 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / February 2007Legislation of morality?
http://www.al.com:80/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1171621326142390.x ml&coll=2 Whether or not it should be done, is certainly up for debate. Whether or not it can be done, appears to be have been already answered....at least in part(s) of the US..... Bo > http://www.al.com:80/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1171621326142390.x ml&coll=2 > > Whether or not it should be done, is certainly up for debate. Whether or not > it can be done, appears to be have been already answered....at least in > part(s) of the US..... Yes. This is the sort of battle that needs to be fought over and over again. There will always be new attempts, which must always be fought back. >> http://www.al.com:80/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1171621326142390.x ml&coll=2 >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > again. There will always be new attempts, which must always be fought > back. Playing the devil's advocate for a moment... Should a battle also be fought to, say, legalize prostitution? After all, what could be more capitalistic than the selling of those services? and caveat emptor apply? (ie should the govt get involved in the private negotiated acts to ensure they are safe?) Of course, taking the argument totally out of the bedroom--then the arguments can expand to include legalizing drugs as Holland does. I saw a really good documentary on Netherlands's legal drug use, prostitution, etc. They made a suprisingly good pragmatic case-- ignoring religious issues altogether. Is the US, or the world in general, ready--or will it ever--be ready to take freedoms to such levels? Odd that the only thing not free there, is one of our guaranteed freedoms-- ie the 2nd amendment. How much of America would be willing to go as far as Netherlands? Would the ACLU? Certainly the NRA would not. :) I've seen the 600k gay couples number bandied about here--but I have to wonder how the number of prostitutes compares--and why if its comparable or larger there is not an outcry from the ACLU for their cause..... This link: http://www.bayswan.org/stats.html suggests the number is 1 million--which I guess is comparable, and if the number of clients is included, the figure would likely dwarf the 600k gays number. I don't see any media, ACLU etc outcry for this? Why do you think that is? Would prosititution not also fall under the blanket of 'legislated morality'? Interestingly, the link claims that NOW passed a resolution for support of de-criminalizing prostitution--- that one surprised me. /end devil's advocate/ Of course I don't believe for a nS that prostitution should be legalized-- for religious reasons,but the Netherlands seemed to have already refuted any pragmatic objections. Curious as to what your views on this are Doug....is this another case where the majority has it wrong? Bo >>> http://www.al.com:80/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1171621326142390.x ml&coll=2 >>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Bo I will never ever understand why anyone would want to legislate for religious reasons. God made it pretty freaking clear in the NT that he did not just want your half hearted obedience anymore. What does ANYONE get from legislated morality? >>>> http://www.al.com:80/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1171621326142390.x ml&coll=2 >>>> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > not just want your half hearted obedience anymore. What does ANYONE get > from legislated morality? Yeah, I'm with you, Steph! Let's just sink down to the basement level, and have none! ZERO morality, and just let the chips fall as they may! Free enterprise! Maybe we can bring back the days of Sodom and Gomorrah! > I will never ever understand why anyone would want to legislate for > religious reasons. God made it pretty freaking clear in the NT that he did > not just want your half hearted obedience anymore. Stephanie, Can you please point me to the book/chapter/verses that made this so clear to you? Thanks, Bo >> I will never ever understand why anyone would want to legislate for >> religious reasons. God made it pretty freaking clear in the NT that he [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Bo No, Bo. Because if you had read any of the gospels, that would be clear to you too. What you are looking for is a sentence by sentence debate. I have had plenty of those with County Fair Charlatans. I used to think that they were amusing. And while I grant you that it is easier to prove that the world is made out of green cheese using the old testament, I suspect that there are any number of wrongful interpretations that could be taken from the nt as well. The gospels make Jesus' message pretty clear. Read them with an open heart and mind. As a side note, I wonder how disgusted Jesus would be by "Christianity" sometimes. >> Can you please point me to the book/chapter/verses that made this so >> clear to you? > > No, Bo. Because if you had read any of the gospels, that would be clear to > you too. I've read them all--many times over--and I don't recall a single instance of where it was even hinted at, that God does not want our obedience. Perhaps I misunderstood you? >What you are looking for is a sentence by sentence debate. Not at all....just a simple answer as to where, in the Gospels or any other book of the Bible, God says He doesn't want my obedience. Bo >>> Can you please point me to the book/chapter/verses that made this so >>> clear to you? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Not at all....just a simple answer as to where, in the Gospels or any > other book of the Bible, God says He doesn't want my obedience. Bo, Stephanie said "half hearted obedience". I interpreted her to mean that she believes the NT teaches that God wants Christians to self-police their own behaviour and not need to be forced into refraining from immoral (aka "unChristian", in this context) behaviour by the threat of punishment in this world. But I could be wrong! Tai >>>> Can you please point me to the book/chapter/verses that made this so >>>> clear to you? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Tai That might make a little more sense--but I'm not sure. Take parenting as an example: We set rules for our kids to follow. If they fail, they are punished/grounded as the parent/teacher/prinicipal sees fit. Now, I have no doubt, that every parent wants their kids to obey the rules because the kid loves them and wants to please them--but even so, a parent would rather the kid obey them/the establishment out of fear of the consequences of disobedience, than not at all. Does that make sense? Of course God wants us to obey Him because we love Him and want to please Him-- but I am sure He would rather have our obedience (out of fear, or whatever other motive we may have, and yes, even 'half-hearted') than no obedience at all. The parallels between us as earthly parents and God, our heavenly father, are found in the NT often. Bo >>>>> Can you please point me to the book/chapter/verses that made this so >>>>> clear to you? [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >Bo Bo... I find it a bit disturbing that you seem to think that you *know* what God is thinking... rj > >>>> Can you please point me to the book/chapter/verses that made this so > >>>> clear to you? [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > The parallels between us as earthly parents and God, our heavenly father, > are found in the NT often. If you think about god as your father, do you think some of his children should be making rules for his other children? Do you let your children do that? >>>>> Can you please point me to the book/chapter/verses that made this so >>>>> clear to you? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > We set rules for our kids to follow. If they fail, they are > punished/grounded as the parent/teacher/prinicipal sees fit. **shudder** People *assume* that everyone is either punative or permissive. As if there are no other models. Another of Jesus' lessons was that you reap what you sow. Read it: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-0030819-3637222?url=search-alias%3Daps& field-keywords=discipline+for+life%2C+getting+it+right+with+children&Go.x=0&Go.y =0&Go=Go > Now, I have no doubt, that every parent wants their kids to obey the rules > because the kid loves them and wants to please them-- I DON'T. We have had this conversation before, haven't we? I don't want my kids to be lemmings! I don't want my kids to "please me." I am not a megalomaniac (sp?). I want my children to learn judgement, self control, history (necessary for world wide judgement IMO)... I don't wnat my children blindly following other people's stupid rules in fear of punishment. > but even so, a parent would rather the kid obey them/the establishment out > of fear of the consequences of disobedience, than not at all. Honest to God. This is pure horror to me. > Does that make sense? Of course God wants us to obey Him because we love > Him and want to please Him-- > but I am sure He would rather have our > obedience (out of fear, or whatever other motive we may have, and yes, > even 'half-hearted') than no obedience at all. Then he is not much of a God. > The parallels between us as earthly parents and God, our heavenly father, > are found in the NT often. > > Bo >>>>>> Can you please point me to the book/chapter/verses that made this so >>>>>> clear to you? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > As if there are no other models. Another of Jesus' lessons was that you reap > what you sow. Read it: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-0030819-3637222?url=search-alias%3D aps&field-keywords=discipline+for+life%2C+getting+it+right+with+children&Go. x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go >> Now, I have no doubt, that every parent wants their kids to obey the rules >> because the kid loves them and wants to please them-- [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> but even so, a parent would rather the kid obey them/the establishment out >> of fear of the consequences of disobedience, than not at all. > Honest to God. This is pure horror to me. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Then he is not much of a God. He???? Maybe God is a SHE, in which case, there may be more hope. >>>>> Can you please point me to the book/chapter/verses that made this >>>>> so clear to you? [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > (out of fear, or whatever other motive we may have, and yes, even > 'half-hearted') than no obedience at all. I'm sorry, Bo, but "eeeeewwwww!" Why would you even want to worship that kind of God? Let's assume for the sake of argument your version of God exists. By your words He is capricious, saves only those who believe in Him regardless of the morality of behaviour, uses fear to control his own creatures and has created homosexuals only to torment them by making them deny their true selves in order to keep in His favour. Now a God like that may end up with reluctant or coerced followers but why would any of them actually love him? > The parallels between us as earthly parents and God, our heavenly > father, are found in the NT often. Men wrote the books of the Bible, not God. (I can only suspend disbelief so far, I'm afraid.) But anyway, where does free will fit into your concept? Doesn't God want people to decide to do what is right, just because it *is* right (by his teachings) rather than out of fear? Oh wait, you already answered that in the negative. Tai >>>>>> Can you please point me to the book/chapter/verses that made this >>>>>> so clear to you? [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Tai Geeez. Can I go back and re-write my post to be yours? However I maintain the description of child obedience makes my skin crawl. For my PLEASURE? Double ewwwwww. >> That might make a little more sense--but I'm not sure. Take parenting >> as an example: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I'm sorry, Bo, but "eeeeewwwww!" What part 'eeewww'? The kids/rules/pleasing their parents or the God part? Steph seems to be 'eeww' about kids pleasing their parents. But, regardless of her personal punishment/no discipline views not being exclusive, there can be no denying that rules are established, whether by teachers, prinicpals, courts, legislature--and that people that don't follow the rules are subject to the punishments set forth by those authorities. That a teacher wants the students to be well-behave and desire to learn, as opposed to well-behaved to avoid expulsion or corporal punishment,seems to me should be a given. But that same teacher woudl/should even prefer the latter over a disruptive or abusive student, no? Same for parents. Who is the happier parent--one with a kids that want/strive for good grades, careers, families or one whose children drop out of school, or become junkies, or end up in prison? I used the word pleasure to describe the former--perhaps that was a bad choice of words. I have no doubts that Stephanie, despite her claims of not wanting children to please her, is desirous of being the parent of the good grades/careers/family child. That to me, is pleasing your parents. > Why would you even want to worship that kind of God? Because He *first* loved me and sacrificed His only Son for me. > Let's assume for the sake of argument your version of God exists. By your > words He is capricious, I don't see that. > saves only those who believe in Him regardless of the morality of > behaviour, Absolutely. Otherwise, what kind of God would He have been to have allowed His only son to be murdered, if it wasn't absolutely necessary??? (ie if there were any other possible option to reconcile God and mankind). That concept of God is far more troubling to me, than one who wants our obedience because we loved Him. Now that's a God I could not worship--one that allows his only son to be murdered for no reason at all. > uses fear to control his own creatures Not at all. If He wanted control, He would not have given us free-will. >and has created homosexuals only to You will never convince me of that. God would be sado-masochistic to create a being with a 'built-in' trait, that is contrary to God's plan for them and thus by the very act of creating them, He would also be condemning them. I don't think that is consistent with a loving God--so loving, that He sacrifices His only Son in order that even the mere _possibility_ of a relationship with you could occur. > torment them by making them deny their true selves in order to keep in His > favour. Now a God like that may end up with reluctant or coerced followers > but why would any of them actually love him? I think you are confusing works, faith and love in this context--at least that's my perception. There is no such thing as a coerced follower. The things that God desires of us are as much for our own benefit-- if not moreso, than just His 'pleasure'. I think somehow the meaning of the word pleasure is being distorted in this thread. But I digress... >> The parallels between us as earthly parents and God, our heavenly >> father, are found in the NT often. > > Men wrote the books of the Bible, not God. (I can only suspend disbelief > so far, I'm afraid.) But anyway, where does free will fit into your > concept? We are not robots. We have free-will-- God given, free will. We will be judged on whether we choose to follow God. Does that answer your question? > Doesn't God want people to decide to do what is right, just because it > *is* right (by his teachings) rather than out of fear? Of course He does. >Oh wait, you already answered that in the negative. How so? I said 'Of course God wants us to obey Him because we love Him and want to please Him' Bo >Absolutely. Otherwise, what kind of God would He have been to have allowed >His only son to be murdered, if it wasn't absolutely necessary??? He doesn't seem to mind letting other peoples' sons (and daughters) to be murdered for no apparent reason, though, does He. Many, many senseless murders happen every single day. One wonders what kind of all-powerful God would do that. I tend to agree with Tai.....to me, saying "Hey, you have free will to love and obey me or not. Of course, if you *don't*, then you will burn in Hell and suffer eternally, but hey, it's your decision". Aren't those the same kinds of tactics that organized crime employs? "Pay me or don't pay me the insurance; if you choose to not pay, then your business may burn down but hey, you've got free choice." Finally, I'm sure she'll comment, but I've seen posts by Stephanie describing her parenting style and I'm pretty certain that she doesn't advocate a "no discipline" approach as you claim. Many of us who are parents prefer that our children learn to think for themselves and to grow into responsible, caring, contributing members of society. It's disingenous to say that because we want them to learn to think and learn to be responsible members without blindly following a doctrine that we are advocating a "no discipline" approach. Lauri in WA >>Absolutely. Otherwise, what kind of God would He have been to have allowed >>His only son to be murdered, if it wasn't absolutely necessary??? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > describing her parenting style and I'm pretty certain that she doesn't > advocate a "no discipline" approach as you claim. I am actually considered a calm and loving hard a.s. > Many of us who are > parents prefer that our children learn to think for themselves and to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Lauri in WA Yeah what she said. >>>Absolutely. Otherwise, what kind of God would He have been to have >>>allowed [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Yeah what she said. I never said you had a 'no discipline approach'-- you said there are other options besides punishment and no discipline--and I did not disagree that these are the only 2 _parenting_ options--- however, when it comes to society/law/etc those are the only 2 options--ie obey the laws or suffer the punishment dictated by those laws. Bo (snip) > I never said you had a 'no discipline approach'-- you said there are other > options besides punishment and no discipline--and I did not disagree that > these are the only 2 _parenting_ options--- however, when it comes to > society/law/etc those are the only 2 options--ie obey the laws or suffer the > punishment dictated by those laws. I pointed this out before. Your analogy "god is to us as parents are to children" falls very short when you advocate passing laws based on what (you think) god wants. I make rules for my children. I do not allow them to make rules for each other based on my authority. So if I follow your analogy: God makes rules for us. We are not allowed to make rules for each other based on god's authority. >>>>Absolutely. Otherwise, what kind of God would He have been to have >>>>allowed [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Bo While that may be true, is that the highest moral / behavioral ideal to which you hold yourself and/or your children? Your logic makes no sense to me. >>> I am actually considered a calm and loving hard a.s. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > While that may be true, is that the highest moral / behavioral ideal to > which you hold yourself and/or your children? Of course not. >Your logic makes no sense to me. I think your understanding of my argument got lost in the explanation of what I meant by 'pleasing the parent' and the subsequent hair-splitting. Bo >>>> I am actually considered a calm and loving hard a.s. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Bo I think you fail to see that we differ significantly if you persist in insisting we are hairsplitting. \ >I never said you had a 'no discipline approach'-- Not to me, but you did to Stephanie. You said "What part 'eeewww'? The kids/rules/pleasing their parents or the God part? Steph seems to be 'eeww' about kids pleasing their parents. But, regardless of her personal punishment/no discipline views....." Lauri in WA > \ >>I never said you had a 'no discipline approach'-- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Lauri in WA I think you misunderstood 'her personal punishment/no discipline'-- what I was trying to say was 'her personal views that punishment/no discipline (aren't the only alternative)...' I should have worded that more clearly.... My apologies... Bo >I think you misunderstood 'her personal punishment/no discipline'-- what I >was trying to say was 'her personal views that punishment/no discipline >(aren't the only alternative)...' I should have worded that more clearly.... > >My apologies... Thanks for clarilfying. Lauri in WA >>Absolutely. Otherwise, what kind of God would He have been to have allowed >>His only son to be murdered, if it wasn't absolutely necessary??? > > He doesn't seem to mind letting other peoples' sons (and daughters) to > be murdered for no apparent reason, though, does He. Yes He does. 1 Pe 5:7. > Many, many senseless murders happen every single day. One wonders what > kind of > all-powerful God would do that. God does not that. People do that. They were given the free-will--- and also the guidelines--which, sadly, some do ignore. But that does not mean that God doesn't care. Were He to put a stop to it, He would have to revoke our free-will. He doesn't want the "love"/"obedience" of a robot. > I tend to agree with Tai.....to me, saying "Hey, you have free will to > love and obey me or not. Of course, if you *don't*, then you will > burn in Hell and suffer eternally, but hey, it's your decision". > Aren't those the same kinds of tactics that organized crime employs? > "Pay me or don't pay me the insurance; if you choose to not pay, then > your business may burn down but hey, you've got free choice." That's a stretch I think.... > Finally, I'm sure she'll comment, but I've seen posts by Stephanie > describing her parenting style and I'm pretty certain that she doesn't > advocate a "no discipline" approach as you claim. I made no such claim. I claimed that as far as society/law/schools etc go, that there are only 2 choices: obedience to the laws or punishment. She says there are other alternatives to these 2 choices when it comes to parenting--which may or may not be true I'm not arguing that point-- but when it comes to society and a civil govt--- those are the only two options-- obedience or punishment for breaking the laws (if caught/convicted). Many of us who are > parents prefer that our children learn to think for themselves and to > grow into responsible, caring, contributing members of society. It's > disingenous to say that because we want them to learn to think and > learn to be responsible members without blindly following a doctrine > that we are advocating a "no discipline" approach. Again, I never said that. Bo >> I tend to agree with Tai.....to me, saying "Hey, you have free will to >> love and obey me or not. Of course, if you *don't*, then you will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >That's a stretch I think.... Really? Please elaborate. Isn't that exactly what he says? "Believe in my son, or be punished eternally". Is there a third option in the Bible that I'm unaware of? >> Finally, I'm sure she'll comment, but I've seen posts by Stephanie >> describing her parenting style and I'm pretty certain that she doesn't >> advocate a "no discipline" approach as you claim. > >I made no such claim. Why do you keep denying it? You clearly wrote that she had a "no discipline view" in an article with Message-ID: <c9c34$45dc4f79$41a26d4d$21885@API-DIGITAL.COM>. Perhaps you meant something else, but this is what you wrote. Lauri in WA >>> I tend to agree with Tai.....to me, saying "Hey, you have free will to >>> love and obey me or not. Of course, if you *don't*, then you will [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in my son, or be punished eternally". Is there a third option in the > Bible that I'm unaware of? OK. I'll just point out of few of the major problems with the analogy: a) God loves you vs The mafia never loved anybody--only the money they could squeeze from anybody b) God sacrificed his son for you vs the mafia 'sacrificed' other people's sons for themselves c) God promises blessings, both during this life and the afterlife to those that follow Him. The mafia gives no gifts/blessings to those that 'obey' by paying protection You could I guess crudely put it like this: God offers a carrot. A BIG carrot. Actually a lot of carrots. (would you like a list of the 'carrots'?) Decline the carrots, you may get the stick (that is God's call :). The mafia only offers the stick. However, I do think you are right that there is no 3rd option. >>I made no such claim. > > Why do you keep denying it? You clearly wrote that she had a "no > discipline view". Perhaps you meant something else, but this is what you > wrote. Indeed--my haste/unclear writing-- see my short reply to your last post on this. Bo >>>> I tend to agree with Tai.....to me, saying "Hey, you have free will to >>>> love and obey me or not. Of course, if you *don't*, then you will [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > (that is God's call :). > The mafia only offers the stick. Triple Ewww! That is your religion. It is all ok that God wants you to follow rules or get your a.s kicked because he loves you and offers you a carrot? > However, I do think you are right that there is no 3rd option. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Bo >> Really? Please elaborate. Isn't that exactly what he says? "Believe >> in my son, or be punished eternally". Is there a third option in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >a) God loves you vs The mafia never loved anybody--only the money they >could squeeze from anybody Coercion is OK if you love someone? >God offers a carrot. A BIG carrot. Actually a lot of carrots. (would you >like a list of the 'carrots'?) Decline the carrots, you may get the stick >(that is God's call :). You "may" get the stick? According to most Christian believers that I've been exposed to, there is no "may" about it. Fall into line, or suffer eternal damnation. Nothing in between. >The mafia only offers the stick. No they don't. They offer protection if you pay. >However, I do think you are right that there is no 3rd option. So what is the "may" in "may get the stick" above? You either suffer eternal damnation or you don't, according to christian doctrine. Lauri in WA > >> Really? Please elaborate. Isn't that exactly what he says? "Believe > >> in my son, or be punished eternally". Is there a third option in the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > So what is the "may" in "may get the stick" above? You either suffer > eternal damnation or you don't, according to christian doctrine. I think this is where the wine, 80,000 servants and 72 virgins come in. Though maybe that isn't the book that Bo likes. > I think this is where the wine, 80,000 servants and 72 virgins come > in. > > Though maybe that isn't the book that Bo likes. Got that right :) > Coercion is OK if you love someone? If love is coercion, then I guess yes. > You "may" get the stick? According to most Christian believers that > I've been exposed to, there is no "may" about it. Fall into line, or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Lauri in WA The "may" -- means--- it is not for me, you, or anyone to say-- God is the final judge and He will do what is just. Now, I think it is possible to have a good idea regarding a person's life what their fate will be--but we cannot say _for certain_. And how do we get the good idea? From His Word of course. For example, in Hebrews it states, paraphrasing here, that without faith it is impossible to please God. So if someone comes right out and says they have no faith in God, then one can safely assume that the person is not pleasing God--but it does no good to tell the person 'You are headed for hell because of x, y, z'--the message is not what sins you have committed, it is whether you accept His gift and turn from those sins. John 3:_17_--not 16. Ultimately,yes, You either suffer eternal damnation or you enjoy eternal life--but that is up to God--not me or you or to decide for someone else. It is, however, also in our hands--ie what we do with the gospel. Bo >>> Really? Please elaborate. Isn't that exactly what he says? "Believe >>> in my son, or be punished eternally". Is there a third option in the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > So what is the "may" in "may get the stick" above? You either suffer > eternal damnation or you don't, according to christian doctrine. Well, there is that whole grace and forgiveness thing... >>>> Really? Please elaborate. Isn't that exactly what he says? "Believe >>>> in my son, or be punished eternally". Is there a third option in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> >>> a) God loves you vs The mafia never loved anybody--only the money they >>> could squeeze from anybody >> >> Coercion is OK if you love someone? >> >>> God offers a carrot. A BIG carrot. Actually a lot of carrots. (would you >>> like a list of the 'carrots'?) Decline the carrots, you may get the stick >>> (that is God's call :). >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Well, there is that whole grace and forgiveness thing... Grace and forgiveness??? Where is that? >> So what is the "may" in "may get the stick" above? You either suffer >> eternal damnation or you don't, according to christian doctrine. > >Well, there is that whole grace and forgiveness thing... I think that's the "not getting eternal damnation" option. Lauri in WA > >> Really? Please elaborate. Isn't that exactly what he says? "Believe > >> in my son, or be punished eternally". Is there a third option in the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Lauri in WA There is a school of thought that there is no hell. Of course, this is not a majority view in the Christian community. This American Life did a story about an evangelical pastor who decided to stop preaching the fire and brimstone version of Christianity. It's pretty interesting... http://www.thislife.org/pages/descriptions/05/304.html > >>> I tend to agree with Tai.....to me, saying "Hey, you have free will to > >>> love and obey me or not. Of course, if you *don't*, then you will [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > a) God loves you vs The mafia never loved anybody--only the money they > could squeeze from anybody You say he loves us. Maybe the bible says it. But just because someone _says_ they love you doesn't mean they really do. Would a loving god have treated Job (or even Abraham) the way he did? Would a loving god create homosexuals, and then tell them they have to be celibate for their entire lives? I don't think so. Either your god isn't as loving as you think, or you're wrong about what he thinks about homosexuality. Now, I'm sure you can manufacture an argument that god loves man in spite of the countless examples when his behavior seems anything but loving (tolerating slavery?, letting children die in terrible and painful ways?, allowing the genocide in Rwanda? If god really loves us, and is really omnipotent, he has a _lot_ to answer for). But whatever complex arguments you come up with to reconcile the misery that god either allows or causes (and for a being who claims omnipotence, that is a thin line) with his supposed love are going to have to be so complex that one could apply them to the mafia as well. > b) God sacrificed his son for you vs the mafia 'sacrificed' other people's > sons for themselves I'm sorry to be offensive, but this has always seemed like a put-up job to me. Remember his "son" is resurrected and lives forever in the Kingdom of Heaven (close to the "father"). Furthermore, this outcome was known ahead of time. They spent all of three days apart if my reckoning is correct. > c) God promises blessings, both during this life and the afterlife to those > that follow Him. The mafia gives no gifts/blessings to those that 'obey' by > paying protection Wrong - that is the "protection." And again god's gifts? The afterlife remains subject to speculation, but plenty who follow god in this life live in misery and suffering. > You could I guess crudely put it like this: > > God offers a carrot. A BIG carrot. Actually a lot of carrots. (would you > like a list of the 'carrots'?) Decline the carrots, you may get the stick > (that is God's call :). Yeah, He talks a big game. But does he put his money where his mouth is? Obviously not in this life. > You say he loves us. Maybe the bible says it. Indeed it does. 1 John ch 4. > But just because > someone _says_ they love you doesn't mean they really do. What better way to prove it that lay down His own life? > Would a loving god have treated Job (or even Abraham) the way he did? Satan did those things to Job-- and his rewards from God for being steadfast are not to be overlooked. > Would a loving god create homosexuals, and then tell them they have to > be celibate for their entire lives? > > I don't think so. Either your god isn't as loving as you think, or > you're wrong about what he thinks about homosexuality. Wrong. I don't thing God creates homosexuals at all. But I think you already know that. > Now, I'm sure you can manufacture an argument that god loves man in > spite of the countless examples when his behavior seems anything but > loving (tolerating slavery?, letting children die in terrible and > painful ways?, allowing the genocide in Rwanda? If god really loves > us, and is really omnipotent, he has a _lot_ to answer for). Rom 5:12. To blame God for the evils of the world is wrong. The evils in the world came because of man's sin, not because God gets his jollies from watching people suffer. Simple, eh? > But whatever complex arguments you come up with to reconcile the > misery that god either allows or causes (and for a being who claims [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > They spent all of three days apart if my reckoning is correct. Would you allow your son to suffer horribly and be murdered if you knew he would come back after 3 days? Regardless of the time in the grave, His suffering was still there, no? >> c) God promises blessings, both during this life and the afterlife to >> those [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And again god's gifts? The afterlife remains subject to speculation, > but plenty who follow god in this life live in misery and suffering. The afterlife is not the only gift. Those who don't follow God in this life far outnumber and out-suffer those who do follow Him. > Yeah, He talks a big game. But does he put his money where his mouth > is? Obviously not in this life. I am truly sorry you feel that way. I hope you will be reached somehow before its too late... Bo > > You say he loves us. Maybe the bible says it. > Indeed it does. 1 John ch 4. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Satan did those things to Job-- and his rewards from God for being steadfast > are not to be overlooked. Time for Bo to reread the book of Job. Satan did those things with god's permission and encouragement. He doesn't get off that easy. If one of your children says to the other "I dare you to pluck the wings off those flies," does he get a free pass, or do you hold him partly responsible for the cruelty? > > Would a loving god create homosexuals, and then tell them they have to > > be celibate for their entire lives? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Wrong. I don't thing God creates homosexuals at all. But I think you already > know that. No. I assumed god, being the omnipotent creator, created everything. Who _do_ you think creates homosexuals? > > Now, I'm sure you can manufacture an argument that god loves man in > > spite of the countless examples when his behavior seems anything but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > world came because of man's sin, not because God gets his jollies from > watching people suffer. Simple, eh? Not really. If god can prevent genocide in Darfur or in Rwanda, what justifies him not doing so? Perhaps by some sophistic argument you can absolve him of blame, but allowing things like that to occur hardly seems like the act of someone who loves his children. If I had two children, and stood by while one killed the other, you would not think me a loving parent. (Hey - it's your analogy - I'm just running with it.) > > But whatever complex arguments you come up with to reconcile the > > misery that god either allows or causes (and for a being who claims [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > would come back after 3 days? Regardless of the time in the grave, His > suffering was still there, no? In exchange for certainty of an eternal life in heaven? Sure - sounds like a good deal. Yes, crucifixion is a horrible way to die, but not uniquely horrible, and Christ's suffering is no worse than millions of others have experienced. But if I were god, I wouldn't set things up so that one person needs to suffer to redeem others. I think that is a hallmark of the viciousness of your idea of god. To me it shows evidence not of love on god's part, but of callousness. > >> c) God promises blessings, both during this life and the afterlife to > >> those [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I am truly sorry you feel that way. I hope you will be reached somehow > before its too late... I've already been reached. But I hope the same for you. You put yourself in the place of the Pharisees, and are unable to see that the fable in John 8 is about the Pharisees and applies to _you_! If your god exists, he isn't going to be happy about that. >> > You say he loves us. Maybe the bible says it. >> Indeed it does. 1 John ch 4. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Time for Bo to reread the book of Job. Satan did those things with > god's permission and encouragement. He doesn't get off that easy. Permission--yes. Encouragement-- that's arguable. One of the more general points made is that God was right and Satan was wrong about what would happen. As always :) > If one of your children says to the other "I dare you to pluck the > wings off those flies," does he get a free pass, or do you hold him [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Who _do_ you think creates homosexuals? I think you are being a bit silly here--as you know that my position is, while God does create the man, He did not give/force homosexuality on that man. Free-will. Did God create Hitler? Yes. Did He make Hitler inherantly evil? No. That was Hitler's choice. I just had to get into Godwin's law again :) >> Rom 5:12. To blame God for the evils of the world is wrong. The evils in >> the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not really. If god can prevent genocide in Darfur or in Rwanda, what > justifies him not doing so? God does what He wants to. Period. He doesn't have to justify anything to anyone. His ways are higher than our ways. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. Isa 55:9. However, to answer your question, were God to 'prevent' genocide, or the Holocaust, or any other terrible thing that is a result of man's choice to sin, He would have to remove man's free will. And if He did that, you'd be complaining 'He's not much of a God if He doesn't give man free-will'. > Yes, crucifixion is a horrible way to die, but not > uniquely horrible, and Christ's suffering is no worse than millions of > others have experienced. Physically? perhaps. But you ignore the Spiritual aspect. 2 Cor 5. Bo > >> > You say he loves us. Maybe the bible says it. > >> Indeed it does. 1 John ch 4. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Permission--yes. Encouragement-- that's arguable. Not very. God was encouraging cruelty to Job to demonstrate a point. > One of the more general > points made is that God was right and Satan was wrong about what would > happen. As always :) Well, yeah. He did write the book, supposedly. > > If one of your children says to the other "I dare you to pluck the > > wings off those flies," does he get a free pass, or do you hold him [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > while God does create the man, He did not give/force homosexuality on that > man. I don't know why you think I know your position. Maybe you have me confused with someone else - I'm not omniscient! > Free-will. This is a bizarre contention. As far as I'm concerned if someone wants to _choose_ to be gay, it's fine. But the notion that anyone would _make_ that choice (to be a discriminated against minority) unless they were innately attracted to the same sex is incomprehensible. Are you saying "some people are attracted to the same sex, and then they _choose_ to be gay?" Because if not, then what you are saying is patently false. And if so, isn't it god who makes them attracted to the same sex? In which case you are playing word games. > Did God create Hitler? Yes. Did He make Hitler inherantly > evil? No. That was Hitler's choice. I just had to get into Godwin's law [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > anyone. His ways are higher than our ways. His thoughts are higher than our > thoughts. Isa 55:9. Ah. So I say your god is cruel and behaves in an unloving way. You say "no he doesn't - the bible says so." I point out how if he exists in the terms you describe, he must be cruel and unloving. You respond "the ways of god are beyond our comprehension." Yeah, right. > However, to answer your question, were God to 'prevent' genocide, or the > Holocaust, or any other terrible thing that is a result of man's choice to > sin, He would have to remove man's free will. Nonsense. He could kill all the bad Nazis. He could make sure the bomb plot against Hitler succeeded instead of failed. He could have struck Germany with 10 plagues. Etc. > And if He did that, you'd be > complaining 'He's not much of a God if He doesn't give man > free-will'. I'm not complaining at all. I think your notion of god is a figment of your imagination, but I'm pointing out that, based on the evidence, if the god of your imagination were to exist, he does not generally behave in a loving way. Your answer is "we can't understand god." _That_ I almost buy. But then you go on to say you want to deny civil rights to people based on your claim that you _do_ understand god. >> I think you are being a bit silly here--as you know that my position is, >> while God does create the man, He did not give/force homosexuality on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't know why you think I know your position. Maybe you have me > confused with someone else - I'm not omniscient! Touche' :) Bo >>> > You say he loves us. Maybe the bible says it. >>> Indeed it does. 1 John ch 4. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > evil? No. That was Hitler's choice. I just had to get into Godwin's law > again :) I think it was actually Hitler's parents choice, actually. >>> Rom 5:12. To blame God for the evils of the world is wrong. The evils in >>> the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Bo >>> That might make a little more sense--but I'm not sure. Take parenting >>> as an example: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > What part 'eeewww'? The kids/rules/pleasing their parents or the God part? > Steph seems to be 'eeww' about kids pleasing their parents. The problem is that you want them to OBEY you to PLEASE you. You have never mentioned that you want them to do right *because it is right.* > But, regardless of her personal punishment/no discipline views not being > exclusive, there can be no denying that rules are established, whether by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > woudl/should even prefer the latter over a disruptive or abusive student, > no? If those are the only choices that the teacher has at his or her displosal, then I would say he or she is not much of a teacher. > Same for parents. Who is the happier parent--one with a kids that > want/strive for good grades, careers, families or one whose children drop [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to please her, is desirous of being the parent of the good > grades/careers/family child. That to me, is pleasing your parents. Not at all. I want them to be the best THEM that the can be. Having merrily left the career scene myself, if my son decides to be a SAHM or a Deadhead (I guess that option is no longer open to him) more power to him. As long as he is being the best HIM that he can be. I dont care what the letter or number is for his "grade." I care that he is maximizing HIS potential. >> Why would you even want to worship that kind of God? > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Bo >>>> That might make a little more sense--but I'm not sure. Take parenting >>>> as an example: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The problem is that you want them to OBEY you to PLEASE you. You have > never mentioned that you want them to do right *because it is right.* I think we're splitting hairs here... >> But, regardless of her personal punishment/no discipline views not being >> exclusive, there can be no denying that rules are established, whether by [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If those are the only choices that the teacher has at his or her > displosal, then I would say he or she is not much of a teacher. Please enlighten me as to what other choices/options a teacher has regarding students. I think they fall into roughly 3 categories: 1) want to learn 2) couldn't care less, but don't want to get expelled and have to get a job or go to a stricter/alternative school 3) don't want to learn and don't care if they get expelled or punished >> Same for parents. Who is the happier parent--one with a kids that >> want/strive for good grades, careers, families or one whose children drop [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > letter or number is for his "grade." I care that he is maximizing HIS > potential. Again splitting hairs. What if he thinks his potential lies in becoming a drug dealer and you think his potential is say, becoming a succesful lawyer or Dr or whatever? Am I wrong in guessing that you'd want him to maximize his potential from your perspective over his potential??? Bo >>>>> That might make a little more sense--but I'm not sure. Take parenting >>>>> as an example: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I think we're splitting hairs here... No, in fact, we definitely are not. It speaks right to the *core* of our difference. >>> But, regardless of her personal punishment/no discipline views not being >>> exclusive, there can be no denying that rules are established, whether [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > job or go to a stricter/alternative school > 3) don't want to learn and don't care if they get expelled or punished I know you don't care to read the materials I give you (like I have recommended Discipline For Life, Getting It Right with Children by Madalyn Swift). But if you want to know, "Tools for Teaching" by Fred Jones. If you expected a simple answer like sing Wheels On the Bus 50 times fast, I am afraid that cannot be. Life is complicated. The *answers* to life's sticky wickets cannot be expressed in a bulletted list. They are complicated. In a tineey weeeny nutshell it involves managing all aspects of the classroom, from the physical distance you ever get from the troublemaker to subtle and not so subtle ways to *motivate* not wait for them to arrive motivated. It is actually a really funny book. >>> Same for parents. Who is the happier parent--one with a kids that >>> want/strive for good grades, careers, families or one whose children [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Again splitting hairs. Again, not at all. You want them to be something specific. Christians I would suspect. You did not choose to say best they can be. You chose to say grades, career. You have an idea FOR THEM of what the best they can be. This is to the very core of our difference. > What if he thinks his potential lies in becoming a drug dealer and you > think his potential is say, becoming a succesful lawyer or Dr or whatever? > Am I wrong in guessing that you'd want him to maximize his potential from > your perspective over his potential??? So unless I value career over becoming a dead head you conclude I have NO values? Simply because you don't value music? Because that is sure what that question sounds like. > Bo >>> The problem is that you want them to OBEY you to PLEASE you. You have >>> never mentioned that you want them to do right *because it is right.* [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > sticky wickets cannot be expressed in a bulletted list. They are > complicated. We have a mjaor disconnect here. I am talking (in the 1-3) about the students and their motivations--not how a teacher deals with the various types of students. > In a tineey weeeny nutshell it involves managing all aspects of the > classroom, from the physical distance you ever get from the troublemaker > to subtle and not so subtle ways to *motivate* not wait for them to arrive > motivated. It is actually a really funny book. Sounds great. If I left you with the impression that I 'don't care to read' the materials you've recommended-- I certainly did not intend to-- I would very much like to read them, but I only have so much time. Sorry about that. >>> Not at all. I want them to be the best THEM that the can be. Having >>> merrily left the career scene myself, if my son decides to be a SAHM or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Again, not at all. You want them to be something specific. Not career wise, no. They can be whatever they want to be and I want to help them be their best at whatever that is (but not drug-dealing :) ) > Christians I would suspect. Of course. Are there any parents that don't want to pass on their morals/values/religious beliefs to their kids??? I'd have a hard time wrapping my head around a no answer to that. >You did not choose to say best they can be. You chose to say grades, >career. You have an idea FOR THEM of what the best they can be. This is to >the very core of our difference. OK fine--I have no problem saying I want my kids to be the best they can be. I expressed in terms of tangible results instead of a feeling-- my bad. >> What if he thinks his potential lies in becoming a drug dealer and you >> think his potential is say, becoming a succesful lawyer or Dr or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So unless I value career over becoming a dead head you conclude I have NO > values? HUH!? I did not say that at all. I tried to put your intangible expression into tangibles-- ie a successful career vs a drug dealer. Didn't say anything about music or deadheads :) I think you mistakenly connected the deadhead reference and drug-dealers-- given the band's drug history. This is not a connection I was implying or trying to make--although I can easily see how that might happen. >Simply because you don't value music? Because that is sure what that >question sounds like. Then you mistook what I said because music is a HUGE part of me and I value music from Beethoven to Led Zeppelin to George Jones to Tommy Emmanuel to ....Andre Crouch. and not just listening--I also play guitar and piano. :) Bo >>>> The problem is that you want them to OBEY you to PLEASE you. You have >>>> never mentioned that you want them to do right *because it is right.* [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > students and their motivations--not how a teacher deals with the various > types of students. What IS motivation? Can we help kids achieve it? Or just punish them when they don't have it? >> In a tineey weeeny nutshell it involves managing all aspects of the >> classroom, from the physical distance you ever get from the troublemaker [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > morals/values/religious beliefs to their kids??? I'd have a hard time > wrapping my head around a no answer to that. No. I would rather my kids be able to judge for *themselves.* I look forward to the first time one of my kids says to me, Mom you are completely wrong. If my kids came to me with conviction and told me that they belived that gay marriage should be illegal, despite the fact that I disagree wholey with that, I would be thrilled if they came to it by rational thought. I suppose it they decided to become a born again Christian, I would have to swallow hard. I suppose one could support that I am trying to pass on my value of indepentant thought. But that is not the same as passing down a dogma. >>You did not choose to say best they can be. You chose to say grades, >>career. You have an idea FOR THEM of what the best they can be. This is to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > HUH!? I did not say that at all. I tried to put your intangible expression > into tangibles-- ie a successful career vs a drug dealer. Why? I don't value a successful career. You limit yourself and them when you think in limiting terms instead of what you actually want. Let's be asburd for a minute in the hopes of illustrating my point. How would I feel if my son was selling drugs to right wing politicians and using the proceeds to fight AIDs in Africa? Would I be able to say I truly disapproved of his being a drug dealer? I am not so sure. > Didn't say anything about music or deadheads :) I think you mistakenly > connected the deadhead reference and drug-dealers-- given the band's drug [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bo (various stuff about people enforcing God's rules) I think you are making a fundamental mistake, even within your notion of god (or your notion of god is even more unpleasant than I thought). Let's assume for the sake of argument 1. That god exists. and 2. That by reading the bible, you can figure out what rules god wants man to follow. (Note: I think 1. is, at best, questionable, and you've demonstrated the difficulty of 2. by latching onto some rules from the bible while ignoring others, with no obvious logic. But leave this aside.) So we have these rules. Here are three possibilities: a) god wants each person to follow these rules because that person thinks the rules are moral and just. b) god wants each person to follow these rules because god said so and god values people being obedient to him. c) god doesn't care _why_ people follow these rules, and in fact god wants his army of believers to force other people to follow the rules. Passing laws based solely on religious precepts and justifying that via the bible puts you in category c. Example: Catholics (and some other branches of Christianity) value confession. But a forced confession without repentance is of no value, and repentance is not something that can be forced by a law. We _could_ pass a law requiring everyone to see a priest on Sunday and confess, but not only would that not please god (since he wouldn't get the repentance part), I claim it would displease him based on The hubris involved in what you advocate is astonishing. Yes, it is perfectly reasonable for you to read the bible and decide how it instructs you to run your own life. It is not reasonable for you to try to use the bible as a basis to force other people to run their lives the way you think they ought to. And the bible is clear on this! (I can even refer to Jesus's words, which ought to trump the writings of Paul that you want to use to interfere with other people's lives. John 8:1-8:15) > So we have these rules. Here are three possibilities: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > c) god doesn't care _why_ people follow these rules, and in fact god > wants his army of believers to force other people to follow the rules. Hello Doug, None of these fit my position. d) God wants each person to follow these rules because they love Him, and God wants His 'army of believers' to stand up and be counted for what they believe and not passively accept as 'ok' behavior that He condemned . What is so hard to understand about that? > Passing laws based solely on religious precepts and justifying that > via the bible puts you in category c. I disagree. What would your position be? e) God doesn't care if anyone ever follows the rules and that His army should put down their crosses and become indistinguishable from the world? Rom 6:1 clearly gives the answer to that question. > Example: Catholics (and some other branches of Christianity) value > confession. But a forced confession without repentance is of no > value, and repentance is not something that can be forced by a law. I agree with that. > We _could_ pass a law requiring everyone to see a priest on Sunday > and confess, but not only would that not please god (since he wouldn't > get the repentance part), I claim it would displease him based on I think you abandoned your thought mid-sentence?? > The hubris involved in what you advocate is astonishing. Yes, it is > perfectly reasonable for you to read the bible and decide how it > instructs you to run your own life. It is not reasonable for you to > try to use the bible as a basis to force other people to run their > lives the way you think they ought to. So, even if I take the Bible out of the equation, and stand with the majority of the US, and perhaps the world, that's still not reasonable enough for you. Perhaps my Biblical reasoning is not reasonable to you-- but your dismissal of the majority is not reasonable to me either. :) I've yet to see you, or anyone else here, understand what I am (trying to) saying correctly--I'm sure there is a communication breakdown, perhaps in the transmission, perhaps in the reception-- but either way, calling it hubris does not help. :( > And the bible is clear on this! (I can even refer to Jesus's words, > which ought to trump the writings of Paul that you want to use to > interfere with other people's lives. John 8:1-8:15) Read vs 11 again. Jesus did NOT accept her behavior as 'ok' --as evidenced by the fact He told her to quit doing it. I do not believe, as so many here apparently do, that Paul ever taught anything contradictory to Jesus' teachings. So, following the example here, I do not condemn the person, nor do I condone the sin. John3:17 and Rom ch 1 explains this quite well. Bo > d) God wants each person to follow these rules because they love > Him, Okay > God wants His 'army of believers' to stand up and be counted for > what they believe and not passively accept as 'ok' behavior that He > condemned . What is so hard to understand about that? I'm having a little trouble with your contention that God wants us to obey His rules whether we believe in Him or not. I am more the type of parent you had in mind when you were talking to Stephanie. I don't want my children (for example) to be drinking alcohol at 14. Ideally, they will understand the dangers and will not *want* to drink that young. But failing that, I'm happy that there are laws in this country to prohibit people from selling or giving them alcohol. I hope they don't want to cruise the internet for porn before they're ready for it, but just in case they might be tempted, our computers sit in the main living area of the house. As a *parent*, I'm happy to have laws and rules to back up the things I teach. However, my understanding about God has always been completely different. I always understood God to be more interested in your beliefs and feelings than in your actions. In Matthew 5:27, we are told that thinking of adultery is as bad as committing it. We get no credit for stopping ourselves from committing the physical act. In Matthew 6 he goes on to talk about the hypocrites -- those who do the right things for the wrong reasons. And what about the parable of the workers in the vineyard in Matthew 20? I was always taught that story was about how people who come to God at any time in their life would get the same reward. That even the vilest murderer would find his place in heaven if he truly repented of what he'd done. Forgive me -- I don't know the Bible as well as some of the other people you've been discussing this with. I konw that God's followers are supposed to witness and try to convert non-believers. I also know that they are supposed to put God first, and follow God's law above the laws of man. I'm just not clear on where you are getting that 1) God gives credit for following his rules without believing, or that 2) God requires or even wants us to legislate to non-believers that they must also follow His laws. Zorra > > So we have these rules. Here are three possibilities: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > believe and not passively accept as 'ok' behavior that He condemned . What > is so hard to understand about that? The way to be counted is to live your life according to your understanding of what you are supposed to do, not to make yourself a Pharisee. > > Passing laws based solely on religious precepts and justifying that > > via the bible puts you in category c. > > I disagree. > > What would your position be? a or b as I thought I made clear. >e) God doesn't care if anyone ever follows the > rules and that His army should put down their crosses and become [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > majority of the US, and perhaps the world, that's still not reasonable > enough for you. Legislating morality is not reasonable. Legislating religion is actually illegal in the US. Yes, even if a majority would like to do it. > Perhaps my Biblical reasoning is not reasonable to you-- but > your dismissal of the majority is not reasonable to me either. I don't dismiss the majority. But I believe there should be limits to government power, and that rights should be protected, even rights of minorities. That seems to be the critical difference between us, and I find it frightening that you believe minorities have no rights. > :) I've yet > to see you, or anyone else here, understand what I am (trying to) saying > correctly--I'm sure there is a communication breakdown, perhaps in the > transmission, perhaps in the reception-- but either way, calling it hubris > does not help. :( I'm sorry that it doesn't help. Following the teachings of Jesus doesn't seem like hubris to me. Deciding that you need to force other people to follow them through enacting laws based on your bible interpretation does, > > And the bible is clear on this! (I can even refer to Jesus's words, > > which ought to trump the writings of Paul that you want to use to > > interfere with other people's lives. John 8:1-8:15) > > Read vs 11 again. Jesus did NOT accept her behavior as 'ok' Did I say Jesus thought her behavior is OK? No. I'm referring to his displeasure with the Pharisees. I think _you_ should read it again, since you are avoiding noticing the characters whose behavior you would emulate. >> > So we have these rules. Here are three possibilities: >> > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >> majority of the US, and perhaps the world, that's still not reasonable >> enough for you. Suppose, just for an example, that the majority of the US had a religious revival and noticed that one of the 10 commandments is to remember the sabbath day a nd keep it holy, and decided to pass a law that from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown nobody could do any work and everybody who wasn't sick had to go to church on Saturday. Would you be OK with that? Would you obey that law? Is anything the majority wants OK to make law? >>>> So we have these rules. Here are three possibilities: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > wasn't sick had to go to church on Saturday. Would you be OK with that? > Would you obey that law? Is anything the majority wants OK to make law? HELL NO!!!! > >> That might make a little more sense--but I'm not sure. Take parenting > >> as an example: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What part 'eeewww'? You're just not getting it - no one uses "ewww" when they mean instead to make a rational argument. And of course, such a God/parenting style is not yucky to someone who is authoritarian, domineering and thinks they're always right. None of those qualities are qualities I believe belong to Great Spirit. The kids/rules/pleasing their parents or the God part? > Steph seems to be 'eeww' about kids pleasing their parents. But, regardless > of her personal punishment/no discipline views not being exclusive, there [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be a given. But that same teacher woudl/should even prefer the latter over a > disruptive or abusive student, no? This has nothing to do with what Jesus meant by calling God the Father. But wow. Just wow - it's alarming to read your take on it. > Same for parents. Who is the happier parent--one with a kids that > want/strive for good grades, careers, families or one whose children drop [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Because He *first* loved me and sacrificed His only Son for me. It almost sounds like he bought you. But it is not the same God that I worship - at all. > > Let's assume for the sake of argument your version of God exists. By your > > words He is capricious, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > moreso, than just His 'pleasure'. I think somehow the meaning of the word > pleasure is being distorted in this thread. But I digress... I'm going to back out of this discussion, except to say that Tai and Stephanie are eloquent, thoughtful and I'm very glad for their posts. You're so hopelessly confused - and appear to believe in a God that brainwashes, bribes, cajoles and is so punitive that..as Tai said..who would want to worship such an entity? > >> The parallels between us as earthly parents and God, our heavenly > >> father, are found in the NT often. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Bo >> > Why would you even want to worship that kind of God? >> >> Because He *first* loved me and sacrificed His only Son for me. > > It almost sounds like he bought you. Indeed-- He did. Acts 20:28 > has created homosexuals only to > torment them by making them deny their true selves in order to keep in His > favour. I've always said that God shouldn't have given me reasoning capability if He didn't want me to use it. Quite similar. :-) >> has created homosexuals only to >> torment them by making them deny their true selves in order to keep in His >> favour. > >I've always said that God shouldn't have given me reasoning capability >if He didn't want me to use it. Quite similar. :-) Exactly! And I think the original issue of legalizing gay marriage will NEVER be solved by these types of conversations as long as a subset of people see homosexuality as simply being an immoral choice, right along with drug use and thievery and prostitution. I was raised Christian. Sometimes I say that I don't know if I believe in God, but I'm also afraid that I'll burn in hell for even thinking it, so on some level I must still believe. LOL. But, like Tai, I just cannot imagine a God so cruel who would create homosexuals, only to forbid them from ever acting upon their natural urges. I think that most of the problems are not with God, but with religion. I know that's not a new thing to say, but this thread makes me want to say it again anyway. It's so sad and upsetting to see Christianity defined so narrowly. Some of the views represented in this thread are what drove me running and screaming from the church in the first place. Lauri in WA >>>has created homosexuals only to >>>torment them by making them deny their true selves in order to keep in His [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > subset of people see homosexuality as simply being an immoral choice, > right along with drug use and thievery and prostitution. That's because civil marriage, which has nothing to do with religion, is still linked (if only by name) to a religious institution that involves morality. People who consider homosexuality immoral, rarely, if ever, protest gays buying property, getting a mortgage, opening a business, or engage in any other social or legal activity together. The civil contract of marriage is just another legal activity which benefits the participants. It's only because we unnecessarily associate it with something religious/moral that we see so much unpleasant clash. >> Exactly! And I think the original issue of legalizing gay marriage >> will NEVER be solved by these types of conversations as long as a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >It's only because we unnecessarily associate it with something >religious/moral that we see so much unpleasant clash. I agree, and I think that's sometimes why you see people say, "But I would be OK with a civil union." Someone (Doug?) mentioned that the legal rights associated with civil unions are usually inferior to the legal rights associated with marriages; I would not support civil union unless the rights were exactly the same. I agree that using the name "marriage" is what a lot of people have trouble with, and I used to have trouble with that as well until I reminded myself that my sister is married to her husband, and it was a 5 minute ceremony in a courthouse in front of a judge. Nothing religious about it, yet she's as "married" as I was for 16 years with my church wedding. More so, in fact, because she didn't subsequently divorce! It's complicated, to be sure. Lauri in WA > >> Can you please point me to the book/chapter/verses that made this so > >> clear to you? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Bo You're just not getting it, then. As Stephanie pointed out - it's not sentence by sentence. It's a *story*. Jesus rejects the Pharisees and the Saducees - who are *strictly obedient* and *stand for* obedience so rigorous that you wouldn't be typing your questions on a computer if you were in any way obedient to "God's laws" - including the ones about charity. (Sell all you have...etc.) He says they are white-washed tombs. But more than that, it's 20 centuries of *Christian interpretation* that has taken most thinking people, Catholic and Protestant, deeper into Jesus's life and its meaning. He defied religious laws - was himself crucified for that defiance. And he made it clear to millions of us out here (but not you) that it is INWARD morality - not OUTWARD obedience that is His Way. You know how he did that, with me, Bo? Through personal revelation. Personal experience. Direct answer to prayer and meditation. It may not even be in the Bible - and it doesn't matter, as *Jesus never recommended we have a *book**!! No where does he recommend having a book and using it. Go look that up. WHen he says "Go and miss the mark no more" to the woman at the well, he means, "Meet your own inner marks, Lady." The word Sin, btw, is an interesting word brought into the Greek (probably through Aramaic) - but likely from further East, from Hindu and Buddhist teachings about discipline and setting moral limits *for ourselves.* (Ultimately, it's a term from archery - missing the mark one has set *for oneself.*) Stephanie says it best. You aren't evolving at all from these discussions. In fact, doing what you're doing with the scripture is impeding your own spiritual growth - and your own heart to heart relationship with the spiritual being that you profess to believe in. It's easy to notice that you're stuck right now because you keep posting and can't stop. But you need to put down the Bible, go out among the gays, the prostitutes, the lawbreakers, the sick and the needy and just do your thinking. Get in contact with your spirituality, stop the reading. A. >> I will never ever understand why anyone would want to legislate for >> religious reasons. God made it pretty freaking clear in the NT that he did [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Bo Bo... If you haven't already (and I'll bet that you haven't), then read Stanley Hauerwas' book "Resident Aliens". rj >>> I will never ever understand why anyone would want to legislate for >>> religious reasons. God made it pretty freaking clear in the NT that he did [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >rj PS... Bo.... I'm serious... read some of Hauerwas' stuff, beginning with (if you haven't already) Resident Aliens. And ask yourself... As a Christian, do you really want to *be* Cesar? rj |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message