How We Got To Here: Christianity Version

[apevol]

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?

Perfection is boring.

 

[GhostVol]

Perfection is boring.

It may be boring but it's what all religionists hang their hat on..... My god is perfect!

 

[apevol]

It may be boring but it's what all religionists hang their hat on..... My god is perfect!

If only they'd stop wearing hats.

 

[GhostVol]

If only they'd stop wearing hats.

LOL.....

Unfortunately, some folks demand that we acquiesce to their beliefs.......

 

[apevol]

LOL.....

Unfortunately, some folks demand that we acquiesce to their beliefs.......

I admit to wearing a hat. I hang it on my head till I'm done at work. Then I let the dog play with it.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Do you mean a natural explanation? Talk about loading the question.

I said what I meant. Stop dodging and answer. You provided a logical and reasonable explanation of the Noah story. Can you do the same for Jonah?

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.

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.

Facts? No. Since you've brought up Ben Franklin, I'll address that misrepresentation you've chosen to trot out. He wasn't a religious man by the standards of the day which is really what is important because it was much easier to believe back then because of state of scientific discovery. Franklin, however, believed that religion was useful because it kept the masses from vice not because of its devine truthfulness.

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."

Again, you cite someone that found usefulness in religion as a means to control the masses. Admittedly, he was more religious than Franklin, but hardly devout by standards of the day. His father wanted him to become a preacher, Adams considered the law a more noble pursuit.

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.

Okay,granted. Let's say the law forbids the sale and consumption of grape juice, wine and bread on Sundays. Just commerce regulations. Now are you fine being governed by a bunch of atheists?

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.

It's pretty amazing how Christians now don't want any "marriages" sanctioned by the government. It wasn't an issue until gays joined the party.

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.


You've generalized it to religious ethics, which would certainly apply to this subject. I can go back and quote you verbatim.

Actually, it also protects us from religion, as well.

 

[GhostVol]

I admit to wearing a hat. I hang it on my head till I'm done at work. Then I let the dog play with it.

Damn, man.... Dogs slobber on anything they can chew. That includes your hat!

I notice no one wants to talk about the fact that that god changed from the OT to the NT......

 

[apevol]

Damn, man.... Dogs slobber on anything they can chew. That includes your hat!

I notice no one wants to talk about the fact that that god changed from the OT to the NT......

I told you I wear a hat. Didn't say it was mine.

 

[GhostVol]

I told you I wear a hat. Didn't say it was mine.

Whether it's yours or not wear it proudly!!!!

 

[apevol]

Whether it's yours or not wear it proudly!!!!

I am proud to wear this hat.

 

[joevol33]

Damn, man.... Dogs slobber on anything they can chew. That includes your hat!

I notice no one wants to talk about the fact that that god changed from the OT to the NT......

Where did he change? Salvation came through his son, and God never said forget him and worship his son. Even Jesus said all honor was given to his father. Not sure where you get that from.

 

[joevol33]

I am proud to wear this hat.

I love you no matter what hat you wear, or that we disagree. Just don't tell Jerry, he's jealous.

 

[n_huffhines]

then how would you define good? if there is no God or the Bible (who set the laws of what is good and bad) then we couldn't never question a dictator or murderer. Hitler would have been justified by society for doing what he did.

Wtf

 

[n_huffhines]

Where did he change? Salvation came through his son, and God never said forget him and worship his son. Even Jesus said all honor was given to his father. Not sure where you get that from.

Well, Jesus was sent here to teach us things that completely refute what past prophets God had sent taught us. We went from stoning sinners to turning the other cheek. That's about as much as you can possibly change, IMO.

 

[joevol33]

Well, Jesus was sent here to teach us things that completely refute what past prophets God had sent taught us. We went from stoning sinners to turning the other cheek. That's about as much as you can possibly change, IMO.

We did go from the law to grace, but that wasn't what I was responding to. It was the comment of God saying worship his son instead of him.

 

[n_huffhines]

We did go from the law to grace, but that wasn't what I was responding to. It was the comment of God saying worship his son instead of him.

Aren't they the same beimg in your opinion? Seems like a weird contention if you believe that.

BTW, i appreciate your level head in these matters. I like the discourse

 

[Roustabout]

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

Your theological prowess is amazing

 

[Orange_Crush]

Churches are great with charity.People here that claim to be Christian and are Republicans have stated many times their disdain for programs that help the poor though. Many believe they should be eliminated. The main republican talking point regarding social programs is that they are handouts that should not exist. That doesn't sound too Christian. All the rhetoric is that the people are just lazy and looking for free stuff. The Christian thing would not be to judge the poor people, but to help them.

2 Thes 3:10 -- For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

I think you misunderstand the POV of many conservative Christians. It's not that we don't want to see the poor helped, it's that we believe the liberal welfare policies as the wrong way to do it. Most conservative Christians that I know are very generous and charitable people.

What you need to understand is that Jesus had every opportunity to make His teachings about politics, and He refused to do so. You should be careful trying to hijack Jesus as a political figure. They tried to make Him king, and He fled. When questioned, He repeatedly made it plain that His Kingdom (ideals) are spiritual and not political.

Jesus' teachings were about individual heart responses and individual actions. It's a bit of a disservice to His teachings to try to conscript them to liberal politics. IOW, there's a big difference between,"The individual should show love to their neighbor through action by helping to fill their needs" and "the gov't should tax people heavily and fill that role so that no one will individually notice their neighbor and help them".

If you want to force Jesus into a political figure, I can tell you He'd also never run as a liberal, and would definitely never get elected by liberals.

Liberal rhetoric: More taxes, distribute wealth, war on poverty!

Jesus: You'll always have poor people.

Biblical policy: If you refuse to work, we refuse to feed you.

Can you see that Biblical teaching isn't quite so cut and dry as to say: "If you are a real Christian, you'd be a Democrat"? Perhaps some people may see Biblical teaching per individual hearts and corporate policy?

Be transformed by love to help the truly needy. Don't rely on the gov't to do what we should be doing. Recognize that gov't programs are bloated, inefficient, abused, and contrary to helping the poor not be poor anymore.

:hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

That's not what the Bible says at all.

The Bible doesn't talk about "lazy" people "unwilling to work."

It just says you should give, because it is, of course, imperfect, like any attempt by humanity to include every single moral principle possible in one single book.

You're spinning it for your own personal politics.

Sigh...

2 Thes 3:10 -- For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

 

[LouderVol]

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.

there is a real simple answer to this I don't think you will like.

 

[Roustabout]

I said what I meant. Stop dodging and answer. You provided a logical and reasonable explanation of the Noah story. Can you do the same for Jonah?

one, i don't get bullied into answers. two, i don't answer questions that are phrased in a loaded way, which implies that miracles are illogical. Your a grown man. If you are so intrigued do some study on your own.

Facts? No. Since you've brought up Ben Franklin, I'll address that misrepresentation you've chosen to trot out. He wasn't a religious man by the standards of the day which is really what is important because it was much easier to believe back then because of state of scientific discovery. Franklin, however, believed that religion was useful because it kept the masses from vice not because of its devine truthfulness.

You've failed to back your claim that I've misrepresented anything. You are simply spewing a modern narrative that attempts to white wash the Christian influence on this country. You are really no different than the fundies who try to claim that the US was founded as a Christian nation (It wasn't).

I have no problem looking at BF in light of his contemporaries. I've read Franklin himself, and biographies on the man and your just picking nits.

Again, you cite someone that found usefulness in religion as a means to control the masses. Admittedly, he was more religious than Franklin, but hardly devout by standards of the day. His father wanted him to become a preacher, Adams considered the law a more noble pursuit.

Uh, umkay? I'm not measuring those individuals level of devotion. I'm saying as a whole, the FFs (which is significantly more than Jefferson and Franklin) were men of Christian practice. They regularly worshiped, prayed, studied the scripture and promoted the exercise thereof.

Okay,granted. Let's say the law forbids the sale of grape juice, wine and bread on Sundays. Just commerce regulations. Now are you fine being governed by a bunch of atheists?

One of the realities of being in a republic is that the majority rules, and the minority is heard. As long as it doesn't place an undo burden and prejudice then it's fine. Promoting sobriety and constraining the abuse of alcohol is not solely a "Christian" ideal. Especially since plenty of Christians imbibe. I'm not going to be painted as a supporter of blue laws, since I'm not (And i partake). But, it doesn't concern me as some grace injustice upon the citizenry.

It's pretty amazing how Christians now don't want any "marriages" sanctioned by the government. It wasn't an issue until gays joined the party.

Actually, i have no problem with government sanctioning traditional marriage, and for good reasons. My reasons for supporting traditional marriage have nothing to do with keeping gays down.
Other than that, i agree. Gay marriage opponents went after an institution (and literally discarded the definition of marriage) that serves as a foundation block for civilized society, primarily so they can force the populous to affirm their lifestyle as normal and good.

Actually, it also protects us from religion, as well.

It protects you from state run religion. It doesn't protect you from the religion or the religious, per se. The lady in Kentucky was using a state office to enforce her religious views on others. You'll get no argument from me on that.

 

[LouderVol]

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?

1. what is perfect? my ideal of perfect is probably different than yours. the whole chocolate vs vanilla, blue vs red, Alexandra Daddario vs Kate Upton. no real wrong answers, and absolutely impossible to say definitively what perfect is.
2. Why a human standard, why does God have to match a standard of perfect?
3. What I believe is that the jews got it wrong (God was never the angry person he is made out to be), hence why Jesus came down to set things straight. and why he came down to fulfill the covenant and not destroy it.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

one, i don't get bullied into answers. two, i don't answer questions that are phrased in a loaded way, which implies that miracles are illogical. Your a grown man. If you are so intrigued do some study on your own.

I was intrigued by your explanation nothing more. If you have nothing similar to offer it's ok to say so.

You've failed to back your claim that I've misrepresented anything. You are simply spewing a modern narrative that attempts to white wash the Christian influence on this country. You are really no different than the fundies who try to claim that the US was founded as a Christian nation (It wasn't).

I have no problem looking at BF in light of his contemporaries. I've read Franklin himself, and biographies on the man and your just picking nits.


Uh, umkay? I'm not measuring those individuals level of devotion. I'm saying as a whole, the FFs (which is significantly more than Jefferson and Franklin) were men of Christian practice. They regularly worshiped, prayed, studied the scripture and promoted the exercise thereof.

You chose the names you brought up not me. I provided clear easy to understand refutations of your assertions. I've done plenty of reading on the founding fathers and many of them were very religious men. It just so happens that you picked two who had unique views of religion.

One of the realities of being in a republic is that the majority rules, and the minority is heard. As long as it doesn't place an undo burden and prejudice then it's fine. Promoting sobriety and constraining the abuse of alcohol is not solely a "Christian" ideal. Especially since plenty of Christians imbibe. I'm not going to be painted as a supporter of blue laws, since I'm not (And i partake). But, it doesn't concern me as some grace injustice upon the citizenry.

The blue laws have nothing to do with constraining the abuse of alcohol. I am surprised you would even bring that nonsense here. Blue laws are designed to constrain sundays to worship. No shopping, no drinking etc. They have zero to do with anything other than religion and are inappropriate for that reason.

Is it some grave injustice? No, but it is something that the religious should not be able to force upon us.

Actually, i have no problem with government sanctioning traditional marriage, and for good reasons. My reasons for supporting traditional marriage have nothing to do with keeping gays down.
Other than that, i agree. Gay marriage opponents went after an institution (and literally discarded the definition of marriage) that serves as a foundation block for civilized society, primarily so they can force the populous to affirm their lifestyle as normal and good.

Overreact much? Allowing gays to marry doesn't force the populace to do anything. Good grief.

It protects you from state run religion. It doesn't protect you from the religion or the religious, per se. The lady in Kentucky was using a state office to enforce her religious views on others. You'll get no argument from me on that.

State run religion? You mean like passing laws that are purely religious in nature?

 

[joevol33]

Aren't they the same beimg in your opinion? Seems like a weird contention if you believe that.

BTW, i appreciate your level head in these matters. I like the discourse

My belief is they are the trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Separate, but as one. Meaning God isn't gonna have one opinion and Jesus another. I may not have explained that well, but tried to answer your question. And thanks for the comment.



*for others I didn't post to start another argument about the subject 😁

 

[82_VOL_83]

I think people can do what they want..the problem is that many want our laws to mimic their beliefs. You feel like you should be free to worship do you also believe a woman can do what she wants with her body?

What is your opinion on a drink driver killing a pregnant woman?