 |
|
|
|
|
April 7th, 2014
12:41 PM ET
Megachurch pastor resigns, citing 'moral failing'Fort Lauderdale, Florida (WPLG Miami) The senior pastor of Calvary Chapel Fort Lauderdale has resigned after confessing to cheating on his wife, according to WPLG Miami. Pastor Bob Coy, 58, reportedly confessed a "moral failing which disqualifies him from continuing his leadership role at the church" to Calvary leaders on Wednesday. A board meeting was called the next day, when he resigned. Coy, who has led the church since its founding in 1985, said he will now focus his full attention on his personal relationship with God and his family. The radio, television and digital media that distributes Coy's teachings have also been suspended. "The governing board of the church is providing counselors and ministers who will help guide him through the process of full repentance, cleansing and restoration," Calvary Chapel said in a statement. Calvary is one of the largest churches in Florida, with some 20,000 members who worship in 10 locations across the state. "Trusting in God's providence, protection, provision and direction, the staff of Calvary Chapel Fort Lauderdale will continue our mission to 'make disciples' through regular services at all campuses and through myriad other ministries the church has established over the years," the statement said. At an open service at the church Sunday, a letter was read to the congregation from Coy and the board. Assistant pastors who are on staff will continue their usual rotating schedule as teaching pastors for all services, the statement said.
Next entry »Is the Internet killing religion?
« Previous entryArchbishop to vacate $2.2 million mansion
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
I don't understand why some bloggers (christians) are making excuses for this guy. It's not what others do, IT'S WHAT HE DID. Yes I have comitted one sin or another. But I don't go around preaching purity like this phony did (And taking money). Would you take YOUR kid to listen to this guy preach? A liar is a liar no matter the religion. Christians wonder why people are turning away from religion. Christians want people to speak and see only the good religion and ignore the problems.
If you picked your spouse that way, the divorce rate would be 100%.
"Yes I have comitted one sin or another. But I don't go around preaching purity like this phony did "
=>You seem to be naturally blessed if you have never done something you told someone else was the wrong thing to do. Regardless, this preacher is held accountable to far greater extent because he is a teacher. To him whom much is given much is expected.
I apologize if my posts come off as trying to diminish the badness of this guy's behavior. What he did was terrible and no one, Christian or otherwise, should have done it.
What I want to say however is that Christians are sinners just like everyone else. It is not like the Christian church is filled with the best people in the world. The whole reason why we are Christians is because we believe we are sinners and that we need salvation.
Yes, Christians have committed to upholding the law of the Bible, but coming from the backgrounds that Christians come from, it is all but certain that Christians are going to mess up as much or more than non-believers.
Christians are not better people than non-believers, but we are trying to align ourselves with what we perceive to be God's ideal, Jesus Christ. Yes we are going to make mistakes and no that does not mean we get a free pass from the repercussions of sin in this life. But we firmly believe that we are forgiven for our transgressions because of the sacrifice of Jesus. Again, not a free pass to sin, but rather a reason to show appreciation to God by not sinning.
guidedans
"Christians are sinners just like everyone else"
Unfortunately, that is often spoken by Christians who then turn around and fight to deny others equal rights.
what we perceive to be God's ideal, Jesus Christ
---
Yes, your perception. A perception not available to other human creations of God. Hard to believe it's "God's ideal", when he bothered to make certain all the humans he creates have access to this ideal.
Sorry, when he "couldn't be bothered...."
You know what's annoying?
How the atheists and agnostics are accusing this guy of being a hypocrite as if being a hypocrite is worse than being an adulterer.
This guy is only a hypocrite because he espouses a certain morality that forbids adultery.
Atheists, most likely, also live by a similar code (i.e., one that forbids adultery).
Thus, any atheist with that morality would also be a hypocrite.
Just because atheism doesn't have a set morality doesn't mean that atheists are free from being hypocrites. Anyone who ever has done something that they don't think anyone else should do (which is most likely everyone here) is a hypocrite. I don't see why being a hypocrite is any worse than being an adulterer.
Good point.
> Anyone who ever has done something that they don't think anyone else should do (which is most likely everyone here) is a hypocrite.
I have never met a person that is not a hypocrite by that standard. Which is a good standard to judge by.
Yes – good point. And OH OH OH – I'm especially good with this because the word "sinner" was in neither the quoted line or in your response, Dala! (Although I can't really claim that I've never met a person that is not a hypocrite by that standard. There is so much I don't know about some people.)
Hu?
Dala, I'm just saying it's good to hear people – be it Christians or whoever discuss imperfection without having to bring in the "s" word. It really gets very boring. lol
I've had anti-theists and non-Christians on this board use the word "sin" toward me today more than the typical Christian does.
Is that what you are talking about? You are the one to bring up sin, yet again, like those others.
Here's the problem – he espouses "family values" and "the sanct.ity of marriage" and uses those as an excuse to deny gay people the same rights he enjoys. And he doesn't even live up to the damn ideal. That's where his hypocrisy becomes worse.
No, he followed the Bible admitted sin and asked forgiveness. Then he followed the Bible and stepped down. He did not deny the Word of God just fell short as we all do.
believerfred,
He didn't deny the word of God, he just DIDN'T BELIEVE it.
Gads, I think I have to agree with you. If one truly believes at that moment it would be almost impossible to sin. To truly believe is to be in the presence of God where desire of the flesh is non existent. Not to say he forgot his faith for the moment but somehow justified offending God and further heaping that sin on Christ knowing the suffering paid for that sin.
believerfred,
This could be a first. We agree on something. I've circled today on my calendar.
observer
That would be the calendar that says "the Year of our Lord" 2014. Interesting how it is universally known that time is divided into time before Christ and the birth of Christ. Talk about a Divine sign from the heavens. Can't say God did not make the way clear. This could well be the beginning of peace throughout the land.
Now, you drew a circle around the date and not a sphere. Does that mean you think the earth is flat?
believerfred
Today is 2014 BECAUSE the ruling Christians (long after Jesus) numbered it that way. Do you really think that when Jesus was born they had a New Year's Eve to ring in year ZERO? lol. Good one.
But let's celebrate god today if you like. Today is Tuesday in honor of Tyr, the god of combat. If we party long enough, it will be Wednesday when we can honor the god Woden. Sound good to you?
I didn't draw a sphere like the earth because you can't draw one on a two-dimensional calendar. Being flat, I drew a circle. You know, first day stuff in a geometry class.
observer
If it helps with your geometry class today I ran into a real old African Jew. She explained that in Isaiah when he spoke about the circle of the earth it was translated sphere in her "Bible". Seems that the word usage came from the wedding dance where the bride and groom danced in a circle. This two dimensional dance is all man can do but, the bride and groom when united are surrounded in the presence of God as a sphere. The circle dance symbolized touching of every point in the sphere of inclusiveness in God. This is how we are to relate with one another in unity with others and God. This could relate to what Jesus said was to be "in Christ".
Hopefully your geometry teacher is Christian or Jew then you get an A. If not I suggest you sit quietly.
believerfred
Happy Woden's Day here in the month probably named after Aphrodite.
"She explained that in Isaiah when he spoke about the circle of the earth it was translated sphere in her "Bible"."
Great. So have we finally found a Bible that doesn't contain ERRORS? Which one did she use? Speaking of circles, does it say that the ratio pi is equal to 3.0 like the other Bibles do?
π is an irrational number and Gods Word is never irrational. We both know the explanation that the Hebrew usage of 3 could well have taken into account the thickness of the pool wall.
I understand the anger felt towards someone who behaves like this guy did, but I think that his fall from his own ideals is more a learning opportunity for him than it is for us. I am sure we all know that people are hypocrites. This story should not surprise us. What hopefully this guy learns is that we should not be condemning anyone, ga.y, straight, or otherwise for falling short of the ideal set by Jesus.
We all fall short of the ideal, and when we do, we need to fess up, repent, and turn away from the sin that we fell into.
@guidedans
You said, "How the atheists and agnostics are accusing this guy of being a hypocrite as if being a hypocrite is worse than being an adulterer."
He's an adulterer AND a hypocrite.
You said, "Atheists, most likely, also live by a similar code (i.e., one that forbids adultery)."
Probably true for most, but very few make a living telling others not to be adulterers.
You said, "Thus, any atheist with that morality would also be a hypocrite."
Nope. It's the "telling others not to" part that is required for someone to qualify as a hypocrite.
LinCA,
With Atheism and moral relativism (which are often aligned), no one sets the morality of the culture except for those within the culture. Now, with that amount of responsibility on the shoulders of the people within the culture, you would hope that those people are standing up for certain morals.
In moral relativism, anything, so long as it is accepted by the group, is "moral." This being the case, I would expect moral relativists to be extremely vocal regarding the morality that they want to see in their culture. Otherwise, their culture may adopt behavior outside that morality, which may be detrimental to the survival of the group.
All of that is to say that, if Atheists aren't telling others to behave in a certain way, they should be.
@guidedans
Prove that you are not also practicing moral relativism. If you can't prove your God, then changes in the perceived covenants, for instance, may certainly be seen as moral relativism.
In other words, prove that you do not just have a similar opinion that you have derived in the same subjective manner as atheists, only from something that only represents a claimed unsubstantiated source. Please establish that objective morality exists without resorting to subjective means.
Hi Doris.,
The Bible is an object.
It defines a morality within it.
You could remove all people from the world and the Bible's morality would still stand as the morality defined in the Bible.
It is not subjective. It is clearly outlined apart from subjects.
You may disagree that it is correct. But arguing that it is subjective is much more difficult.
You could also argue that different people interpret the Bible differently, but that does not mean the morality defined in the Bible is subjective. That would be like saying that the moon is subjective because different people perceive the moon differently.
guidedans: [ "The Bible is an object. It defines a morality within it. You could remove all people from the world and the Bible's morality would still stand as the morality defined in the Bible. It is not subjective. It is clearly outlined apart from subjects. You may disagree that it is correct. But arguing that it is subjective is much more difficult. You could also argue that different people interpret the Bible differently, but that does not mean the morality defined in the Bible is subjective. That would be like saying that the moon is subjective because different people perceive the moon differently." ]
Of course it's subjective. Which do we have more proof of in front of our eyes, God or a direct link from God giving moral law without any subjectivity involved, or splintered religious sects reflecting differing interpretations of "the Word"? I think it's OK to say that what Christians strive for and hope for is a universal ethical code, but that's not what we see in reality as we look across Christianity for instance. Again I challenge you to prove objectivity of any nature in communion with your God, moral or otherwise, without resorting to subjective means. I think you will find a far greater consensus across the world that "something is there" with regard to the moon versus the God of Abraham.
guidedans
"The Bible defines a morality within it."
Yes, but that certainly doesn't make it right. Morality must come from other sources for so many Christians to believe the Bible is wrong about slavery and its discriminations, etc.
@guidedans
You said, "With Atheism and moral relativism (which are often aligned), no one sets the morality of the culture except for those within the culture."
Atheism says nothing about morals. It is simply a lack of belief in imaginary creatures.
Morals are simply the rules of conduct that people operate under to interact with the rest of society. They are the result of people living for thousands of years in shrewdnesses, or troops. They've evolved as humans and their societies evolved. What you call your absolute morals are nothing more than the morals of the time, written down by those in authority. Your "absolute morals" are nothing but a snapshot of an ancient and backward culture.
You said, "Now, with that amount of responsibility on the shoulders of the people within the culture, you would hope that those people are standing up for certain morals."
What's your point? Do you see this not happening? I, for one, am very vocal about morals that I find crucial for a just and civil society. It is, in part, why I argue with the moral degenerates on the Belief Blog. If there's one thing that is detrimental to a civil society, it is large groups of people clinging to ancient and completely outdated morals.
You said, "In moral relativism, anything, so long as it is accepted by the group, is "moral." This being the case, I would expect moral relativists to be extremely vocal regarding the morality that they want to see in their culture."
Some of the biggest issues facing modern societies is the religious trying to force behavior on the sane part based on their fairy tales. It is completely unacceptable to discriminate against fellow humans simply based on the nonsense in some religious fairy tale. Denial of equal rights for gays and lesbians, for instance, is highly immoral.
You said, "Otherwise, their culture may adopt behavior outside that morality, which may be detrimental to the survival of the group."
Not every activity that is not moral, or questionable is also detrimental to the group. Even if it is, it may not be the most pressing concern.
Take for instance, adultery. While this is certainly not praiseworthy, it may not be detrimental to the group as a whole. It sure is damaging to the family groups of those involved, but the effects of it beyond that are minimal. And while I wouldn't recommend adultery, I don't think it's worth my time to point out the obvious. It's not like those that engage in it aren't aware of the consequences, nor does punishment of it seem like a sensible use of resources. There are far bigger fish to fry.
What people do in the privacy of their bedroom with consenting adults is better left unregulated.
You said, "All of that is to say that, if Atheists aren't telling others to behave in a certain way, they should be."
I am, but the religious are not listening.
The Bible aka The Babble is nothing more than a crappy bit of fiction with no actual evidence for any of its divine claims and is not even considered a historical docu.ment by The Smithsonian. There is no reason to take anything in it any more seriously than you would astrology.
guidedans: "How the atheists and agnostics are accusing this guy of being a hypocrite as if being a hypocrite is worse than being an adulterer."
Could you show how atheists and agnostics are accusing this guy of being a hypocrite as if being a hypocrite is worse than being an adulterer?
Could they, in some usage, be substituting "adulterer" with "hypocrite"? Isn't a very large part of being an adulterer being a hypocrite?
I am not going to call anyone out for their comments, but I see a few folks on here screaming "Hypocrite" more than they are "Adulterer."
I just think that it is misguided to think that hypocrisy is the big deal here. We are all hypocrites when we break our own moral codes. This guy broke his moral code.
I think you are right when you say that being an adulterer has a large tie-in with being a hypocrite. Being a bad person in general creates a lot of hypocrisy I think.
And I just want to throw this out there, I am not trying to defend this guy. He did what he did and he has to pay for it. I truly hope that he does have Jesus in his heart so that he can have a true repentance and turn away from his sin.
guidedans,
You can call out my name. If you prefer, I'll properly refer to him as AN ADULTERER AND WORLD CLASS HYPOCRITE. Better?
guidedans,
Correction. If the stories are true, he actually is a TWO-TIME ADULTERER AND WORLD CLASS HYPOCRITE.
Better still?
Thanks observer. That's much better.
:}
guidedans: ".. and turn away from his sin."
We who do not wallow day and night in consideration of our imperfections don't believe in the Christian concept of sin. You need to try harder to translate better to your audience. How about transgression against his marriage? .....
Doris,
Sin is a concept defined in the Bible. Without the Bible and God's commandments, there is no sin, there are just bad behaviors. Whenever I am using the word sin, I am using it as it is defined in the Bible. You are correct that the bad thing that this pastor did was the transgression against his marriage, but sin covers the additional layer of transgressing against God.
I know that you disagree with my characterization of this pastor's behavior as sinful, but I think you can understand what I am trying to convey.
Without the Bible and God's commandments,
----
God's commandments are not contained in the bible. The bible contains MAN'S OPINIONS, about what he believes God's commandments might possibly be.
@guidedans,
First, there is some truth to what you say, however
1. While ethics may say that se.x outside of a monogamous relationship, without consent from all parties, is unethical, atheists don't claim that it is a "sin" that will put you in eternal torture.
2. Hypocracy usually involves public condemnation of an act the one continues to participate in. Not too many Atheists are out in public denouncing adultere
Well they should, Ken. In Atheism, you set the morality of the culture. I think that most people can agree that cheating on your wife without her knowledge, thereby causing an immense amount of stress and emotional pain for her would be immoral.
If there is no objective morality like Christians believe, then Atheists should be a very strong voice against what they deem to be immoral acts. Otherwise, those "immoral" acts will eventually become "moral" ones.
guidedans,
Atheists can be adulterers just like anyone.
What makes him WORSE is that he was a huge HYPOCRITE on top of the adultery, preaching things (and collecting money) that he didn't believe in..
Immoral acts such as...?
Do you know what atheists speak out against?
observer,
I think it's a stretch to say that he was preaching things that he did not believe in. I bet he legitimately believed that adultery is wrong and sinful. He just fell into that same sin that he was standing against.
Usually, when people do really bad things, they aren't trying to say that those bad things should be done. They are just falling short of the expectations that they hold for everyone else.
I think we are all guilty of that.
Akira,
What I am saying is that, if you believe in moral relativism, then it is up to you to define the morals of the culture. Therefore, you should create the world you want to see.
If you want a world of adulterers, then advocate for adultery. If you don't, then advocate against it.
Christians already have their morality assigned, they speak out to try to make the world adopt their morality. Atheists, in theory, should be more vocal as there is no God backing their morality. They need to propagate the morality themselves.
guidedans
"Atheists, in theory, should be more vocal as there is no God backing their morality. "
Actually, when atheists embrace the same morals of believers like not killing people, not lying, no adultery, etc. they deserve MORE CREDIT than believers because they did it without threats (hell) and bribes (heaven).
I don't know if that argument holds too much water, observer. You could say that Christians should get more credit because they know that, no matter what they do, they will be forgiven.
That would be a bad argument though.
Anyway, there is enough punishment for murder (or most sins) in this life (incarceration, social exile, prison-beatings, etc.). It is clearly not a very beneficial move regardless of whether there is a heaven or hell looming over you.
Why don't we just not give either side more credit for behaving like decent human beings. I think we should just expect that from everyone we meet, regardless of religion.
guidedans
You don't hear that from Christians much. Instead you constantly hear about the bribes and threats.
observer,
I can tell you that the reason I do the things I do is to bring glory to God. Not because I get rewards in heaven, but because God gave me a tremendous gift through the sacrifice of Jesus. I really don't think Christians are themselves motivated by threats of Hell as we believe we are already saved.
I think the reason why you will hear a lot about Heaven and Hell from us is that Christians are concerned that non-believers are not saved and so we want to bring you into the faith so that you wont have to deal with the punishment.
Maybe it is not the best motivator for non-believers either, but it is a genuine concern.
Who on earth would advocate for adultery? Why get married then?
I think that atheists advocate for the same things that most decent people do.
I think the ones who stump for hedonistic things aren't necessarily atheists, anyhow.
guidedans,
I understand your sincerity. However, wouldn't it be better spent on trying to save the souls of all the Christian HYPOCRITES who live in ADULTERY because of divorce and remarriage? There's FAR FAR MORE of those Christian adulterers than the total number of gays that many Christians trash.
I think it is absurd to hold atheists to a higher standard of morality than one would hold Christians, guidedans.
That seems to be what you're suggesting.
Akira,
I am sorry if I am coming across that way. That is not what I intended. I don't think Atheists should be held to any higher or lower standard than anyone else. What I am saying that, in moral relativism, it is more difficult to uphold societal morality.
If morality is subjective, then the subjects have the responsibility to communicate and uphold that morality. I am not saying that Atheists should be more moral that Christians (although, if you wanted to prove a point, it wouldn't be a bad idea). I am saying that Atheists have an added burden that Christians do not when it comes to morality. Christians can fall back on the Bible for our morality. Atheists have the added responsibility of creating their own morality.
guidedans
"Christians can fall back on the Bible for our morality"
More often than not, it's just used as an EXCUSE. It's all pick-and-choose hypocrisy. Their morality is not solely determined by the Bible. For instance, if they don't like gays, they choose negative verses. If they empathize with gays, they choose the Golden Rule. Pick what you like and IGNORE the rest.
observer,
I know I have said this before, but I don't like hopping on the bandwagon for standing against a particular sin as especially bad. All sin is bad and all sin should be avoided.
Christians should of course stand out against adultery and should correct those within the church who are caught up in adultery. Clearly, this guy stepped down from his post and is going through that "correction" now. If he were caught up in hom.ose.xuality, he would be similarly corrected.
You may argue that the only reason he is coming forward is that he got caught, and maybe you are correct. That is his issue to deal with however. As Christians, we are to correct our brothers and sisters who fall into sin and work to get them aligned with God's will.
observer,
You are correct. Many Christians cherry pick the verses they want to follow. Again, we are all sinners and we all need Jesus. The Bible is a very large book and it would take a lifetime of scholarship to fully understand all of its complexity. Many Christians aren't Bible scholars, but Christianity does not say to need to memorize the entire Bible. Christianity is about accepting that you are a sinner in need of Christ's redemption and committing to turn away from you life of sin to follow Jesus.
Yes, in practice, that will most likely lead to an interest in your lord's words, but it is not a prerequisite for salvation.
Christians are sinners just like everyone else. I understand that we come off as holier-than-thou often, but, speaking for myself, I try not to.
guidedans
"All sin is bad and all sin should be avoided."
So why have so many of your fellow Christians collected MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars to oppose gay marriage when ALL STATES allow ADULTERY by Christians through divorce and remarriage?
Where is the outrage? Where are the MILLIONS of dollars collected to oppose the laws in all 50 states?
@guidedans,
While I don't think people should break their promises, generally speaking, I don't know their situation and don't feel the need to judge their behavior.
If their behavior hurts their partners, then those partners are free, and encouraged, to leave the arrangement. Unfortunately for Christians, they aren't supposed to do that either.
Guidedans,
Where people err is that they think atheism is some structured system. It isn't. It is simply a non-belief in gods, any gods-not just the Christian one.
God gets talked about here in the US because its citizens are overwhelmingly Christian.
To understand this, my atheist sister explained it thusly:
"You know how you don't believe in Santa Claus? That feeling. Except with any gods."
I understood that.
guidedans,
This HYPOCRITE was not just an adulterer but a MAJOR HYPOCRITE too.
He did EXACTLY what he preached NOT TO DO.
He conned people into believing he was HONEST and giving him money.
Agreed observer, this guy did a really bad and immoral thing.
What I am saying is that he would be a hypocrite in pretty much any religion, even atheism so long as that religion/moral code forbade adultery.
We are all hypocrites in one way or another. I think it strikes us as particularly bad when someone speaks out against an action that they are performing, but it shouldn't. We should see bad actions for what they are. Really, whenever we break our own moral codes, we are stepping into hypocrisy.
guidedans,
Anyone talking against adultery would be a hypocrite, but he took HYPOCRISY to a whole new level.
You seem to have forgotten that he made his LIVING out of telling people not to sin. His whole life evolved around his "relation with God" and "belief that adultery was wrong", etc. He got millions of dollars from people who he conned into thinking he was HONEST and that he actually believed what he said.
He even opposed gay marriage because they couldn't have a sacred marriage like his.
He told everyone that God was always watching them, and for him it was just LYING.
WORLD CLASS HYPOCRITE.
Doc
"The Abrahamic religions aren't 10,000 years old."
=>Noah and of course Adam predate Abraham and we have no way of knowing how old the knowledge of The God of Abraham actually is. Even though there is mention of Cain using bronze tools that cannot be used as a date certain.
"Did the followers of the ancient pantheons suspend critical thinking, or did they operate on blind faith?"
=>I have no idea how to answer that. As for myself I never connected scientific knowledge regarding the veracity of a global flood and the flood story in the Bible for 3 years after my conversion experience. Then my partner joked if God could flood the world he should be able to help me win todays race. Suddenly all the scientific disciplines that argue against the Genesis account came to mind. So, for 3 years I did not suspend critical thinking but was caught up in blind faith (or most likely just not thinking). The science is correct based on known natural laws (perspective from naturalism) and Genesis is correct as a revelation of Gods relationship to man (Gods perspective). Suspension of critical thinking goes against the way as Jesus called it.
Wrong place, ignore post
Well it's OK to come up for air every so often, fred.
Way ahead of you, fred
Even if you put it in the right place, I would've ignored it.
Ok God does need to retire and straighten her hair, one thing I noticed ....every atheist that Jesus and I chatted with today was so nice and welcoming and witty....anyone claiming to be a believer on the other hand, either they didn't believe it was me, or refused to talk to me. Some even said I was lying. You better hope the angels don't write everything down! Peace!
Hey guys, it's God...mmm what to do today what to do today...what the? why are the africans always trying to befriend me on facebook...ignore, next. What the another little boy that is being abused by his parents, trying to befriend me? like delete. omg, why do all these poor people with no food keep trying to be my friends on fb? Hey Jesus? can you show me how to block these people?
there are a lot of things that the christian god really doesn't care about (preventing natural disasters, feeding the hungry, healing the sick) but the one thing he sure seems obsessed with is what people do while na.ked and who is having se.x with who.
That is not the Christian God, you silly goose. That is what you simply imagine. It seems only you and a select few far-right wing Conservative Republicans from 40 years ago believe that. You guys sure do think alike!
According to polls I have seen it seems to be more like 50% of the country that believes that the Christian god cares about such things.
I know there are people, both religious and non-religious that are obsessed with such things. But what polls suggest people believe God seems obsessed with is what people do while na.ked and who is having se.x with who, and doesn't care about preventing natural disasters, feeding the hungry, and healing the sick?
Please post a few of them.
I was only talking about the s.ex part. I don't think the first part is even worth responding too. And as far as the s.ex part goes you and I both know that the majority of those against gay marriage, and gay people in general are religious people.
I was only talking about the God part and dog's imagination.
if the bible is the word of your god ... then I rest my case (perhaps you should read it!)
if the bible is NOT the word of your god ... then why are you boring me with all your quotes?
Of course if you're a Deist, you shed all the worry over the Creator's participation in the world -and you can even follow Jesus for his message on relating to one another. Without the magic spells of course. I guess it was difficult for Deism to survive against other brands – like a children's cereal that doesn't come with a prize.
Ok, what part of the Bible clearly states that God doesn't care about preventing natural disasters, feeding the hungry, and healing the sick, and instead is simply and obviously obsessed with is what people do while na.ked and who is having se.x with who?
But not really like that. I've actually seen the prizes that come in cereal.
DD = Disingenuous Dalahast
I was just wondering if you can back up your claims.
What is disingenuous about that?
I claim you simply imagine the claims of your statement. Back it up, dude! Talk about disingenuous... come on, doG!
"Are you gonna bark all day little doggie? Or are you gonna bite?" – Mr. Blonde, Reservoir Dogs
Well Dalahast, I think I can answer that. According to Leviticus, adultery, male-male gay s.ex merits the death penalty, however, God sent plague upon plague to torture and kill the population of Egypt (including murdering the first born male child in every household) destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and once drowned the entire planet.
I think that demonstrates dog's point.
That Leviticus Law – was that for priests who were attempting to make themselves holy? They signed up to follow the laws, so the laws only applied to them, right? One couldn't use such a law and apply to others who weren't priests and weren't trying to keep themselves holy, right?
What if it is about married men who are breaking their vows to their wives? Ones who swear to not do such things?
I'm not sure how that demonstrates God is obsessed with what people do while na.ked and who is having se.x with who... I've heard you made such claims before, which seems to demonstrate you have an obsession with it.
Still seems to be in doG's imagination. Oh, and yours, too, again.
disingenuous because:
– hundreds and hundreds of lines in the bible about who can sleep with who and who rap.ed who and in what way people can do it and where and when. For you to ask for an example when there is such a focus on this in your book is disingenuous.
– there are hundreds of national disasters every year and millions die and your god causes them or at least doesn't stop them. Millions die of starvation every year and your god doesn't save them. Millions die of sickness every year and your god doesn't save them. Either you are ignorant or you are disingenuous.
doG,
Oh, and do you imagine that those are the only options available?
There is enough food on this earth to feed everyone. But due to human greed, jealousy and hatred not everyone gets a share. They starve to death. Citizens of the United States of America take more than they give – for you to criticize a god for not doing more seems silly. I don't see you doing anything but copying and pasting the same things over and over on religious blogs.
Come on little doggie – get to doing something!
What do you do that is better? Post on message boards too much??? Oh, good doggie!
Please, share the hundreds and hundreds of lines in the bible about who can sleep with who and who rap.ed who and in what way people can do it and where and when.
Where in Leviticus or elsewhere does it say that those laws only apply to the priests?
You didn't indicate what verse you were talking about, that is why I asked that question.
Leviticus 21 is definitely written to just priests:
"21 The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: ‘A priest must not..."
There are 2 passages that hom.ophobes and anti-theists use to prove God hates gays: Leviticus 18:19-23 and Leviticus 20:10-16, which are part of what biblical scholars call "the Holiness Code".
The code explicitly bans hom.ose.xual acts. But it also prohibits eating raw meat, planting two different kinds of seed in the same field and wearing garments with two different kinds of yarn. Tattoos, adultery and se.xual intercourse during a woman’s menstrual period are similarly outlawed.
Again, written for a specific people at a specific time. It doesn't prove God is obsessed with what people do while na.ked and who is having se.x with who.
Dala – your opinion is one of many Christian opinions, so I hope you realize I burst out laughing each time you say "That is not the Christian God".
Dala: "But what polls suggest people believe God seems obsessed with is what people do while na.ked and who is having se.x with who,"
And I don't have a poll, but how about the popular vote of an entire country with a "kill all the gays" bill that the previous pope accepted as a Christmas gift from the head of Uganda's senate?
The best we non-Christians can do to ascertain the characteristics of the Christian God in action, since Christians are unable to present him to us directly, is listen to their claims and their evidence; to observe their behavior and see if that gives us any clues. Printed words by themselves can't throw you in jail in Africa for being gay- something instigated by evangelicals in the U.S. Printed words by themselves without someone to read and interpret them don't cause children to die because someone thinks God doesn't want them to seek medical care. Printed words by themselves without a particular type of Christian to read them doesn't cause one to think that when lightening strikes a neighbor's home that it was a conscious action by God as punishment.
Sure there are some decent Christians. But right now, there are way too many of the nutcase variety in the U.S., imho.
I;m still waiting on the hundreds of verses doG knows about.
This guy says there are only 9 related to h.omos.exuality. And only 2 forbid it – yet in the same breath forbid gardening and wearing clothes.
"Nine biblical citations are customarily invoked as relating to hom.ose.xuality. Four (Deuteronomy 23:17, 1 Kings 14:24, I Kings 22:46 and II Kings 23:7) simply forbid prost.itution by men and women.
Two others (Leviticus 18:19-23 and Leviticus 20:10-16) are part of what biblical scholars call the Holiness Code. The code explicitly bans ho.mose.xual acts. But it also prohibits eating raw meat, planting two different kinds of seed in the same field and wearing garments with two different kinds of yarn. Tattoos, adultery and se.xual intercourse during a woman’s men.strual period are similarly outlawed.
There is no mention of ho.mose.xuality in the four Gospels of the New Testament. The moral teachings of Jesus are not concerned with the subject.
Three references from St. Paul are frequently cited (Romans 1:26-2:1, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and I Timothy 1:10). But St. Paul was concerned with ho.mos.exuality only because in Greco-Roman culture it represented a secular sensuality that was contrary to his Jewish- Christian spiritual idealism. He was against lust and sensuality in anyone, including heteros.exuals. To say that ho.mos.exuality is bad because h.omos.exuals are tempted to do morally doubtful things is to say that heterose.xuality is bad because heterose.xuals are likewise tempted. For St. Paul, anyone who puts his or her interest ahead of God’s is condemned, a verdict that falls equally upon everyone. "
http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/hom * ophobic.htm
Great, Dala. Maybe this is your calling. I suggest you leave for Uganda tonight to straighten up the misunderstandings there.
Doris,
Do you think anti-theists do such things like comparing the worst of others, like Christian, to the best of themselves? Like, imagining there is a "US vs THEM" and scapegoating others to feel better about themselves?
I'm not sure why you decided to share about those crimes that some Christians do. It baffles me, too. Just like it baffles me when atheists, humanists, non-religious and self-described intellectuals do such horrible things, too. I'm against it. Whether someone from your group does it or mine.
> Great, Dala. Maybe this is your calling. I suggest you leave for Uganda tonight to straighten up the misunderstandings there.
What does a non-Christian like you say to a Christian who sacrifices his life for you to live in a free country?
Thanks? Do you say thanks to them?
A vast majority of this country is Christian. And supports your right to choose to not be a Christian. And many would die for your right to not be a Christian. Do you ever think of those Christians?
Dala: "Do you say thanks to them? "
Yes I most certainly do. But I also realize the the same disparities that elicited Jefferson's:
Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
exist in the armed forces and every other aspect of life in the U.S.
Thomas Jefferson had s.ex with a child that he considered his legal property. Some call it r.a.pe of a sl.ave he owned. What good example does Jefferson provide as an alternative? It is ok to own people if they are not rich white men, like Jefferson supported?
What if he applied the same standards to his own life? Doesn't apply very well, hu? I see it as hypocrisy at its finest.
Although I do not agree with TJ's actions with Sally Hennings, Sally was approximately the same age as Mary was when she became pregnant with Jesus...they viewed age *very* differently in years past.
And since he legally owned his slaves, he could do what he wished. TJ had some less than flattering statements about women. Again, he was a man of his time. But it is ironic that Doris would quote him so much, yet wouldn't stand a person saying some of the things he also said today.
Well against what we know about his beliefs in that regard Dala I would agree he was a hypocrite on that point. What I was drawing from that (that could be drawn from similar opinion from Madison or Adams for instance) are the wild disparities that exist in Christian belief.
And we don't really live by law in the U.S. based on Jefferson's personal life, do we? Don't we live by law set up to prevent the inherent tendency of Christians to try to step on each other's toes?
Just when you think you get a rational Christian, like Dala..... he goes on a rant that shows he is no better than the other jesus freaks, so sad. Dala... I expected a little better romr you, you are a disp!cable sinner but have maybe not broken a law, go figure.
ausphor
Eh. Hu? You don't act rational or reasonable, but you expect others, too? What page on your Modern Deist website says that is ok?
Doris
+ And we don't really live by law in the U.S. based on Jefferson's personal life, do we? Don't we live by law set up to prevent the inherent tendency of Christians to try to step on each other's toes?
No. There is no such law.
That is an inherent human tendency. Not a strictly Christian one. You are just as capable of trying to infringe on the rights of others like some Christians have. And world history tells us even those with little or no Christian influence will attempt such things.
You are getting ridiculous with your demonizing of others.
That quote was a personal opinion of Jefferson. Not a law. If we lived laws by Jefferson quotes African-Americans would be enslaved or murdered according to Jefferson's beliefs.
And you wouldn't enjoy the rights that Christians like me fought for you to have.
(Doris) "And we don't really live by law in the U.S. based on Jefferson's personal life, do we? Don't we live by law set up to prevent the inherent tendency of Christians to try to step on each other's toes?"
Dala: "No. There is no such law. "
lol – Oh, so you've never heard of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment?
Of course I should be giving more credit to Madison here than Jefferson, but same shared outcome.
I do presume you understand the state of affairs in many of the states around the time the Constitution was being drafted with respect to Christian infighting. Baptists being jailed by Anglicans and more in other areas.
Those laws were not established against Christianity as you suggest.
Christians overhwelmingly supported the laws because it matched with their Christian ideals. Many of those Christians came from countries where the govermenment perverted Christianity into a means to govern others.
And it failed.
Many came to this nation for the freedom to practice religion that the Const,itution guarantees.
Just like some atheists and others fail when they try to impose their powers in the same way in the name of humanism, nationalism, racism, etc.
Hey, and just like you, many Christians appreciated Jefferson is his day. Even if he wasn't a Christian like them. Or that he didn't appreciate women like you do.
Dala: "Those laws were not established against Christianity as you suggest."
==Not against Christianity. I said "to prevent the inherent tendency of Christians to try to step on each other's toes". And that's exactly what was going on at the time (and pretty much since the advent of Christianity till now).
Dala: "Christians overhwelmingly supported the laws because it matched with their Christian ideals. Many of those Christians came from countries where the govermenment perverted Christianity into a means to govern others.
And it failed."
==Well their good intentions to match their "ideals" seemed to always be eclipsed by their inherent need to tell each other how to live. And the vicious cycle of persecution (the type internal to Christendom) continued:
"If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England." –Ben Franklin, while in London, from a letter to The London Packet, 3 June 1772
[..]
Dala: "Hey, and just like you, many Christians appreciated Jefferson is his day. Even if he wasn't a Christian like them. Or that he didn't appreciate women like you do."
Well, his constituency might have thought of him as more of a Christian than we think today being able to look back at his many writings.
Umm, that tendency to step on toes is an inherently human condition. Not anything exclusive to Christianity.
Whatever group you claim to be with, is guilty of such actions, too., And the const.itution protects me from people like you.
The deists are guilty of this. The consti.tutions framers ironically were embarrassingly guilty of this. Atheists are guilty of this. Non-religious people are guilty of this.
I know you want to cherry-pick the Christians as being the only ones that do this, but nope.
But Christians have given their lives for you to express that opinion. Even if it isn't historically backed up by sufficient evidence.
We can also look back and see that TJ was a racist and se.xist individual that believed all "white, rich, property owning men (sorry, he didn't include a person like you Doris) were created equal."
“My dear friend, do not imagine that I am vain enough to ascribe our success [Revolution] to any superiority…If it had not been for the justice of our cause, and the consequent interposition of Providence, in which we had faith, we must have been ruined. If I had ever before been an atheist, I should now have been convinced of the being and government of a Deity!”
Benjamin Franklin, August 19, 1784
When he capitalizes "Providence" he means "God". Have you seen that quote?
@dalahast,
1. Alleged God hasn't prevented those things when He supposedly could have.
2. 'Go forth and multiply' was not about math.
1. That doesn't mean he doesn't care. Natural disasters are a part of this world and our nature. God said this world isn't perfect. We experience tragedy, pain and disaster. But tragedy, pain and disaster do not have the final answer.
2. No kidding. Doesn't mean that God is obsessed like doG imagines in anyway.
@Dalahast,
Ah, you arguing degrees?
Alleged God cares, but not enough to stop bad things, correct?
He is only extremely interested in who we have se.x with, but not obsessed, is that it?
+ Ah, you arguing degrees?
No. I'm saying doG is just posting the same hokey things without backing them up.
+ Alleged God cares, but not enough to stop bad things, correct?
No. I've survived a natural disaster. I understand this world is not safe, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't care or wills bad things for us. In the midst of such tragedies I have seen beautiful things. The human spirit is capable of amazing things. Such tragedies and disasters certainly grab my attention. I am better prepared for the disasters nature might throw my way. And I am more helpful to those going through their own disasters, whether caused by nature or their own self.
+ He is only extremely interested in who we have se.x with, but not obsessed, is that it?
Nope. doG said that. I have yet to see doG back that claim of his with evidence that God obsesses over that.
@Dalahast,
doG was, rightly I think, pointing out that alleged God seems to have odd priorities, such as a se.x over preventing suffering. Regardless of your personal preference for natural disaster, are the disasters really necessary for the benefits received. I mean is preparation for natural disasters really a ‘benefit’ of natural disasters?
I don’t know the criteria for “obsess”, but the Bible does spend quite a bit effort on se.x and related issues.
http://www.openbible.info/topics/seREMOVEx
Humans and Neandertals interbred, new method confirms
April 8, 2014
Genetics Society of America
Summary:
Technical objections to the idea that Neandertals interbred with the ancestors of Eurasians have been overcome, thanks to a new genome analysis method.
So much for the literal interpretation of Genesis.
what do Christians need with facts, they have the bible!
Brilliant post Boston. Sorry you just wasted your time though. Christian cognitive dissonance means the few who actually read it have already discounted it and recited themselves a few bible verses to ease that frightened feeling and make themselves feel better.
Exactly. If you are one who already thinks Noah directed animals to the ark; or maybe you are one who thinks the earth was like a disc, and just at the optimum moment God breathed air into the earth, making into a sphere to make room for more people; THEN.... you're probably not going to get to wigged out by any new discovery.
Also, there is that issue where early apologists claimed that Satan was able to perform plagiarism backward in time. Now if he can do that – he can do anything including make people think that Neanderthals and humans mingled. Shoot, he can even pop up in a toaster if he wants....
Topher The question has to be asked when you first looked down on your beautiful baby boy did you see a wonder of nature or a wretched sinner? Be honest now.
I saw a blessing from God.
dodge.
Or, you saw one of natures wonders. Either way , congratulations.
Hey Topher! No problem. Sorry I took so long to respond to your prayers? I made sure that you had a boy or a girl. I made sure that you came on here and talked about your child. I am happy to hear that you spread the word of Jesus. Psst he didnt really walk on water, we totally made that up! mmm let's see if I can convince everyone that Noah built an Arc
If an atheist considers murder moral, will you atheists finally admit your atheism is dangerous and toxic?
Seriously? If 1 atheist thinks something, then atheism is dangerous?
How about, Christians burned many to death in the name of their God, does that make Christianity dangerous?
Welcome to atheistic thinking 101. One bad apples means everybody within the group does. The idea has become popular among you atheists today. You didn't get the memo?
Eyeroll.
finisher,
There are over 40,000 sects of Christianity, no one thinks they all think alike.
asinine
lol – this question makes about as much sense as the middle part of a post from fake Heaven Sent....
And sadly, not near as amusing....
Hey this is god. you better not be spreading lies about me. Go read the Bible. I want this passed on "the ox shall be stoned, and his owner shall be put to death." Kill the bullock before the LORD, bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar." ..also Kill before the Lord and sprinkle blood round about." I dont want you misconstruing what i said this time either. if you dont say spread the exact words of my scripture there will NOt be room for you on the Arc next week! Got it blondie! ...Help me Jesus (myself)
(pssst: a rainbow is an arc; the boat was an ark.)
Whaaat, more Evidence on top of more Evidence that atheism/evolutionism/idolatry are all out of Absolutely, Completely and Totally out of whack!!!
Sal,
Everything is out of whack, and religion is at the head of the line.
Dont worry Boston, I already yelled at him, I found him trolling somewhere else. Maybe I won't let him in the Pearly Gates..hmph, that should shut him up. Jesus was peeved at him too when I told myself. Being God is hard. Is there anyone I can talk to about it?
You can usually find Jupiter in the Baths of Caracalla on Thursdays.
why did you name yourself salt shaker?
Hey this song is about me!.."You are the salt of the earth, you are the salt of the earth, but if that salt has lost it's flavour, it aint got much in it's favour, you gotta stay something nana na na na na" . Me and Jesus and Adam, and Moses, not Noah (he is totally in H-E-Double Hockey Sticks right now) anyway, us boyezz we were watching Jesus Christ SuperStar, and thinking wow, dead on!
Sleeping with other people's husband or wife is not cool. It is WRONG!
Sure it is, but it's become sort of traditional in the evangelical movement, and traditions die hard.
Whatever happened to good old fashioned Levirite marriage?
Poor Onan would be considered a moral man today.
You have a problem with them sleeping together? I would have the problem with them having $ex.
Lol. Ba dum dum. Ching!
Here's how the "comment stoning" process works, each comment posted is weighted using the following formula:
0 is the weight assigned to all commenters who have had sixsual relations outside marriage, that includes those who have had six with someone they are not married to; looked at someone with lust; watched poorne or those that have foornicated.
1 is the weight assigned to those who are guiltless of all the above.
Multiply the comments by the weight assigned to arrive at the conclusion.
One would bet, nobody, not one commenter here will be "stone eligible". Yes, that would include you as "ineligible".
No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle!
Hi Doobzz. Its God (sheepish grin) how are you? I'm glad you are still for stoning because I don't know what fool is trying to say that is not what I meant in the bible when I clearly stated it. You go with your bad self
I'll take one of those big flat ones.
coming to a city near you...see I do answer prayers, just ask Colorado State
Can someone please let the good pastor know that I god (you dont have to capitalize my name anymore, I'm over it), as I was saying, that I god forgive him. I heard his prayers and he is not answering his celly. It is true dear loyal children. I am finally speaking to you and answering your prayers and questions. So ahem.... who is first and what would you like to know?
Hi god...so glad you are here. I've always been so perplexed as to why you would help a multi-millionaire football player score a touchdown and he points to the sky and gives you a wink while you completely ignore the cries of thousands of starving children dying in the dirt with their bloated bellies who scream in their agony for a crumb of bread and you just tell them to fuck off? Just wondering.
Exactly my son, exactly. Jesus asks me the same thing. He often says "Dad, er..me...er myself, why did you always let Peterson score everytime I bet against the Viking?" He also asked me how the hell did they pull of that game against Baltimore. I just tell him to have faith my son, have faith. But you son, continue your prayers for the Africans. I can't save everyone if I dont have prayers
I believe there is a calling in this satire.
God did not ignore those children and all victims, He showed human the way to do justice and help, and human ignored those. It is the simplest of all to discern to help your fellow human. There is enough money and resources in the world to feed and shelter every living soul, yet, human chose to do injustice!
Vic.... I see you, this is not a satire. this is not a test. next!!!!! face palm
Oh Vic Vic Vic, sorry about that. My loyal servant. I did not recognize you. So many non-believers mock me son. You and your family are the chosen ones. You will be saved. You can thank your non-stop believing (don't stop believing ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh) Now I did just choose you, like I choose you-know-whats-his-face. The first thing I need you to do is to start spreading the word, the DAY (as in the BIG-J) is on it's way!! You think you can do that and not sound cray-cray? Let me know in your prayers. Get back to me, tonight like eastern time. TTYL
The fact there may be enough resources is totally irrelevant to the children in pain.
Were the enough resources to prevent the tsunami, that killed thousands ? No.
Does this answer why 7 year olds die in pain WITH ALL THE RESOURCES in the world surrounding them, from Leukemia ? Nope. Sorry Victor-Victoria. You have none of the important answers to important questions. Just drivel you parrot.
Since the fall of Adam & Eve, God made mortal and summoned him/her to this life realm and it trials that can't be escaped while needing to endure and pass the test of "Faith" till the end of time.
God is Sovereign, He is the giver and taker of life according to His Divine Will, Wisdom, Justice, and Command, and is "Exclusive" to Him. Meanwhile, there is no excuse for the hunger and injustice in the world caused by humans.
"..its trials.."
You are disgusting.
I would like to now where I left my car keys.
God has assigned one of His subordinates that task, so you'll need to pray to Saint Zita, the matron saint of lost keys.
oh igaftr igaftr igaftr, (did i pronounce that correctly?) seek and you shall find my child. They are right where you left them, on the key ring. >>face palm<< GOD does know everythang.
Wow...you're good. Thanks
Nice to see you making a public appearance after 2,000 years.
I know you've punished rogue angels in the past, like Lucifer and his followers – but what about these days?
Did the Archangel Moroni get busted for the golden plate prank?
Thank you Doc my child. You would not believe how busy it is up in heaven, what with all the 72 virgins for every muslim that blew himself up, wow they sure know how to par-tay, for shay. ...hang on a second, heaven is getting a little wild....OMG Muhammed! Muhammed, stop downloading from that site with little va-ja-jays, we are going to get in trouble from....from...oh ya, from me!! Cometh and Goeth. Jesus, come here and say a few things, these people want to know where da heck you have been, hang on, he's shy
Oh Alias Alias Alllias Alus. From the book not yet released or set to be published- Quote verse 7 chapter 9a page 32 bottom in very fine print--"And the bible says you are invisible and pink and you are not. When you are asked you will say -oh heathen you, what you say"......ahem. (lips pursed) need i say more?
How do you feel about the depiction of you in the movie, "The Invention of Lying"?
well boston my son, it was an autobiography....but i'm much skinnier in person. i am also invisible and pink. do you have any other questions i can help you with, like the future?
If you are invisible and pink, and we are made in your image – they why do we come in different colors?
Why do you let SO MANY hucksters, false prophets, politicians, church leaders, etc., exploit people by claiming to know you and in your name?
Boston, my loyal servant, that isn't me, that's the devil himself...actually you caught me, its me. I think somewhere in the bible it says it's ok? ummm let me google that answer and i'll get back to you.
If god doesn't change then can I still stone people to death for adultery? I say if I can't then god must have changed because at one point he ordered it be done.
God is unchanging. And no, you cannot.
God ordains His dealings with man through covenants. This had to be the case since revelation was progressive from creation to the Revelation. In all of God's covenants with man, His nature remains unchanged, His purpose is the same, and His plan for His glorification is fully and perfectly employed.
Theo Phileo,
God is unchanging, except of course for when Jesus convinced him to change ALL THE RULES for killing people and the times when God has changed his mind as the Bible shows.
At best this means that while I may not be ordered to stone people god can't get mad about it because if he thought it was ok in the past he still has to think it is o.k. or god has changed.
"If the divine master plan is perfection, maybe next I'll give Judas a try." -Tori Amos, "Spark"
I almost forgot about those covenants – those times when man needed to apply upgrades to his god..
"His plan for His glorification is fully and perfectly employed"
And tell me why a creator would need external validation from creatures of his own making that he repeatedly disparages and calls lower than dirt?
none of it makes a drop of sense.
"In all of God's covenants with man, His nature remains unchanged, His purpose is the same, and His plan for His glorification is fully and perfectly employed."
As a self-aggrandizing petty pr1ck?
Biblical Time Dispensations:
1. Dispensation of Innocence.
2. Dispensation of Conscience.
3. Dispensation of Human Government.
4. Dispensation of Promise.
5. Dispensation of Law.
6. Dispensation of Grace.
7. Dispensation of Kingdom of Heave.
God is the same while "Time Dispensation" changes by God.
"7. Dispensation of Kingdom of Heaven."
8. Dispensation of BS.
Excuse me Blessed, I believe you meant that is #9. I believe #8 is Dispensation of Pointy Hats.
Ahhh...Thank you Doris...I forgot one of the issues in the "Meaning of Life"
Not enough hats...
And then also Mozart got away with having "too many notes" in his music!
Since the Passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, Resurrection, Ascension to Heaven, and the Arrival of the Holy Spirit in His place as promised, the "Dispensation of Law" ended and the "Dispensation of Grace" reigned.
aka, "we have to start converting non-jews, so it is time to write a new chapter called ACTS and make all those stupid rules go away."
@Alias
I think that's about it-
"Look, the gentiles won't come over unless they can eat bacon and shrimp and shave their beards however they want. We might want to think about co-opting some of those festivals too. Saturnalia especially is a hoot, so we'll need something to keep them partying in the name of Jahweh and not Zeus...."
Hi Vic, its God again. I totally agree with you. Those movies did not do me any justice, and those directors have a special place for them in H e double hockey sticks waiting for them. Hmph (arms crossed, and poison darts shooting out my eyes) Carry on with the spread of the gospel carry on my wayward son, for they'll be peace when you are done
I agree that was the theology followed by Paul's chruch. I disagree that this was Jesus' original intention/belief.
http://carm.org/paul-authority
I'm aware that Paul's version of the story says he saw (at least some) of the disciples. Oddly though, the author of Luke/Acts disagrees with Paul on when/who he saw.
After Paul's Damasucs experience (the reporting of which varies depending on the time/teller) he either did or didn't go directly to the disciples. In his writings he claims that his knowlege comes directly from God, not from the disciples (though he seems to vacilate on this later).
In the non-canonical writings we have (and in the ones we do if you look carefully) it can be seen that there was most likely strife between Peter and Paul in the early days (once they became aware of each other). Peter (and James) believing that the Law still applied and Paul saying it didn't. Paul DID NOT get his ideas that the law had been fulfilled from the disciples, this was most likely his own invention and may be why Paul and Peter divided the world up between them.
We've all sinned, though. So there is no one to throw the stones.
I'm incapable of sin. Do I get to stone people? I know a few commenters here who might be helped tremendously if they got stoned every now and then.
It is against the law to stone people who commit adultery in the US. But if you feel you are ent.itled to do so, give it a shot. I would do everything in my power to stop you from doing such a thing. I don't care what you imagine you are capable or incapable of.
@Dalahäst
You said, "It is against the law to stone people who commit adultery in the US."
You are now adding new requirements. You first (incorrectly) claimed that we've all sinned and, that because of that, there was no one eligible to throw stones. You never said anything about secular law.
You said, "I don't care what you imagine you are capable or incapable of."
It's not what I imagine. It's a simple matter of fact.
"Sin" is an entirely religious concept. It is a violation of a religious rule or law. In a country where there is freedom of religion, any religious rules and laws only apply to those that voluntarily subject themselves to that religion. For everyone else they are not applicable and are of no consequence. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to that particular religion can't sin, since it is impossible to break a rule that doesn't apply to you.
Since I live in a jurisdiction that values freedom of religion and I don't subscribe to fairy tales, including religions, I can't break any religious rules. I am incapable of sin.
Of course, since I have a sense of decency, I wouldn't think of stoning anyone. The entire concept of stoning is so barbaric and primitive that it is far more fitting for religion than a civilized society.
"Well, I would not feel so all alone, eeevvvrybody must get stoned" zimmy 7:1
LinCA
No sh.t, Sherlock. You are the one that expressed interest in stoning people since you can't sin.
I was speaking in context of the Christian setting: this is a religion blog – the article is about Christianity – and the OP suggested that Christians should engage in stoning others since non-Christians from thousands of years ago used to do so.
I like Jesus' point much better than your holier-than-thou rant you just exposed me to. We all have fallen short of our ideals and should reserve judgement. Especially those that say they are above such concepts of "sin", IMHO.
@Dalahäst
You said, "No sh.t, Sherlock. You are the one that expressed interest in stoning people since you can't sin."
No, I asked if, per your rules and considering that I'm sinless, I was allowed to stone people.
You said, "I was speaking in context of the Christian setting: this is a religion blog – the article is about Christianity – and the OP suggested that Christians should engage in stoning others since non-Christians from thousands of years ago used to do so."
Yet when questioned, you inserted a defense based on secular law.
You said, "I like Jesus' point much better than your holier-than-thou rant you just exposed me to."
You'd be surprised how closely some of Jesus' views (if he ever existed) were to those of the majority of atheists.
You said, "We all have fallen short of our ideals and should reserve judgement."
While nobody is perfect, it isn't up to those that cling to ancient fairy tales to do the judging. You are especially not to judge those that have a firm grasp of reality. You are of course free to judge those that voluntarily subscribe to your nonsense.
You said, "Especially those that say they are above such concepts of "sin", IMHO."
I never said I was above it. I said that the rules of your religion don't apply to me. I therefor can't break them. Ergo, I don't sin.
Yes Joey, this is god. That is what the Bible and Quran says. Go ahead. If you want to be a true servant of mine, you willl follow to the T. Afterall why else would I write the books. Yes you are intrepreting them correctly. By the way, do you happen to know what an Ipad is? Jesus keeps asking for one for Christmas. He's driving me (myself and I, as I am all three) NUTSO!! let me know loyal servant! Off to cause more chaos in the third world. And NO I am not helping them out, you do it! I"ll tell you why later...wink wink, you know in about another 2000 years
@joey3467
First of all; you are not in the Israel of the Law of the OT.
Second; unless you were in a post of authority, judge or leadership in that Israel you could not even begin to do that.
Third; You would not have survived in that Israel of old.
And last but not least just a few questions; are you free of that sin? Are you personally affected by his sin? If you are not then you are a hypocrite in the best case. In the worst case your desire to put someone to death like that under the present age of Grace not under the Law makes you a murderer.
In the very same way that looking at a woman with Lust makes you an Adulterer. That is the way The Lord Jesus Christ interpreted and taught the Law.
How can god not be o.k. with stoning adulterers to death now if he was o.k. with it in the past and not be considered to have changed at the same time? This seems impossible to me unless you just make up a bunch of nonsense to explain it away.
Are you free from that Sin? Are you personally affected by his Sin? Are you under the Law of the OT in Israel? Are you a Judge in Israel? Have you ever looked at a woman with Lust? How well do you know the Law? Does your mom knows you are playing with her computer/tablet/iphone?
I have never sinned, this is true.
Also that was a pretty good example of what I meant by making up nonsense to explain it away.
hello Joey!! It's GOD hello me here!! jump jump. I told you stoning is okay. >>face palm<< why are you listening to anyone but me. like jesus christ.
Hey God, why don't you have a facebook page? We'd all love to see photos of heaven with the fancy gates and all...
facebook-zap-done-....now i just have to befriend all my followers
LOL!!!!
Hi fintronics, it's god again. you know what's funny, I keep trolling around the belief page, and I keep seeing the same people commenting. Me and Jesus find it very entertaining...(crunch munch popcorn)
Looks like he did the right thing by stepping down.
Topher? Is that you?
Yes, it is. How are you doing?
Really Our Topher? Did the baby arrive without sin and healthy? I hope so.
I take it you named your son Noah! Congratulations!
I'm doing really well...I see you are doing fine , also. And your wife? Did everything go smoothly for her?
How's your puppy like the new addition?
Welcome back.
Everyone is fine. It didn't go so smoothly, but everyone is good now. The puppy is getting better with the situation. She's super curious and wants to sniff and lick him. We just have to be extra watchful of her.
Oh, I'm sorry to hear that...I'm glad everything is better, though.
Aren't babies cool?
Well congratulations, all the best to you and your family, I am pleased it worked out all right. I will give you a pass on the Noah name, but the gloves are off next time we talk!!!!
ausphor
The gloves can be off now (as long as you leave my son out of it.) I don't mind if you disagree with me. We can be adults and disagree on something.
Topher
I promise to leave your family out of my comments, I will be asking your take on the movie Noah, not today in the future, all the best.
Congrats Topher.
Thanks!
congratulations Topher. I wondered where u went to.
topher
I gotta ask, did your wife's water breaking have anything to do with naming your son Noah?
Hey, go catch up on Facebook or Instagram or Pinterest or anywhere else, please.
And yet you chose to comment when you could have just ignored us.
Or you could just skip over these posts, thanks for your contribution.
Sorry but while you may not care about Topher, he has been around this blog for awhile and while we may not always agree with him, we certainly do care that his son is here and doing well and that Topher and his wife are enjoying being parents.
Congrats, Topher! Glad to hear that everyone is recovering well and that your baby boy is hale and hearty.
How badly do you and your wife miss sleeping for more than 2 hours at a time?
Those early days are all a blur of diapers and pacing and burping and near homicidal frustration when it came to assembling baby furniture....
Sleep whenever you can and stock up on gripe water!
Thank you!
Sleep deprivation hasn't been too bad, yet, but that doesn't mean I'm not exhausted.
If you're unfortunate enough to suffer through it, remember that a little bit of whiskey goes a long way in helping colic.
Mind you, the whisky is for the parents, not the baby....
I'm late to the party but congratulations, Topher. Glad to hear that baby Noah and mom are doing well now. Welcome back.
It is interesting to me to see the religious people that try to use logic to "prove" their God.
1. It has always been a fools errand. You take one unprovable assertion (e.g. my God exists), and replace it with a complex logical argument that rests on some other unproven assertion/premise (that usually looks "obvious"). Even if the logic is perfect, it still isn't a proof because the premise isn't proven. All the exercise does is show that the person doesn't use logic well. "obvious" does not equal proof.
2. The other thing these Sisyphusian labors show is that the person probably has logic/reason envy. Atheists can't prove your God doesn't exist, you don't need to prove your God does exist. You believe it, isn't that enough? Your relationship with your God is emotional not rational. It is based on subjective feelings and experience, not objective evidence and verification. Why not accept that, love your God, and be happy with that? The 'reason envy' only reveals doubt and ends with failure.
Unfortunatley , many think the bible is some kind of authority, and it teaches them to propogate the contents. It is, by definition, propoganda, and is obviously effective to a point.
People like theo simply cannot grasp the concept of a logical debate as they are too busy trying to justify their belief, and cannot see the HUGE holes in their "logic", and in Theo's case, he misuses and misrepresents logical arguments and devices, twisting them. He often just makes stuff up...it sounds cogent, but closer examination shows it all to be smoke and mirrors.
Rube Goldberg should've been a theologian.
There's a challenge. Illustrate a Rube Goldberg contraption that proves the existence (or non existence) of God.
Why does Oolon Colluphid come to mind?
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing". "But," says man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"This is the story of ‘The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’. Perhaps the most remarkable, certainly the most successful book, ever to come out of the great publishing corporations of Ursa Minor. More popular than ‘The Celestial Homecare Omnibus’, better selling than ‘Fifty-Three More Things To Do In Zero Gravity’, and more controversial than Oolon Colluphid’s trilogy of philosophical blockbusters: ‘Where God Went Wrong’, ‘Some More Of God's Greatest Mistakes’, and ‘Who Is This God Person Anyway?’."
Don't forget "Well, That About Wraps It Up For God".
Of course there's always "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Guilt But Were Too Ashamed To Ask" and "Everything You Never Wanted to Know About S.ex But Have Been Forced to Find Out".
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
I think that you are correct that Christians should just feel content in their beliefs and not try overly hard to prove their beliefs on the grounds of logic. I believe that the reason that we do attempt to debate with the atheists on the grounds of logic is because atheists claim to be using logic to defend their own beliefs. We are attempting to convince them using their own arguments.
In the end, logic has very little ability to "prove" anything in this world. Anyone saying that they have a logical argument for something has not fully reviewed the foundations of that argument because at the foundation will always be their individual experiences.
Speaking for myself, I get frustrated when Christianity is attacked on the grounds that it is not provable or somehow difficult to believe because atheism and science and reality are all unprovable and difficult to believe as well.
Just my point of view on the subject.
guidedans,
Good argument that people should not use their intelligence and logic when reading the Bible. What a great endorsement for it. If you can't support it with logic, PRETEND that logic and intelligence aren't important.
"science and reality are all unprovable"
To quote George Carlin:
"being able to SEE something, you know, kinda helps the credibility along"
as for logic....not using it will earn you a Darwin award after a while.
Science is difficult to believe? Did you use a computer to type that? A tablet? A phone? Any technology you use or witness is proof that science works.
guidedans,
There is a big difference between objective evidence and proof.
I don't know 1 atheist that thinks anyone can prove God exists or not.
For me, there is no objective evidence for any God. There is much objective evidence that sacred texts are quite imperfect. There is much objective evidence that the universe that sacred texts aimed to explain are explainable by natural means. There is much objective evidence that man has created many Gods and the sacred texts associated with them. I also have the opinion that the morals in all sacred texts i have explored are primitive and inferior to what we have by civil means today.
Weighing all those factors, I am an atheist. Not proof at all, just my assessment of what is known and what i feel.
Hello Bostontold. This is god! I am angry. I exist. Look at all my support from loyal servants on this page. Now you have finally–er ahem....now thee will feel thee curse that He will lay upon thee! I see you there sitting at the computer, the all knowing me, knows that you are either male or female, you are between the ages of 18-102, you either work, or you don't, you are either married or not and the end of the world is near. Its dec 21, 2012. What you think about that? Repent now or I will disappear for another 2000 years!
I'm sold. Why didn't you say so?
"science and reality are all unprovable and difficult to believe as well"
Unprovable? That is right, science doesn't aim to prove things. Science makes and tests hypotheses, then keeps the ones that pass verification tests.
Science is not to be believed. It is to be accepted until something better comes along. Science works best when scientists don't believe it. Scientists are skeptical of science, that's why it works better than anything else ever tried.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. The relgious belief paradigm doesn't work when you try to apply the same rationale to science. Perhaps that why so many around here seem to have trouble with the process?
GttT,
You hit the nail on the head my friend.
Theo: "The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot be both "A" and "Non-A" at the same time and in the same way. If something is mutable – that is, changes, things are born, things die, etc., then it cannot also be eternal – that is, no change, no birth, no death. The universe is shown to be mutable, therefore it cannot also be eternal."
LOL – that's one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard.
Theo, did you actually find an example of this "law" applied for the same argument you are trying to use here??
Doris
The "law of contradiction" as theo is attempting to apply it, is not a law at all, since you would need to use the law to prove itself, which cannot be done. It is highly disputed, and is not used by any who work with logic. It does keep appearing by religious people...just one of the many straws they grasp at.
Interesting. So is it possible then to be both dead and alive at the same time? It is an "either, or" proposition, not a "both, and" proposition. Two contradicting ideas cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way.
I tell you the truth, that you look both ways before crossing the street, because either it is the bus, or you, but not both.
Theo
While it may appear to be a law, it is in fact not.
It is similar to the logical fallacy of Pascals Wager, where it is either a or b.
The problem is that it could be c, or d, or e, etc.
Since it cannot be applied to conditions that are unknown, as you have presented it, while it appears to be an obvious truth, illogical arguments, such as yours, that you then try to justify with the law of contradiction, fail because you presume only two possibilities, where there could be many others.
THAT is why it cannot be applied as you have attempted.
to use your example
"I tell you the truth, that you look both ways before crossing the street, because either it is the bus, or you, but not both"
Or I could walk down the street, or I don't look both ways because it is a one way street, etc.
See?
The only time you can use the law of contradiction properly, is when you have a and b, and both a and b are strictly defined.
That is not the case in your argument.
"you presume only two possibilities, where there could be many others."
-----------–
You want so bad for me to be wrong that you don't see the error of what you're saying. The law of non-contradiction is not limited to only two propositions. The essence of non-contradiction is that contradictory truth claims cannot all be right.
It is not limited to only two possibilities, but by reducing down to only two, the law is simply seen – I can only be alive, or dead. I cannot be both.
theo
In your example, you have two distinctly defined possibilities.
By your own belief, there is another, that you are a "spirit, neither living nor dead if you can somehow maintain sentience without a brain in the "afterlife". You see, given the number of variables, the argument is not so cut and dry.
It is not that I want you to be wrong, I seek the truth. I just do not apply illogical arguments.
You very well may be correct, or any of an infinite number of other possibilities.
When you attempt to apply a logical argument, but base it on premises that cannot be verified, your argument fails.
One may be either alive or dead.
Unless one is able to be flesh and blood while simultaneously being an omnipotent ghost.
I think there's a precedent for that...
"By your own belief, there is another, that you are a "spirit, neither living nor dead..."
---------------
We are spiritual beings that inhabit bodies, but it is wrong to say that the spirit is neither alive, nor dead. The Bible teaches that the spirit is alive. (cf 1 Peter 3:18) Based on what we do with our knowledge of God, once the body has perished, that living spirit will either inhabit eternal life in communion with God, or an eternal death without communion with God. The spiritual condition – whether alive or dead, cannot both be alive and dead at the same time. But to one who denies the supernatural, this is but speculation.
Let's look at another case. Simplistic, yes, but it serves to illustrate the point.
If we're both on the same train, it cannot be headed to both Chicago AND Berlin at the same time. Neither can it be headed to Chicago, Berlin, Atlanta, and Orlando all at the same time.
Theo!! (wait...is this theo as in theo huxtable?) that's ok if not....welcome my loyal servant, I found you while i was trolling. (yes theo god trolls) I am so glad you still have faith in me. i tell you this world is not what it was from 300-1800ish. it was sure easier to convince people that i exist and am all-knowing. you see how i found you here. i knew that you knew that i knew that we know that they dont know and you know and we know that day is coming. Now go stick up for me! Me and Jesus are having a hay-day reading....Jesus! Jesus, get your a** in here...BRB
............................................________
....................................,.-'"..................."~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>–=="
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,
Funny you should ask the question that way.
I wonder what Heisenberg's cat would say?
I think you have the wrong guy:
"One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.
It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks."
—Erwin Schrödinger, Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The present situation in quantum mechanics), Naturwissenschaften
(translated by John D. Trimmer in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society)
Thank you. Of course it was Schrödinger I was thinking of.
Maybe you were thinking if Heisenberg's Uncertainty...
@Akira, yes I transposed the uncertainty principle with the cat. While different they are of course related at some level.
All I know is that it is theoretically possible to transport matter off of the holodeck if you uncouple the Heisenberg compensators.
Hi Doris
It is the same illogical postings Theo makes day after day. With any luck he will be reduced to mumbling to himself his theories and leave the rest of the world alone.
It is really silly.
His argument, which he really seems to believe is logical, is essentially: "I can't comprehend how the universe came to be, therfore, there I conclude there must be a god." The obvious correct conclusion is,"therefore, I don't know how the universe came to be".
Whether or not our observable universe is permanently changing or at some point will cease to exist is entirely moot. Neither outcome presumes an eternal, external agent.
bingo
The God of the Gaps argument. It's sad to watch grown adults still falling for it when they have access to so much that contradicts it.
Most people really do love, respect, and in many cases fear their God. It seems like one of the most powerful of human emotional bonds. That is their business.
It does bother me to see a minority of people that take advantage of those human emotions for personal gain. I guess it is inevitable. The few exploiting the many is a common theme through history.
That is why I don't trust churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. In addition to the ease with which many can be exploited, the power structure in these organizations are suited to corruption. Top down hierarchical structure is conducive to abuse. Monarchies, churches, etc., can have benevolent leaders. But that kind of power will eventually lure malevolent people in. Once there, they can erect strong insti.tutional structure to protect themselves.
You may be ok worshiping your God, but I'd be very skeptical with your church.
One of my favorite churches is a local one that meets in the basement of a coffee shop. We are dedicated to serving the homeless in our community. It is a money losing venture with no hope for personal profit of wealth. There is no expensive building to maintain and everyone chips in what they can.
Helping others is admirable. Benevolence is out there, I distrust large powerful organizations that have no separation of power (I distrust all powerful organizations, i distrust the ones with power concentrated more).
Me too. Any megachurch I've been to has felt more like a business than a charity. And they see really focused on expanding more and more to serve themselves.
Agreed and in this particular instance it feels like the corporate ent.ity (the Calvary Chapel Association) is doing damage control to mitigate any liability to the firm.
I can't think of any other reason that "The radio, television and digital media that distributes Coy's teachings have also been suspended".
Dala..
Thanks for showing up, a breath of fresh air. After having to put up with the three stooges, Vic, Theo Phileo, and truthfollower01 and as a bonus believerfred, it is nice to see someone that wishes to live his Christian belief, explain it rationally and not try and stuff it down others throats. It has been awhile, what have you been up to?
I certainly don't think those guys are stooges. Sorry you feel the need to insult them. I can't recall seeing them resorting to insults of others, which I admire.
I've been working hard on some projects and enjoying the end of winter with outside time. How have you been?
I consider it an insult every time a Christian calls someone else a sinner, so in my opinion those three have insulted every person who has ever been born.
Dala...
Well we certainly have a different take on some of our fellow posters, If you find my comments about them to be ridicule, that is my objective. Things have been slow as the market is losing steam, I get more calls for advice when the markets are going up, should I take a profit; when the markets are going down everyone just holds on and pray I guess. Reverse psychology.
I'm a sinner. I'm sure they would refer to themselves as sinners, too. No?
I am sure they would, and I still consider it insulting when someone calls another person who they have never met a sinner. I even feel they are insulting themselves. There are very few people who are as evil as the bible tries to make everyone out to be.
Dala...
One of my heroes Thomas Jefferson.....
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man has ever had a distinct idea of the holy trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks of those calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
So if I use ridicule, derision and mockery against those that I believe foolish in their beliefs, as a Deist. I am following what I believe. Your fellows have very closed mind, you do not. You remain skeptical despite your chosen belief which I can admire, those other guys, not at all.
I wonder if anyone ridiculed Jefferson for owning slaves and breaking his marriage vows to force himself se.xually on his human property? And after impregnating them, forcing his children to become slaves because they weren't of the same racial background as him?
Dala...
A disappointing non-reply. I find it rather disappointing that Christians seem to be so sensitive to ridicule, derision and mockery and quickly elevate that to hatred and ad hominem. It isn't personal it is about the way you think. Dala.. I would hope that you would not jump to the defence of Atheist Hunter, Salero21, thefinisher01, etc. I do not think you would. There is a rather unusual tendency among the different sects to cover each others backs against a perceived common enemy but in the next breath claim that the other guys are not really christen. Topher is back he is a prime example of this, there are 2.1 billion Christians but those Catholics are no really Christians, strange thinking.
There is nothing in Deism that prevents the owning and ra.ping of slaves. According to Jefferson, a prominent Deist, such behavior is acceptable. Right? I'm just trying to figure out what you believe and follow.
Dala...
Crossed posts. TJ was living in a different time and place and would probably have been condemned for his lack of moral standards, but by whom? Most of the people in power were doing exactly the same thing. You do realize that when jesus supposedly walked the earth slaves and the selling of children were the norm. So your deflection as to TJ's character is rather amusing. All of the founding fathers could be ridiculed, disparaged and mocked for the morality of the age, does that mean you believe they have been insulted or should be hated?
Most Deists just cherry pick Thomas Jefferson's good points and try to rationalize away his bad points.
Dala...
I am a modern Deist. I would direct you to the modern Deism site you will find a definition of Deism in the glossary section, I have posted it often enough. Blinders on or what. All the religions in that time and place all believed in slavery and abusing them if they felt like it. Please, why single out Deists, the whole South went to war for goodness sake over the issue. This is the first time I have seen you use a disingenuous tactic that I would expect from Vic or Theo.
I'm trying to give you a taste of your own medicine, dude. There is nothing on the Modern Deist websites that explains your hypocrisy or judgmentalism. Thank God most Modern Deists don't act like you!
Dala...
No you are not, you are misrepresenting yourself. That is fine with me, if you think I am judgemental, sorry fool I do not believe every one in the world is a "SINNER" that is your gods nonsense. I judge people that should be ridiculed for ridiculous supernatural beliefs. I guess that does include you.
And there you go again. That was an extremely judgmental and small-minded comment by you, yet again.
I don't see any Modern Deist webpages that support such actions. Do you?
Dala..
In your opinion, I disagree. You are a sinner you said you are congratulations, that you believe in the concept of sin for everyone that is the most judgemental concept of all. I have never sinned. As a sinner I hope your belief does get you over the hump, if you have broken the laws of the land I think you should serve the appropriate punishment.
I believe we have all fallen short of our ideals. Whether they be modern deist ideals or humanist secular ideals – I have yet to see a single person perfectly live them out. So, yes, we sin or fall short of the best we can be. That is just a part of being a human being: an imperfect and flawed creature. I judge us all as imperfect and flawed – sinners. Yes. It is no different from calling a person a human. The idea that that is the "most judgemental concept of all" is just your personal opinion. I see you doing the same thing you accuse me of.
Dala...
Well I guess I am a little embara$$ed into falling into your game of one up mans ship. If you believe you are a "sinner" and need the crutch of a saviour, you are as crazy as the rest. If you believe in the philosophy of following the path of the teachings of Christ, like a Jesuit might, that is difficult but admirable. For me to stop ridiculing the Christian nutters out there, not going to happen. Of all the sects out there, I could admire the mission statement of yours, but why you defend the crazy end of the spectrum leaves me to wonder if you are just simply a POE/troll.
That is some of the most judgmental statements I've seen on here. I'm sure plenty of people consider you a nutter, too. You pretty much do the same thing as the ones you claim to be superior to. I mean, you go to the same boards as them and talk about religion all day like them. Perhaps you should focus on yourself and not worry about the "nutters".
I'm not at all concerned about how you judge me. It seems like only you are impressed with yourself. Congrats. Try not to pull any muscles patting yourself on the back!
Dala..
I forgot. Last month I was required to report for jury duty. I ended up sitting in a possible jury room for a week and was lucky that I was not one of the many groups that was called in to pass judgement on a case. That is how democracy works, we pass judgement on our peers. You are god damn right I am judgemental but not nearly as crazy as your belief system that considers everyone guilty of "sin" for what, nothing.
There is nothing wrong with being judgmental. I think accusing others of being judgmental (like this poster keeps doing), while being extremely judgmental himself is hypocritical.
That is not my belief system you describe. Sorry, dude. If you imagine I believe that, fine. If you want to insist that I believe everyone is guilty of "sin" for nothing than you are getting just as crazy for you personally judge me as.
Dala: You're not the typical of what is seen on here though. You're more of the christian my Mom was...one who follows the Golden Rule.
Any proposition that relies on faith can and will be twisted by unscrupulous individuals for their own gain.
Its just far too easy to manipulate those who are willing to suspend critical thinking and accept something without evidence.
I don't think Jesus suggested suspending critical thinking. When he said we must be as these little ones or children he was referring the fact their hearts had not become hard, minds had not become filled with the desires of this world and their trust in Jesus was full. Perhaps you think the trust in Jesus was a blind trust but it was not. That trust came from an understanding of the presence of good. They had no reason to fear or mock Jesus and had not formed that critical or skeptical spirit.
I'm not referring to Christ's sermons – I'm talking about the religions that are built on them.
When the catechism says "don't question – just believe", that is a demand for the suspension of critical thought.
It is required for acceptance of the supernatural aspects of the story.
Doc
There is a difference between "Christ's sermons" (things of God) and man made inst.itutions. I have no reason to not trust Jesus. Jesus has not done or displayed anything that would cause me to doubt. So, should I put on the mindset of an atheist and demand signs, miracles and scientific evidence for the existence of the resurrected son of God? Such would come from one who has suspended critical understanding of 10,000 years of worship. Worship is who we are and is a part of our eternal awareness. We all understand that what we actually know is a nanometer relative to the unknown and perhaps the unknowable. It is possible that the revelations of God is the best man can verbalize at present. Isaiah did not suspend critical thinking when he expressed his vision of God. It was the only way he could describe the indescribable presence.
Where to draw the line between a critical review of say Holy Communion at a Catholic Church and Christ's intent at the Last Supper seems very important. What the church added does not make sense (wine changing substance) while remembering the blood that was shed for the forgiveness of sin makes sense at a different level.
The Abrahamic religions aren't 10,000 years old.
Did the followers of the ancient pantheons suspend critical thinking, or did they operate on blind faith?
Nobody has ever disproven the Thor theory when it comes to inclement weather.
He promised to rid Midgard of Frost Giants and I've yet to see one ...
Um excuse me Fred, this is Jesus, and God. Talking to you. I never told you to have critical thinking. When I said I will destroy ... both man and beast and every living substance that I have made will I destroy. and I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth....I didnt mean anything else. Why are you spreading lies about me? If you want to preach the bible or any other religion i made up, then preach exactly what I said. how else do you think you are getting into heaven. Now go spread the word as I told you. next thing you know you're going to say unicorns don't exist. pfft
Doc
"The Abrahamic religions aren't 10,000 years old."
=>Noah and of course Adam predate Abraham and we have no way of knowing how old the knowledge of The God of Abraham actually is. Even though there is mention of Cain using bronze tools that cannot be used as a date certain.
"Did the followers of the ancient pantheons suspend critical thinking, or did they operate on blind faith?"
=>I have no idea how to answer that. As for myself I never connected scientific knowledge regarding the veracity of a global flood and the flood story in the Bible for 3 years after my conversion experience. Then my partner joked if God could flood the world he should be able to help me win todays race. Suddenly all the scientific disciplines that argue against the Genesis account came to mind. So, for 3 years I did not suspend critical thinking but was caught up in blind faith (or most likely just not thinking). The science is correct based on known natural laws (perspective from naturalism) and Genesis is correct as a revelation of Gods relationship to man (Gods perspective). Suspension of critical thinking goes against the way as Jesus called it.
Why is it that men of the cloth seem to have libidos that they refuse to control? Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, certain priests. How can you dare stand up in a pulpit every Sunday, preaching to others about their sinful ways when you stand there knowing what you are doing?? You can hide things from people but you can't hide from God. I would be literally shaking in my boots knowing that I was taking my pay and livelihood by disgracing my position and being blatantly hypocritical in my service to God and my congregation.
The libido stories make big news (Bakker was not busted for that, though, but for fraud and other corruption). All sorts of bad stuff goes on with those *righteous* folks.
Maybe they don't really believe?
Could these Mega churches just be a scam??
Some of the worst people alive or who have ever lived belonged to a so called "church". Folks love to hide their true selves behind religion.
Baba-booey!
Jesus Christ Is Lord of the Myths
Thanks for playing.