responsibility". I seem to recall (I think it was you) that said how you dislike apathy. Is that correct? To let someone elses child go ahead and get mauled by a dog (again, only using this as an example -not to be taken literally -just so you know, I know it must be difficult) since it's not your kid, not your responsibility. Eh? Sounds very apathetic to me.
How that fits into God's relationship to Man is that we are his creation. He loves all of us. He gives us a way to escape hell (like a way to stop playing with a dangerous animal) by turning away from our sins. When we (Christians) are to do our father's will - that is to warn others of the dangers of sin and the hell that is to come if they don't repent of their sins.
> The point is; some people may do what they want, but in the process they could be > hurting themselves. > > That's life: The world is the classroom and the teacher is pain. And it's really none > of my business what they do to themselves as long as it doesn't directly affect me. >
Again with the apathy.
We're all connected in one way or another. Sin always has a consequence. What might not affect you will always affect someone else, and somewhere down the line it might affect someone you care about, which should affect you. Someone always gets hurt due to someone else's bad choices in life. That's just the way it is.
Ever stop for a minute and wonder why in any and ALL christian bibles, the story goes from his childhood directly to adulthood? Where did adolescence go? Things that are done and at the very least thoughts that are had during that time in life are certainly not "free of sin" as the rest of the bible would tell us. It wouldn't jive so it was never included. But go on with your simple life regurgitating exactly what you've been taught your whole life without a single personal thought on the matter.
...and it's also the God given right of others to > voice their disagreement of your views - whether they like it or not (on it being a > God given right).
No... it's a constitutional right, provided by our government.
and I could go further by > adding that we'd have to be baptized in water, -
And you'd be dead wrong. Not all religions practice babtism (in fact, very few). The God Christians learn of would not deny someone entrance into heaven because of ignorace.
It's the way an individual leads their life that matters. To think otherwise would mean that being brought up in most religions outside of Christianity would keep you out of heaven and THAT my freind is absolutely arrogant.
Quote: They then inform you that you are (in another way of saying) "unworthy" to purchase this item. You could feel condemned by that information. Or you could use it to correct where you have this shortcoming (e.g. A fool despises correction.)
People make mistakes. It happens. And some people learn from their mistakes. It's why keyboards have "Backspace" and "Delete" keys. Even I'm prone to typos and I do catch most of them. Some get through, of course. It's not deliberate. :-)
Quote: I seem to recall (I think it was you) that said how you dislike apathy. Is that correct?
I've also mentioned that bad things happen even to good people.
It's about practicality. It's not my job to run around everywhere keeping people out of trouble. And, interestingly enough, we have people paid to do that already. If I spent all my time watching other people and protecting them from themselves and others then I'd truly have no life for myself, my family and my loved ones. I can only help people within my own immediate area.
I won't guess what your job is. But, if that's your job I commend you for it. I'm not being facetious or cynical for tone gets lost within these strings of text and pixels. It's a huge universe and bad things are bound to happen. For example I have to give props to anyone who chooses to be a police officer, fire fighter, EMT, etc.
Really. Picture a dolly running around protecting the world from one another. Think of it as paranoia as slapstick tragicomedy. Or, for something more basic, think of Activision's "Kaboom!". People, young and old, die or get hurt. Thousands each day. Sometimes through their own fault or no fault of their own. I wish that wasn't the case but that's how it is. It's not your fault or my fault for that. That's life.
I'm willing to give mature adults the nod to do what they like. If they want to put their offspring in harms' way then that's on them for kids don't know and it's the parents' job to teach them and keep them out of danger. Just common sense. Adults know the risks. Kids don't.
Do you think I care about what the Jackass crew does to themselves, for example? Do you? While it is a little late for Ryan Dunn I don't think they need saving.
I have no guilt over that because that would be a waste. Read into that what you like.
How about humans aren't good and that Jesus is the shepherd? Sure Christians mess up, but they at least know that and they know they need Jesus the Christ as their savior.
Our "Good deeds" are like a baby scrawling compared to a perfect work of art compared to Jesus. He did what nobody else could do.
Arrogance is saying you "deserve" to be saved, Christians aren't saved because they "Deserve" saved, but by God's Mercy. God allows people to choose to reject Jesus and therefore face eternal damnation.
Its a choice to not have children, but your neighbors are your "Brothers" and "Sisters" so to speak. We are to care about each others well being, while we don't have the right to force our beliefs on others we have the obligation to discuss them.
People have the right to accept or reject Christianity, but they should at least be made aware of it and make an informed decision.
> How about humans aren't good and that Jesus is the shepherd? Sure Christians mess up, > but they at least know that and they know they need Jesus the Christ as their savior. > > Our "Good deeds" are like a baby scrawling compared to a perfect work of art compared > to Jesus. He did what nobody else could do.
> and I could go further by > > adding that we'd have to be baptized in water, - > > And you'd be dead wrong. Not all religions practice babtism (in fact, very few). The > God Christians learn of would not deny someone entrance into heaven because of > ignorace. > > It's the way an individual leads their life that matters. To think otherwise would > mean that being brought up in most religions outside of Christianity would keep you > out of heaven and THAT my freind is absolutely arrogant.
You (guys) seem to throw around the word "arrogant" a LOT. Thank goodness this isn't Pee-Wee's playhouse and "arrogant / arrogance" the secret word of the day.
"absolutely arrogant" If we could all earn our way into heaven based on the way we lived our lives then to say that we should be baptized wouldn't necessarily be "arrogant", it would just be mistaken.
> Politicians promise many things, but like Satan are liars, manipulators, and should > not be revered or trusted. Putting faith in a political party is like worshipping a > golden donkey or elephant.
We get the message. Politicians suck. All countries face the same problem of these leechers of the public purse.
> As for the religious bit, I don't know about your town, but people here would have burst out laughing at such retarded idiocy.
Boy they sure do. Between the inquisitions and covering up child rape I'd say they've messed up quite a few million times.
Quote: ...but they at least know that and they know they need Jesus the Christ as their savior.
As long as they're doing things in the name of Christ then it's A-OK.
Taking your morality from "rules" that were made over 2000 years ago isn't the best of ideas IMO, and to somewhat stay on topic anyone who thinks it's in the country's best interest to consider their vote on a candidate that also thinks that rules from 2000 years ago are the best way to govern and rule a populous should have their heads checked.
Christians mess up as much and sometimes even more than atheists and followers of other religions.
The thing to being a Christian is to remember that you aren't sin free, won't be sin free in this world, but that Jesus the Christ is sin free and that you are saved by His works, not your own.
Quote: The thing to being a Christian is to remember that you aren't sin free, won't be sin free in this world...
Then I truly feel bad for you. To have that guilt and shame constantly over your head, it must be miserable. You are never worthy of the one you MUST love.
Sounds like an abusive relationship to me. Imagine being that way to your spouse or child. Telling them that they are never good enough for you, that they're always screwing up, that they aren't worthy. And if they step out of line you'll "smite" them or send them somewhere where they will be tortured for eternity, so they'd better LOVE you. It's simply baffling to me that people can be a victim of this and think that it is OK.
> The thing to being a Christian is to remember that you aren't sin free, won't be sin > free in this world... > > Then I truly feel bad for you. To have that guilt and shame constantly over your > head. You are never worthy of the one you MUST love. > > Sounds like an abusive relationship to me.
There shouldn't be any "Guilt" from having sex with your spouse, however if you're having sex with someone you aren't married to, that's another story.
Sex within a marriage is sacred, sex outside a marriage is immoral.
If someone does something immoral and has guilt afterwards, that is good, because the sinner has a chance to repent.
> If someone does something immoral and has guilt afterwards, that is good, because the > sinner has a chance to repent.
Problem is religious save under these words to do whatever they want. "Everyone is a sinner even myself, but if I spread the word of God then I can be saved and even keep doing the same if I keep 'repenting' every few weeks".
Immorality is not someone without faith, is someone shielding their actions under someone they don't know but keep attributing responsibilities and decisions they can't take by their own. If I were a god I would be really pissed off I gave my creations the capability to fix their problems by their own, yet they're lazy foes who keep asking me to clean their messes.
And let's be honest, you don't give a damn about others people's demise. You only spread "God's word" to save your own lives.
...I'm starting to remember why you got banned last time.
I'd say that God helps us and wants us to rely on him. He helps us remember that we will fall on our own, but through Him we can be redeemed.
I think God wants His people to help one another, that no one is an island to themselves. The biggest problem of humanity is selfishness, if people took into account how their behavior has an effect on others and thought before they acted, the world would be a better place.
Frankly, I believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light, and that He is sin free, was resurrected after a death on the cross, and that Salvation comes through believing in that and professing it.
I also believe reject that will cause someone to face eternal damnation when they die if they don't repent. Frankly, I don't want to see that happen to anyone. I don't care how much people may hate me or what I believe in, but I wouldn't wish eternity in a lake of fire to anyone.
I can be a jerk, I'm sorry for my previous behavior, if people want to hold that against me that's their choice.
> There shouldn't be any "Guilt" from having sex with your spouse, however if you're > having sex with someone you aren't married to, that's another story. > > Sex within a marriage is sacred, sex outside a marriage is immoral. >
Have you ever been married? Have you ever experienced the blessed miracle that is a woman's punanny for yourself?
Mrs. Gor used to work with a young Baptist woman who was telling another co-worker how she was ashamed of what her and her husband had done before marriage. The co-worker said something like, "Oh, it's OK, lots of couples have sex before marriage." The Baptist freaked out a bit and said what she was ashamed about was the she and her husband had kissed before getting married. So, according to what she learned in her church, kissing before marriage is wrong. Though, it's apparently OK to resign your position at the end of the school year so you can have a baby, put in a claim for unemployment even though you willfully resigned, and then continue earning money by teaching piano lessons out of your home while getting paid unemployment benefits.
Having sex outside of marriage is wrong. I don't recall saying anything about kissing, unless you're talking about kissing other than kissing on the lips.
Frankly people are free to do whatever they want. I discuss my beliefs and do my best to follow them. I understand how easy it is to do immoral things, and that people can find they enjoy it. Enjoying something doesn't make it right.
Unlike some Christians, I don't care to force morality onto people, particularly through the government, who I find to be anything but moral.
I do share my beliefs, but people are free to reject them. I find it difficult to live a moral life. I make mistakes, and I try to do better, that's all anyone can do.
I don't ask people to be perfect or expect it, as I'm not perfect nor capable of it. I do discuss what the right thing is to do.
Those three words sum up why I can't go along with religion. The rest just summed up how humans are seen as beasts to be corralled. And I've stated numerous times that most people are good.
I'll admit that I have my own moments. It's usually from realizations such as this. It's when I look and see right there, "Hey! Aren't you aware you're calling humans a bunch of no good beasts?" It's as if they miss the point that I've already made.
Humans, even myself, may be flawed. But it's totally hateful to just flat out state they're not good. And there are billions of humans on this mudball called "Oith"! Do you really want to call your neighbors "not good"? Or your parents "not good"? Or your sisters and brothers in your own family "not good"? Your husband, wife or lifelong soulmate is "not good"? By default? And would you tell that to their faces that they're "not good"? Much less complete strangers?
Do you see how offensive that is?
Granted, my neighbors across the street are noisy with their firecrackers and quad cycles. They're "not good" only within the context of noise pollution. Most of my other neighbors are nice people who I chat with from time to time. Sometimes we even go out for dinners or shows.
No matter what happens I'll certainly not state that "humans aren't good". I can't do it. It's not even an option for myself! To state that would not just be misanthropic in the extreme but also reveal the self-hating guilt within.
Quote: The biggest problem of humanity is selfishness, if people took into account how their behavior has an effect on others and thought before they acted, the world would be a better place.
Maybe some of God's holiest men (and their congregation) here on earth should take that into consideration before condemning people for being how their creator created them, denying life saving contraception, using tax-free collected money to build more churches and fund political agendas instead of feeding and clothing the poor, stealing the innocence of their youngest and most vulnerable members of their congregation, torturing and killing those that were considered heretics (but now accept as TRUTH that the earth is round, and revolves around the sun), and instilling fear, guilt, and shame into every one that claims that their master despite thinking that they're wretched, filthy, sinners LOVES them.
Yeah, it would be a better place if they thought before they did all that.
> Having sex outside of marriage is wrong. I don't recall saying anything about > kissing, unless you're talking about kissing other than kissing on the lips. >
I realize you didn't say anything about kissing, I was just relaying what someone's church had taught them. I'm sure there are Christians out there that find your life immoral and are certain of your eternal damnation.
I know your feelings on sex and kissing other than lips outside of marriage, but how do you feel about handjobs outside of marriage? I'm guessing your opposition to kissing other than lips leaves oral sex out.
What about married couples, can they enjoy oral sex without being labeled as immoral? How about going in through the out door? I can tell you I have no interest in giving that a try, but to each their own.
The question wasn't directed at me, and this quote is specifically to the Catholic church, but can be applied to most religions:
"It’s the strangest thing about this church - it is obsessed with sex, absolutely obsessed. Now they will say we, with our permissive society and rude jokes, are obsessed. No, we have a healthy attitude. We like it, it’s fun, it’s jolly; because it’s a primary impulse it can be dangerous and dark and difficult. It’s a bit like food in that respect, only even more exciting. The only people who are obsessed with food are anorexics and the morbidly obese, and that in erotic terms is the Catholic church in a nutshell." --Stephen Fry
> We are to care about each others well being, while we don't > have the right to force our beliefs on others we have the obligation to discuss them. > > People have the right to accept or reject Christianity, but they should at least be > made aware of it and make an informed decision.
I had a snarky comment for you, but refecting on all the drivel you've spouted has just made me sad for you. :sad:
> I know your feelings on sex and kissing other than lips outside of marriage, but how > do you feel about > handjobs outside of marriage? I'm guessing your opposition to kissing other than lips > leaves oral sex out.
Handjobs... nope. Immoral to "Spill your seed on the ground"
Actually, there is only one excuse for sex; Procreation. So in the minds of some priests, I shouldn't be having sex with my wife at all because she is postmenopausal.
Fuck that and Fuck them!
What's hypocritical about that, is that while the church feels so strongly about the "death do us part" part of the marriage vows and it's against divorce, they get around the whole thing by acknowledging (and performing) annulments. Do you know one of the valid reasons for an annulment? Not consummating the marriage.
> > Having sex outside of marriage is wrong. > > > Where did Jesus say this?
The Bible being the word of God, and Jesus being God manifest in the flesh...
Hebrews 13:4
Note: Don't bother trying to say it isn't because that'll mean I'll just have to put up more Bible verses that validate my argument. Just save us both the trouble.
> > > Having sex outside of marriage is wrong. > > > > > > Where did Jesus say this? > > The Bible being the word of God, and Jesus being God manifest in the flesh... > > Hebrews 13:4 > > > Note: Don't bother trying to say it isn't because that'll mean I'll just have to put > up more Bible verses that validate my argument. Just save us both the trouble.
> > > Having sex outside of marriage is wrong. > > > > > > Where did Jesus say this? > > The Bible being the word of God, and Jesus being God manifest in the flesh... > > Hebrews 13:4 > > > Note: Don't bother trying to say it isn't because that'll mean I'll just have to put > up more Bible verses that validate my argument. Just save us both the trouble.
This is of course true, but if you are looking for a direct quote, Krick, there is this one from Jesus's sermon on the mount: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. --Mat 5:27-28
> > > > Having sex outside of marriage is wrong. > > > > > > > > > Where did Jesus say this? > > > > The Bible being the word of God, and Jesus being God manifest in the flesh... > > > > Hebrews 13:4 > > > > > > Note: Don't bother trying to say it isn't because that'll mean I'll just have to > put > > up more Bible verses that validate my argument. Just save us both the trouble. > > This is of course true, but if you are looking for a direct quote, Krick, there is > this one from Jesus's sermon on the mount: > "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you > that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery > with her in his heart. --Mat 5:27-28
> > you are saved by > > His works, not your own. > > I don't understand how you can say that. I'd appreciate if you could explain it to > me. > > I have said this before: > > Take responsibility for your life. All of it. > > Actions have consequences. You are "saved" by your own actions, your "works". > > S
Simple, we are saved (i.e. get to go to Heaven) fully through the grace of God. Our only part in this is to accept the gift He is offering. The works we do have nothing to do with salvation. By the way, this includes baptism to whoever it was who said baptism is a requirement for salvation. Rather, our works are a response to receiving His gift.
> ...humans aren't good... > > Those three words sum up why I can't go along with religion. The rest just summed up > how humans are seen as beasts to be corralled. And I've stated numerous times that > most people are good. > > I'll admit that I have my own moments. It's usually from realizations such as this. > It's when I look and see right there, "Hey! Aren't you aware you're calling humans a > bunch of no good beasts?" It's as if they miss the point that I've already made. > > Humans, even myself, may be flawed. But it's totally hateful to just flat out state > they're not good. And there are billions of humans on this mudball called "Oith"! Do > you really want to call your neighbors "not good"? Or your parents "not good"? Or > your sisters and brothers in your own family "not good"? Your husband, wife or > lifelong soulmate is "not good"? By default? And would you tell that to their faces > that they're "not good"? Much less complete strangers? > > Do you see how offensive that is? > > Granted, my neighbors across the street are noisy with their firecrackers and quad > cycles. They're "not good" only within the context of noise pollution. Most of my > other neighbors are nice people who I chat with from time to time. Sometimes we even > go out for dinners or shows. > > No matter what happens I'll certainly not state that "humans aren't good". I can't do > it. It's not even an option for myself! To state that would not just be misanthropic > in the extreme but also reveal the self-hating guilt within. > > After all you're human too. > > --Bekki
It all depends on whose standard you are comparing people too. Yes, by the standard that maybe we don't break the law, at least very often, not like that guy over there who shot someone or that one who ran over someone with his car, by that standard we may be good. When greybeard says humans aren't good he is going by God's standard. What is God's standard? Look at the ten commandments- broken any of them lately? How many times in the last year? month? week? And remember, Jesus Himself said hating your brother is the same (in your heart) as murdering him. Same with looking lustfully at someone for adultery. Now how do you compare to God's standard?
> Simple, we are saved (i.e. get to go to Heaven) fully through the grace of God. Our > only part in this is to accept the gift He is offering. The works we do have nothing > to do with salvation. By the way, this includes baptism to whoever it was who said > baptism is a requirement for salvation. Rather, our works are a response to receiving > His gift.
It's too abstract, I can't work with that, how do you make plans for the afterlife? I'm interested in this life, this is where the meat is. If there is a god and he gave me a gift, then this life is it, this is what I've got.
If I did someone wrong yesterday and made it up to them today - or - if I want to stop what I'm doing, think about my mistakes and try to improve - then that's my work, and, if I succeed, my salvation.
As far as I'm concerned, the rest is just fun and games, especially games.
> > Having sex outside of marriage is wrong. I don't recall saying anything about > > kissing, unless you're talking about kissing other than kissing on the lips. > > you preaching to us?
> > > Jesus lived a sin free life, > > yeah sure. what did he do before he was an adult? >
We can only speculate since the Bible is silent between birth and 30 aside from the one event when He was 12. However, He was without sin so we know many things he didn't do.
> > sacrificed himself on a cross, > > no, the romans did that to him >
He is God. He had full control over whether or not to allow himself to be executed. Even humanly speaking, there are several things he could have done to avoid death had he wanted to, from not getting in the Jewish leaders' faces to apologizing and responding to Pilate and Herod after his arrest. Remember, Pilate saw nothing in Jesus deserving of death. However, he knew what he was prophesied to do and did it. For us.
> > was resurrected, > > a fairy tale >
So you say. A great multitude beg to differ. How about his disciples for instance? He appeared to them after death and even let Thomas touch his wounds. They went on to become the Apostles and to a man suffered greatly for proclaiming this Gospel message without a single one recanting even to execution for many of them. For a fairy tale? I think not.
> > and offers salvation to those who believe and profess in Jesus’ divinity. > > how can he offer anything? he's dead.
See above
> > > People need to learn that all good things they have are > > from God’s mercy, > > how do you know if god even exists? You are making this up as you go along.
Any basis for this accusation?
> > > Regardless of people’s economic, employment, or other status, the good in their > lives > > is because of God’s mercy, and his greatest mercy is in Jesus’ sacrifice on the > cross > > and resurrection, > > what a crock. I'm calling you out as a troll.
> > Simple, we are saved (i.e. get to go to Heaven) fully through the grace of God. Our > > only part in this is to accept the gift He is offering. The works we do have > nothing > > to do with salvation. By the way, this includes baptism to whoever it was who said > > baptism is a requirement for salvation. Rather, our works are a response to > receiving > > His gift. > > It's too abstract, I can't work with that, how do you make plans for the afterlife? > I'm interested in this life, this is where the meat is. > If there is a god and he gave me a gift, then this life is it, this is what I've got. > > If I did someone wrong yesterday and made it up to them today - or - if I want to > stop what I'm doing, think about my mistakes and try to improve - then that's my > work, and, if I succeed, my salvation. > > As far as I'm concerned, the rest is just fun and games, especially games. > > S
Rather than flood this thread, I will just say that a google search for "Roman's road" or "bridge illustration" will give you much to read and consider. Here's one:
> Simple, we are saved (i.e. get to go to Heaven) fully through the grace of God. Our > only part in this is to accept the gift He is offering. The works we do have nothing > to do with salvation. By the way, this includes baptism to whoever it was who said > baptism is a requirement for salvation. Rather, our works are a response to receiving > His gift.
Acts 2:38...?
But I guess that would depend on if you believe you have to have the Holy Ghost to be saved. Then there's the idea of having it only to (to keep it simple) be a preacher (when you receive the gifts of the spirit - they can then be used in the ministry, etc.)
I know there are other details that could be gotten into, but maybe for another time.
> > a fairy tale > > > > So you say. A great multitude beg to differ. How about his disciples for instance? He > appeared to them after death and even let Thomas touch his wounds. They went on to > become the Apostles and to a man suffered greatly for proclaiming this Gospel message > without a single one recanting even to execution for many of them. For a fairy tale? > I think not. >
Superman is real because half Metropolis saw him dead by Doomsday's hands. And Lois Lane testified his death as a fact because she was holding his dead body in her arms. It says so in the comic, does that make it real?
Not trying to compare a literary best seller to a comic, however it gets the point across. Not everything written on paper (or stone) is/was supposed to be real. How about the other thousand civilizations who saw a different god and gave them different amendments? are they lying or are they telling the truth because it says so in their writings?
If would be funny Greeks instead of Romans conquered the world. Then we could all be praying to Zeus instead.
> > > > Having sex outside of marriage is wrong. > > > > > > Where did Jesus say this? > > > > This is of course true, but if you are looking for a direct quote, Krick, there is > this one from Jesus's sermon on the mount: > "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you > that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery > with her in his heart. --Mat 5:27-28
This passage is about honoring your commitment to your wife, as well as respecting other men and their wives. The point being made is that thinking about banging your neighbor's hot wife is as bad as actually doing it.
Adultery only applies to married people. If I'm married, then lusting after another woman (according to the passage above) is cheating on my wife. Similarly, if I'm single and the woman I'm lusting after is married, then I'm helping her commit adultery. However if both of us are single, then this doesn't apply.
> He is God. He had full control over whether or not to allow himself to be executed. > However, he knew what he was prophesied to do and did it. > For us. > Oh please. Enough with the fairy tales.
> > how do you know if god even exists? > > Any basis for this accusation? > There is no god. You can't prove that there is one. Just like there is no heaven, no hell, no afterlife, and no soul. I could say that there's an invisible boogieman under my bed, but that doesn't make it real.
Actions have consequences. You are "saved" by your own actions, your "works".
Sadly there's this persistent belief that people can do anything and there will be that "invisible hand" to get them out of some snag. Or an invisible airbag down within the canyon as they make their leap of faith.
Most of the time that hand never appears (if it did it would be more likely one finger) and the "bag" is nowhere to be found. Most people don't get pulled away or bounce up from harm. Most just go squish.
There's a reason why there are "Darwin Awards". Fortunately most humans would rather not be a winner. Some survive and go on to be within the next Jackass film. Most people know what's safe and dangerous out there and live long and happy lives, with some watching those Jackass films.
We have brains to determine what's good and bad for ourselves. Use them! :-)
As for the Jackass films and series, I'll keep watching those as long as they show up within the $4 bargain bin. I'll admit my own curiosity regarding the perversity of the human species on that outer fringe. No harm there, though admitting this may show a lapse of judgement on my part.
Oh well. I'm only human. Sometimes I just gotta see the carnage itself and have the good sense not to become a part of it.
Quote: It all depends on whose standard you are comparing people too.
How about a human standard. That's the only standard I have. And it's much easier to live life by that.
What would be easier for you? To go up to a random human being and say that they're no good until they submit to Gawd, Jebus, or whatever Father Figure within your teachings? Or to simply not do that?
Frankly, it's patently absurd to me to attempt to defend someone who utters the phrase "humans aren't good". And then going further stating that a "shepherd" is needed to keep that "flock" in order. To Guide them to that Holy Place (an abattoir, perhaps?) leaving no lost "sheep" behind? And, of course, that disgusting need to bathe yersleves in blood that isn't really blood but y'all call it blood anyways so it's blood. Then there's the consumption of His Flesh with a blood chaser.
The language one uses reveals the dark corners of human nature. Some of us are hip to that. Ya dig? What I find curious about all of this is that the believers are still blind to the obvious as they use the same language I use!
At what point does such awareness get shut off from within?
> It all depends on whose standard you are comparing people too. > > How about a human standard. That's the only standard I have. And it's much easier to > live life by that. > > What would be easier for you? To go up to a random human being and say that they're > no good until they submit to Gawd, Jebus, or whatever Father Figure within your > teachings? Or to simply not do that? > > Frankly, it's patently absurd to me to attempt to defend someone who utters the > phrase "humans aren't good". And then going further stating that a "shepherd" is > needed to keep that "flock" in order. To Guide them to that Holy Place (an abattoir, > perhaps?) leaving no lost "sheep" behind? And, of course, that disgusting need to > bathe yersleves in blood that isn't really blood but y'all call it blood anyways so > it's blood. Then there's the consumption of His Flesh with a blood chaser. > > The language one uses reveals the dark corners of human nature. Some of us are hip to > that. Ya dig? What I find curious about all of this is that the believers are still > blind to the obvious as they use the same language I use! > > At what point does such awareness get shut off from within? > > --Bekki
Remember, Pilate saw nothing in > Jesus deserving of death. However, he knew what he was prophesied to do and did it. > For us.
Ummm... I think you mistakingly got your context wrong here. Pilate is the subject of that sentence (So he==Pilate) but I believe you intended to say that *Jesus* knew what he was prophesied to do it (to be crucified) and did it.
Otherwise, you couldn't be more wrong. Pilate did it because the people wanted it and he was a farking politician. Period.
How do you know it was Jesus who said this? Were you there? No,and neither was I. Everything written in the bible is speculation,since nobody around today was there to verify it.
Nah, murder is unforgivable...unless of course God tells you to do it, or you're doing it in his name.
I mean it's all laid out in 15...I mean 10 easy to follow rules. There are no grey areas or in-betweens. It's all black and white. Yes or no. Yay or nay.
I guess the stone tablets were cutting edge in getting the word out to the people. Then we had books, but it's stopped there. There hasn't been a better way for God to communicate to the people except through a book. Nope....no better way since. God can't find another way to communicate to MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people...if only all those people could be connected together through some technology...some kind of "web" that they're all connected to.....to show them the way. I guess a book was the best he could do.
It's sad. It sounds like they're drafting new recruits and the target audience are desperate and suffering people with no love in their lives and 1 hp left.
I have a problem with these two:
"When we are still in our sin, we have no life with God. We are alive physically but dead spiritually. If we continue in that condition, we will be separated from God for all eternity."
"We can choose to love ourselves and turn to our selfish pursuits. That is sin. In our sin we cannot know God and His love. The result of sin is that we are lost... separated from God."
I've done some bad things in my life, but none that are so bad that I have become "dead spiritually". "dead spiritually" is a heroin junkie living in the street thinking about nothing else except where he can score his next fix, it's rock bottom.
Nor am I lost, in any sense of the word. And frankly I find the idea that loving yourself and "turning to selfish pursuits" is a sin, offensive. If I didn't love myself, If it wasn't for my "selfish pursuits" I wouldn't be where I am today. I've made some personal sacrifices sure, but I didn't step on anybody's face to get here. I've "turned the other cheek" plenty of times in my life but you have to draw the line somewhere. Self love, self preservation. I can't have this love or strength coming from some imaginary external place, it doesn't work for me. My strength, my foundation has to come from within.
This whole idea of turning everything over to God is giving me the creeps.
> This whole idea of turning everything over to God is giving me the creeps. > > S
It may be strange to us, but some people prefer to live as puppets. This way if anything bad happens (or feel "obliged" to do so something bad), they can't blame themselves for their cowardly in life. The puppeteer is not god himself, but an "interpreter" of those words with power aspirations... a sacred politician.
Quote: The puppeteer is not god himself, but an "interpreter" of those words with power aspirations... a sacred politician.
Even then, there comes that point where a little power is too much. It reaches that point where such a person believes everyone needs "saved".
I can't help but follow through to the logical conclusion. It's that point where human life becomes so devalued that you wind up with these "soldiers of god" becoming the next suicide bombers or assassins. And with all that other stuff I thought about earlier I just felt a chill quake through my very soul.
Oh yes. I can understand the creepiness of it all.
Enough of that bummer. I feel like digging through my archives and firing up "Populous" on my 486SX. :-)
Quote: How about trying your Populous on the 486 in MESS?
Because I have a real one. :-p
I'd have to learn how to use MESS/MESSUI. Or I could run it in DOSbox on my desktop. I like DOS. :-)
Likewise I've been checking out the PC-SIG 13th Edition CD-ROM. Ahh, old shareware. I has a spare SCSI seedy drive and card. The drive uses caddies.
If I keep digging around in my basement I'd probably encounter Moses' broken third tablet. I did find my old childhood bible back when I was made to go to Sunday school. The pages are so thin they'd make for killer rolling paper for some holy smoke.
> Even then, there comes that point where a little power is too much. It reaches that > point where such a person believes everyone needs "saved". > > I can't help but follow through to the logical conclusion. It's that point where > human life becomes so devalued that you wind up with these "soldiers of god" becoming > the next suicide bombers or assassins.
Logical conclusion? How is Killing in any way equal to Saving?
Perhaps you've been, uh, smoking a little too much. You know, that stuff you referred to as "Holy Smoke". Maybe it left your brain a little bit holey.
Why don't you pose that question to the many religious zealots out there who slaughter, maim, disfigure, torture, mutilate, etc. in their gods' or prophets' name. Some even do it in the name of a state-sponsored religion known as patriotism.
It's the zealot mindset: It's their lovely way of "saving" by cleansing the world of all that's "unholy" to them. It's where "they're no good" is a key motivation.
Think about it.
It isn't supposed to make any sense to people who are rational, who don't wish harm upon others, and to pursue constructive solutions to life's problems. Take that ethic away, devalue human life, and place ALL faith in the hope of a divine reward after the dastardly deed and you can see the horror of it all. People who have no hope and feel that life is at a dead end are mere kindling on that bonfire. They literally go out with a bang and hope to take a few unwilling victims along with them to gain favor in that mythological afterlife.
That's why some people are creeped out by religion. They catch a glimpse of that big picture and thus a seed of doubt is sown.
All of that violent mess is based on nothing more that mythology thousands of years old which has very little, if any, basis in reality itself. People should be wary of religion and especially of those who deny the dark side of religion in general.
> How is Killing in any way equal to Saving? > > Why don't you pose that question to the many religious zealots out there who > slaughter, maim, disfigure, torture, mutilate, etc. in their gods' or prophets' name. > Some even do it in the name of a state-sponsored religion known as patriotism. > > It's the zealot mindset: It's their lovely way of "saving" by cleansing the world of > all that's "unholy" to them. It's where "they're no good" is a key motivation. > > Think about it. >
Yes. I can think of modern day examples of where this happens, particularly in some (3rd World) Muslim countries... Where they do do horrible things to people that do not believe as they do (heck, even to other Muslims, such as Suni vs Shia(sp?)). But it's not a good idea to lump all religions into one group and say they're all out to kill everyone that doesn't believe as they do. Seriously. When was the last time you heard anything of a Christian killing anyone in the name of their God?
As for "(killing in the name of) state-sponsored religion known as patriotism" -I happen to liken that to the military industrial complex. But that's just from what I believe any of today's modern wars are being 'justified' for. Military spending is beyond ridiculous. The people that fund these wars only worship lord Moolah. Our government gives orders to "defend" us against "terrorists". So any red-blooded American will do what they can to help America... And I'm not saying defending this country is wrong. That would be completely stupid! I'm just saying (IMO) the wars we're in now aren't justified.
And I'd be ignoring the elephant in the room if I didn't say something about how the Hebrew/Israelites or whatever you want to call them (the very first followers of God) went to war with others way back then...
I can only say that they went to war with peoples that were of Pagan religions. These religions worshiped Idols, and anytime you have a physical object (e.g. 'graven image') of worship - you delve into matters of demonic powers. With these idols the priests of these religions would require human blood sacrifices. A little bit of research, say, on Molech - would show you that they placed infants into the hands of the statue of Molech. And this was just after the hands were heated glowing hot.
Wouldn't you think a civilization such as that would deserve justice to be brought to it? Well, you might not.
> It isn't supposed to make any sense to people who are rational, who don't wish harm > upon others, and to pursue constructive solutions to life's problems. Take that ethic > away, devalue human life, and place ALL faith in the hope of a divine reward after > the dastardly deed and you can see the horror of it all. People who have no hope and > feel that life is at a dead end are mere kindling on that bonfire. They literally go > out with a bang and hope to take a few unwilling victims along with them to gain > favor in that mythological afterlife. >
Hm-Hmm. Painting with a broad brush.
> That's why some people are creeped out by religion. They catch a glimpse of that big > picture and thus a seed of doubt is sown. > > All of that violent mess is based on nothing more that mythology thousands of years > old which has very little, if any, basis in reality itself. People should be wary of > religion and especially of those who deny the dark side of religion in general. > > Read up on history. You'll see. > > --Bekki
Study religion all you want. Try looking for Faith.....
It doesn't matter if it's recent or not, Christianity has just as much, if not more blood on its hands than the Muslim religion. Do you think the widespread christian base is so large because of the warm, fuzzy feeling that Jesus gives? It was started and spread through fear, intimidation, and bloodshed. If you were not a christian, you were killed, tortured, or imprisoned. With those tactics I doubt that most people at the time claimed to be christian because of the teachings of Jesus....they did it to save their skin. While not as blatant, the christian church still uses fear and intimidation to keep the fold in check.
It doesn't matter that they're not burning "heretics" at the stake, or strapping non believers to the rack anymore...the fact still remains that it happened and by subscribing to the core beliefs you're still supporting, and subscribing to those beliefs that are responsible for the deaths of thousands if not millions.
How can any christian with a conscience ever say things like "that doesn't happen anymore" or "that's not what the church is about anymore" and still feel good about their religion? It happened, by the church's "holiest" and highest men. Their pope's and priests, bishops and pastors. These are men that claimed to speak with god, or get direct orders from men who can communicate with god who did unspeakable things to their fellow man because they thought they were doing god's work.
Whether 4,000 years, or 4 days ago it's evil, immoral, and sickening and you, yes YOU support how the religion spread whether you object to it or not and if you were born somewhere in the middle east I'd wager you'd be defending a muslim or arab offshoot religion.
Quote: These religions worshiped Idols, and anytime you have a physical object (e.g. 'graven image') of worship - you delve into matters of demonic powers.
This is funny to me because I see christian graven images all the time. Crosses litter the landscape and statues of saints and Mary, and a bloody, beaten Jesus are worshiped and idolized just as much as any golden calf was in the past. Religious people seem to be impervious to their own irony.
> > I'm just saying (IMO) the wars > we're in now aren't justified. > You probably wouldn't say that if your wife and kids or parents (or whomever is closest to you) were in one of the twin towers, or on one of the planes.
There are at least -some- good things evolving as a result of our actions. And when I say our... I mean pretty much all of our governments. The government/military of pretty much every country of every 'binner here has had a hand in it in some way, so please no finger pointing (preemtive).
Index 
Threaded 
Why I don't care for American politicians...
Reply
[Re: 
Yet, I suppose the only barbs in your remarks is when you put down anyone else. ...That's how a lot of 'non-believers' see those that profess God and living a holy life as "self-righteous". I wonder, would they call a math professor (something like) "self-matheous"? ...Saying things like "you can't tell me how to add!" 
What I was alluding to with the if you had a kid playing with a dangerous dog -scenario was that if you -as a GOOD parent- cared for and loved your child - you wouldn't let them do something to harm themself. If it were someone elses kid... As you said "it's not my responsibility". I seem to recall (I think it was you) that said how you dislike apathy. Is that correct? To let someone elses child go ahead and get mauled by a dog (again, only using this as an example -not to be taken literally -just so you know, I know it must be difficult) since it's not your kid, not your responsibility. Eh? Sounds very apathetic to me.
