How We Got To Here: Christianity Version

#226
#226
volprof said:
Yes, you're right. I sold myself down the river with that mistake.

As you aptly point out, it was the reformed ultranationalist murderer who made comments about moochers.
Click to expand...

You have been doing some major trolling today. Are you training for some trolling marathon or something? If so, keep it up... I think you've got a real shot.

edit: See post above... I mean MAJOR trolling.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#227
#227
IBlvNTmWrk said:
You have been doing some major trolling today. Are you training for some trolling marathon or something? If so, keep it up... I think you've got a real shot.

edit: See post above... I mean MAJOR trolling.
Click to expand...

You'll have to forgive me. Like what Marcus said with learning the Preamble, the Gettysburg Address, etc. some of this is getting fuzzy to me as the years go on.

I admitted my mistake though, although you're now trying to turn me into Ryan Lochte.

Is it not true that Jesus did not speak about moochers and that it was the "reformed" ultranationalist murderer who did?
 
#228
#228
volprof said:
You'll have to forgive me. Like what Marcus said with learning the Preamble, the Gettysburg Address, etc. some of this is getting fuzzy to me as the years go on.

I admitted my mistake though, although you're now trying to turn me into Ryan Lochte.

Is it not true that Jesus did not speak about moochers and that it was the "reformed" ultranationalist murderer who did?
Click to expand...

Not at all... if anything I would think you're a much closer comparison to Trump. All you're doing is trying to create an online, antagonistic persona to see how much attention you can bring to yourself. It's been quite amusing to observe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#230
#230
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Not at all... if anything I would think you're a much closer comparison to Trump. All you're doing is trying to create an online, antagonistic persona to see how much attention you can bring to yourself. It's been quite amusing to observe.
Click to expand...

You're starting to catch on.
 
#231
#231
Okay, it was fun, but I'm moving on now.

Nothing left to be accomplished here at this point.
 
#233
#233
volprof said:
No, Jesus was the natural anti-fascist push you get in any ethnic ultranationalist society. He, assuming he even existed, figured that those idiots were short-changing themselves and that the best way to gain power was by shifting the message - an international one.

Selling the populace on internationalism and eternal life is a brilliant move. It's unthinkable to me that no one ever thought of this before "Jesus." How did this happen? Seriously? How did no one else think of this?

Of course, Muhammad, never one to skip a beat, stole it from Jesus, but how did this happen!

It seriously baffles me.
Click to expand...
Sure, nothing remarkable about him at all.
Miracles and that rising from the dead thing didn't hurt his cause.

Follow me, and become a persecuted enemy of the temple and an enemy of the Roman state.

Where can I sign up?,
 
#235
#235
Roustabout said:
Sure, nothing remarkable about him at all.
Miracles and that rising from the dead thing didn't hurt his cause.

Follow me, and become a persecuted enemy of the temple and an enemy of the Roman state.

Where can I sign up?,
Click to expand...

Roust
 
#240
#240
k-town_king said:
Its not that that people praise it, its that its no big deal to them. According to the Bible it is just as bad if not worse than being gay. We don't have people trying to regulate divorce and many obviously don't care that Trump has been divorced many times.

What about the Bible telling us to feed the poor and take care of our fellow man who isn't as fortunate as we are? That goes against the entire Republican platform.
Click to expand...

That's not true at all.... Most republicans or people in general would give anything they can to help someone that needs it.... They have problem helping people that can help themselves.
 
#242
#242
Roustabout said:
The fish is actually a pretty small part of the story.
Click to expand...

Do you have a logical explanation or was it just a miracle?


Roustabout said:
OK, explain how a persons worldview and ethic doesn't influence policy? It's called cognitive dissonance. It is absolutely a foundational part of my being that humans have intrinsic, objective value, and this is based on my ultimate view of God being their creator.

Our founders NEVER made such nonsensical claims. They instituted prayer and the reading of scripture and often had religious services inter mixed with governmental meetings. Faith positions influenced public policy.
Click to expand...

I believe that most of the founders would not agree with that sentiment. I also don't think they were big on holding religious services along with their political meetings.



Roustabout said:
Blue laws are not an undo burden on anyone. If the public wants to vote to get rid of them, i'm fine with it.
Click to expand...

So, you are okay if atheists become the majority and outlaw church on Sundays? It's not an undue burden and if the public wants to vote to permit it... then okay.


Roustabout said:
That is absolute nonsense. You are claiming that an atheistic ethic is superior with nothing to ground this upon. You are essentially saying that a religious view cannot correspond to reality. I do agree that the religious view should be able to be grounded. I do not hold that something should be illegal simply because a religious books says so. However, a religious position may be the right view, and therefore be applicable to public policy.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that the overriding principle upon which the US was formed was and is that all men are created equally and should be treated as such. It's pretty clear that homosexuality isn't a choice. Therefore, they deserve equal treatment under the law. Don't give me the civil union crap. That's simply a way to maintain a sense of superiority.


Roustabout said:
I cannot separate my worldview into fragments. Of course, all of my positions are influenced in some degree or another by my Christian world view, just as your stance on certain positions is also influenced by your worldview. Again, you are essentially dismissing a Christian view as having no ontological value or grounding, outside of personal opinion.
Click to expand...

Again, you are mischaracterizing my view. I acknowledge that religion will influence one's worldview, but one should also be able to intellectually honest enough to admit when the primary/sole motivation behind a law or policy is religious on nature and oppose such laws.


Roustabout said:
This is really a different matter than whether people with religious views can or cannot influence public policy.
In this case, i do not disagree. She was called to apply the law, which disagreed with her personal convictions, and yes, she should have resigned. I 100% agree. You simply can't equate this to abortion and lobbying for stricter abortion laws.
Click to expand...

I have not equated it to abortion. With respect to abortion laws, i think that most prolifers are hypocritical and have drawn a line in the sand with respect to which their rhetoric cannot be reconciled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#243
#243
ClearwaterVol said:
Do you have a logical explanation or was it just a miracle?
Click to expand...
Do you mean a natural explanation? Talk about loading the question.


I believe that most of the founders would not agree with that sentiment. I also don't think they were big on holding religious services along with their political meetings.
Click to expand...
You believe?
Then what you believe is contrary to records of history. We have documents of such. The FFs were overwhelmingly religious men. Thomas Paine was the only hostile person towards Christianity and religion. Franklin and Jefferson would be considered religious by today's standards. Although these men were prominent, they actually represent a small % of the founding fathers. It was normal practice to invoke God and Christ in prayer to open government meetings. It's a fact of history. Congress even affirmed the printing and dissemination of Bibles.
Resolved: That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of the arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report, of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States and hereby authorize him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper (p. 574, Journals of Congress, September 12, 1782).
Click to expand...
What congress didn't do was pay for it, or mandate it.

I can start pulling more quotes and documents to show this to be the case. It isn't an opinion. It's a historical fact.

On October 11, 1798, President John Adams told the militia of Massachusetts, "We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."


So, you are okay if atheists become the majority and outlaw church on Sundays? It's not an undue burden and if the public wants to vote to permit it... then okay.
Click to expand...
Of course I'm not OK with it, because it is a direct violation of a constitutional right. States have the right to regulate commerce. Bad, bad example.

No, I'm saying that the overriding principle upon which the US was formed was and is that all men are created equally and should be treated as such. It's pretty clear that homosexuality isn't a choice. Therefore, they deserve equal treatment under the law. Don't give me the civil union crap. That's simply a way to maintain a sense of superiority.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. The ultimate questions is why should government recognize and affirm ANY marriage. State recognized marriage is not about love, and it isn't about affirming sexual attraction. It isn't even about getting inheritance rights, or heath insurance for your partner.

Oh, And you left out the endowed by their creator part.
The government doesn't regulate proclivities. it does regulate behavior. I'd be careful about evoking equality as it relates to the founders, who didn't think everyone should have the right to vote. Slippery slope for you my friend.

Again, you are mischaracterizing my view. I acknowledge that religion will influence one's worldview, but one should also be able to intellectually honest enough to admit when the primary/sole motivation behind a law or policy is religious on nature and oppose such laws.
Click to expand...
You say mischaracterizing. I say pointing out obvious flaws in your reasoning. The constitution protects us from being coerced into religion by the government, such was the case in England. It protects the church from the state. It doesn't lock faith in the closet and forbid it a seat at the table.

I have not equated it to abortion. With respect to abortion laws, i think that most prolifers are hypocritical and have drawn a line in the sand with respect to which their rhetoric cannot be reconciled.
Click to expand...
You've generalized it to religious ethics, which would certainly apply to this subject. I can go back and quote you verbatim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#245
#245
I've been watching this thread with interest....

Until someone can reconcile the god of the old testament with the god of the new testament and make me believe that one (or the other) is the ONE god I can't put my belief behind either......
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#246
#246
GhostVol said:
I've been watching this thread with interest....

Until someone can reconcile the god of the old testament with the god of the new testament and make me believe that one (or the other) is the ONE god I can't put my belief behind either......
Click to expand...
I'm gonna need to see more pomp, and less substance before I take you srs.
 
#249
#249
god has absolutely changed.... In the OT was a jealous person (Worship no one but me).... But in the the NT worship "the son".......

OK
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#250
#250
Anything that is perfect cannot change and still be perfect. Perfect is an absolute.

Would you worship any thing that isn't perfect? Or would you rather worship an entity that is demonstrably imperfect?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top