I disagree. The Good Lord works in strange ways and never ever does what you’d expect. [/quote]
Tell this to the Haitians.[/quote]
I don’t know about other Christians, but I don’t believe the bible teaches that God causes natural disasters (if He did thousands of years ago, it was always preceded with a warning).
Jesus once illustrated this to his followers; at one point a wall in Jerusalem had fallen over and killed 18 people - Jesus said that it wasn’t because they were greater sinners… [/quote]
So when does the lord work in mysterious ways? When something good happens?
What exactly does that statement mean?[/quote]
Well, I’m only speaking on behalf of myself here, but I don’t believe that God has a hand in much at all nowadays - apart from to help people to draw close to Him if they want to. I don’t believe that God causes anything amazingly miraculous to happen, but can make subtle changes/influences to a person/group to help them if it’s in line with His will.
I believe there will be a time in the future when God starts to “handle things” more “hands on”. But in the meantime, we need to prove ourselves.[/quote]
I have to disagree with ‘it’s just me’ while we may not see water turned to wine or the parting of the red sea…May 3, 1999 a record setting series of tornadoes destroyed thousands of houses, and hundreds of cars were carried for miles before being flung back at the earth and yet less than 20 people died. God can control the effect and people can respond to the aftermath…these are our miracles today.[/quote]
Did the twenty people that died not deserve a “miracle”?[/quote]
I disagree. Miracles are miracles, not luck or chance.[/quote]
Can “bad” people experience miracles or are they reserved for the righteous?
Ok, let�?�¢??s recap a bit. You present a chart that says that crime rates and religiousness correlate positively. I say that adding an income column would tell the real story as the chart topper; Mississippi is the poorest state in the nation. You say the people are poor because the churches brainwashed them into giving them all their money and hence they are poor because of that. I ask you to prove this point.
So…now you go all the way back to the theocratic regimes of the middle ages and the crusades to prove that people in Mississippi are so mind controlled by their respective churches that they become poor criminals? Really? Seriously?
Further, you say that atheists cannot be president of the United States? Where in the Constitution is that, I must have missed it? Or is it perhaps that no self proclaimed atheist made a serious bid at being president? Or maybe they are not smart enough, who knows?
How is being atheist equivalent to “free thinking”? If you must be an atheist to be considered “free thinking” then you are anything but. Because if you do conclude there is a God, you are no longer considered “free thinking”. We theists are all brain washed robots, do I have that right?
We have separation of church and state, a proposition brought forth by theists, deists to be specific. Our leaders are not allowed to use religion to control people. Perhaps you have us confused with Saudi Arabia.[/quote]
…i’d like for you to read what i write, instead of reading into what i write based on your preconceptions, pat. Could you do that for me?
…i won’t rebut your comments which are misrepresentations of what i wrote, but i will comment on the last part of your post: i didn’t say an atheist could not become president, i said it’s impossible for an atheist to become president because of the huge religious constituency in your country that will never vote for someone who is “Godless” in their eyes…
…when a president says he’s a “born-again Christian” and uses terms like “Manifest Destiny” and talks about how God wants him, and thus the american people by proxy, to bring democracry to the world, he’s manipulating the populace through religion to support his actions…
…no, the USA is not Saudi Arabia by a long shot, and it’s not a theocracy by any means, it’s much more cynical than that…[/quote]
I said in repsonse to your chart:
You replied:
To which I said:
To which you replied:
To which I replied:
To which your replied:
To which I replied:
To which you replied:
To which I replied:
So we should be caught up.
Now you were eluding to the fact that this chart represents a correlation between religiousness and crime right?
Then you flatly said, “…this is exactly why institutionalized religion kept the flock ignorant and poor; so that they could maintain the strangle hold over them that’s needed to squeeze money and allegiance from them…”
So then you proceed to try an prove this charts accuracy with the above statement, said this occurred through out history and then went all the way back to the middle ages to prove religious institutions keep the flock ignorant and poor. Further eluding that the correlation between being religious and crime is a positive one.
Tell me where I got lost?
Now if your point is to prove that “institutionalized religion kept the flock ignorant and poor; so that they could maintain the strangle hold over them”. You have to prove this is the case all the time. Now in the middle ages church and state were one in the same. It is true that people used region also to wield control over the populous. However, it is not true that institutionalized religion have this as their mission statement. Believe it or not, the people institutionalized religions have managed to do a lot of good through out history.
You have taken the lofty task, that because some people in the past have behaved badly, because of, for, or in the name of religious institutions, then all people of institutionalized religions are sheep and all the leaders are inherently evil. This is not the case and you know it.
Now if we look at modern times you will notice it is the atheistic regimes of the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, etc. That have kept the flock ignorant and poor, they just did it with a gun. Is this a preferable method?
Now, as far as the president is concerned. Far as I know one never ran, so how the hell do you know that it’s impossible for him to become president? If he stood for the same things I did, I’d vote for him.
Finally, if you are referring to G.W. Bush who had a whopping 20% approval rating? You have got to be kidding me? Yeah, that worked out for him…[/quote]
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Can “bad” people experience miracles or are they reserved for the righteous?[/quote]
Well, in the bible account where God miraculously breaks down the enemy walls of Jericho, He saves a certain prostitute women called Rahab. She lived in a house that was built into the walls, and this was the only part of the walls that was standing. This was because she had faith and at the last minute co-operated with God’s will.
That’s just one example of a so called “wicked person” experiencing a miracle.
There are other example’s where God has mercy on ones He sees fit (that maybe humans would be judgemental with). It all depends on the heart condition really.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
We’re all bad Dustin, not one of us are good, no not one.[/quote]
…and then people ask why i turn away from christianity…
[/quote]
Could you elaborate?
Often I get told:
“…but I’m a good person, I don’t need a book to tell me how wrong I am”
What’s wrong with stating the obvious - that no-one is perfect?
The truth is, anybody who thinks they don’t need to improve in certain areas is only fooling themselves…[/quote]
…that’s not what Zeb said, is it? That we’re perfectly human, with flaws, i’m fine with that. No problem there. But Zeb said, “We’re all bad Dustin, not one of us are good, no not one.” Don’t you see the difference?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…that’s not what Zeb said, is it? That we’re perfectly human, with flaws, i’m fine with that. No problem there. But Zeb said, “We’re all bad Dustin, not one of us are good, no not one.” Don’t you see the difference?
[/quote]
I guess it depends what your definition of good is, and the context.
In the bible Jesus emphasised that the word “good” should only be given to God. Good in this context would mean perfect or great.
So if a Christian were to say that no-one is good, it wouldn’t be referring to the loose term that the word “good” has come to mean.
The word bad, is actually not as bad as what the bible often refers to mankind as (which is “wicked”). This is not meant to be derogatory, it simply means that we all fail at being perfect.
It sounds kind of extreme, but that’s just the bible’s language. Just like when the bible calls a person a “fool” (the bible book of Proverbs is good at this lol). The word fool, simply means lacking sense, disregarding good advice, stupid (not intelligently lacking)…so this is descriptive, not just an insult. You call anyone a fool nowadays, and it’s a big insult…but in the bible it’s a word used to describe a person who takes a certain course of action.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…that’s not what Zeb said, is it? That we’re perfectly human, with flaws, i’m fine with that. No problem there. But Zeb said, “We’re all bad Dustin, not one of us are good, no not one.” Don’t you see the difference?
[/quote]
I guess it depends what your definition of good is, and the context.
In the bible Jesus emphasised that the word “good” should only be given to God. Good in this context would mean perfect or great.
So if a Christian were to say that no-one is good, it wouldn’t be referring to the loose term that the word “good” has come to mean.
The word bad, is actually not as bad as what the bible often refers to mankind as (which is “wicked”). This is not meant to be derogatory, it simply means that we all fail at being perfect.
It sounds kind of extreme, but that’s just the bible’s language. Just like when the bible calls a person a “fool” (the bible book of Proverbs is good at this lol). The word fool, simply means lacking sense, disregarding good advice, stupid (not intelligently lacking)…so this is descriptive, not just an insult. You call anyone a fool nowadays, and it’s a big insult…but in the bible it’s a word used to describe a person who takes a certain course of action.
I know that all sounds anal, just saying though…[/quote]
…i don’t doubt Zeb will agree with this explanation, but if you read the chain of comments that led up to his reply to Dustin, that paints a different picture…
Edit: so if we are all bad, why do [some/a lot of] christians make a distinction between people based on their socalled sins, and make it look like those ‘sinners’ are more bad than they are?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…that’s not what Zeb said, is it? That we’re perfectly human, with flaws, i’m fine with that. No problem there. But Zeb said, “We’re all bad Dustin, not one of us are good, no not one.” Don’t you see the difference?
[/quote]
I guess it depends what your definition of good is, and the context.
In the bible Jesus emphasised that the word “good” should only be given to God. Good in this context would mean perfect or great.
So if a Christian were to say that no-one is good, it wouldn’t be referring to the loose term that the word “good” has come to mean.
The word bad, is actually not as bad as what the bible often refers to mankind as (which is “wicked”). This is not meant to be derogatory, it simply means that we all fail at being perfect.
It sounds kind of extreme, but that’s just the bible’s language. Just like when the bible calls a person a “fool” (the bible book of Proverbs is good at this lol). The word fool, simply means lacking sense, disregarding good advice, stupid (not intelligently lacking)…so this is descriptive, not just an insult. You call anyone a fool nowadays, and it’s a big insult…but in the bible it’s a word used to describe a person who takes a certain course of action.
I know that all sounds anal, just saying though…[/quote]
…i don’t doubt Zeb will agree with this explanation, but if you read the chain of comments that led up to his reply to Dustin, that paints a different picture…
Edit: so if we are all bad, why do [some/a lot of] christians make a distinction between people based on their socalled sins, and make it look like those ‘sinners’ are more bad than they are?
[/quote]
I don’t really follow your line of reasoning - I thought it was a pretty clear statement, that all people are bad (in this context it refers to our sinful nature).
As regards your edit:
The distinction between someone who sins, and other’s who sin, is the experience, motivation/emotional demeanor.
There’s a difference between doing wrong in ignorance, and doing it knowing full well that you shouldn’t. A child who was raised in an environment where stealing is almost acceptable, would be given more mercy for stealing than someone who was raised otherwise.
Also, circumstances make a big difference. For example, if someone planned and schemed a murder (cold blooded), that’s usually considered a worse sin than someone who murdered someone in a heated fight or after provocation.
Or, the other difference is remorse. Someone who does bad with no remorse, is considered worse than someone who “hurts inside” after doing something bad. Take for example Kind David in the bible; he caused someone to die…but felt extreme remorse afterwards. Therefore, even though the law of the time was “an eye for an eye”, God forgave him.
The truth is, everyone does wrong, but it’s your attitude/experience that counts as to how it’s viewed.
Ok, let�??�??�?�¢??s recap a bit. You present a chart that says that crime rates and religiousness correlate positively. I say that adding an income column would tell the real story as the chart topper; Mississippi is the poorest state in the nation. You say the people are poor because the churches brainwashed them into giving them all their money and hence they are poor because of that. I ask you to prove this point.
So…now you go all the way back to the theocratic regimes of the middle ages and the crusades to prove that people in Mississippi are so mind controlled by their respective churches that they become poor criminals? Really? Seriously?
Further, you say that atheists cannot be president of the United States? Where in the Constitution is that, I must have missed it? Or is it perhaps that no self proclaimed atheist made a serious bid at being president? Or maybe they are not smart enough, who knows?
How is being atheist equivalent to “free thinking”? If you must be an atheist to be considered “free thinking” then you are anything but. Because if you do conclude there is a God, you are no longer considered “free thinking”. We theists are all brain washed robots, do I have that right?
We have separation of church and state, a proposition brought forth by theists, deists to be specific. Our leaders are not allowed to use religion to control people. Perhaps you have us confused with Saudi Arabia.[/quote]
…i’d like for you to read what i write, instead of reading into what i write based on your preconceptions, pat. Could you do that for me?
…i won’t rebut your comments which are misrepresentations of what i wrote, but i will comment on the last part of your post: i didn’t say an atheist could not become president, i said it’s impossible for an atheist to become president because of the huge religious constituency in your country that will never vote for someone who is “Godless” in their eyes…
…when a president says he’s a “born-again Christian” and uses terms like “Manifest Destiny” and talks about how God wants him, and thus the american people by proxy, to bring democracry to the world, he’s manipulating the populace through religion to support his actions…
…no, the USA is not Saudi Arabia by a long shot, and it’s not a theocracy by any means, it’s much more cynical than that…[/quote]
I said in repsonse to your chart:
You replied:
To which I said:
To which you replied:
To which I replied:
To which your replied:
To which I replied:
To which you replied:
To which I replied:
So we should be caught up.
Now you were eluding to the fact that this chart represents a correlation between religiousness and crime right?
Then you flatly said, “…this is exactly why institutionalized religion kept the flock ignorant and poor; so that they could maintain the strangle hold over them that’s needed to squeeze money and allegiance from them…”
So then you proceed to try an prove this charts accuracy with the above statement, said this occurred through out history and then went all the way back to the middle ages to prove religious institutions keep the flock ignorant and poor. Further eluding that the correlation between being religious and crime is a positive one.
Tell me where I got lost?
Now if your point is to prove that “institutionalized religion kept the flock ignorant and poor; so that they could maintain the strangle hold over them”. You have to prove this is the case all the time. Now in the middle ages church and state were one in the same. It is true that people used region also to wield control over the populous. However, it is not true that institutionalized religion have this as their mission statement. Believe it or not, the people institutionalized religions have managed to do a lot of good through out history.
You have taken the lofty task, that because some people in the past have behaved badly, because of, for, or in the name of religious institutions, then all people of institutionalized religions are sheep and all the leaders are inherently evil. This is not the case and you know it.
Now if we look at modern times you will notice it is the atheistic regimes of the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, etc. That have kept the flock ignorant and poor, they just did it with a gun. Is this a preferable method?
Now, as far as the president is concerned. Far as I know one never ran, so how the hell do you know that it’s impossible for him to become president? If he stood for the same things I did, I’d vote for him.
Finally, if you are referring to G.W. Bush who had a whopping 20% approval rating? You have got to be kidding me? Yeah, that worked out for him…[/quote]
…thank you for proving my point, pat…[/quote]
Which point, you made three assertions. I didn’t prove any of them for you.
[EDIT:]
You said that religions brainwash people into giving them all their money and in turn making them poor criminals, because thatâ??s what religion does and has doneâ?¦Is this correct?
Second, out of thin air, you asserted that an atheist cannot be voted for president because Americans are to pig headed to vote for himâ?¦Is this correct?
Lastly, you said that the ruling elite, in this case GW Bush, used religion to manipulate the masses for some doctrine of Manifest Destiny as a plot to take over the whole world.
These are the three points you made. You couldnâ??t prove them to be true, an I damn sure didnâ??t prove them by any stretch of the imagination.
BTW, why do you hate religion so much? What did it ever do to you? I think you have been manipulated into thinking a lot of falsehoods about it.
I disagree. The Good Lord works in strange ways and never ever does what you’d expect. [/quote]
Tell this to the Haitians.[/quote]
I don’t know about other Christians, but I don’t believe the bible teaches that God causes natural disasters (if He did thousands of years ago, it was always preceded with a warning).
Jesus once illustrated this to his followers; at one point a wall in Jerusalem had fallen over and killed 18 people - Jesus said that it wasn’t because they were greater sinners… [/quote]
So when does the lord work in mysterious ways? When something good happens?
What exactly does that statement mean?[/quote]
Well, I’m only speaking on behalf of myself here, but I don’t believe that God has a hand in much at all nowadays - apart from to help people to draw close to Him if they want to. I don’t believe that God causes anything amazingly miraculous to happen, but can make subtle changes/influences to a person/group to help them if it’s in line with His will.
I believe there will be a time in the future when God starts to “handle things” more “hands on”. But in the meantime, we need to prove ourselves.[/quote]
I have to disagree with ‘it’s just me’ while we may not see water turned to wine or the parting of the red sea…May 3, 1999 a record setting series of tornadoes destroyed thousands of houses, and hundreds of cars were carried for miles before being flung back at the earth and yet less than 20 people died. God can control the effect and people can respond to the aftermath…these are our miracles today.[/quote]
Did the twenty people that died not deserve a “miracle”?[/quote]
I disagree. Miracles are miracles, not luck or chance.[/quote]
Can “bad” people experience miracles or are they reserved for the righteous?[/quote]
God can do miracles for anybody he wants. Whether we think their bad or not is not relevant.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…that’s not what Zeb said, is it? That we’re perfectly human, with flaws, i’m fine with that. No problem there. But Zeb said, “We’re all bad Dustin, not one of us are good, no not one.” Don’t you see the difference?
[/quote]
I guess it depends what your definition of good is, and the context.
In the bible Jesus emphasised that the word “good” should only be given to God. Good in this context would mean perfect or great.
So if a Christian were to say that no-one is good, it wouldn’t be referring to the loose term that the word “good” has come to mean.
The word bad, is actually not as bad as what the bible often refers to mankind as (which is “wicked”). This is not meant to be derogatory, it simply means that we all fail at being perfect.
It sounds kind of extreme, but that’s just the bible’s language. Just like when the bible calls a person a “fool” (the bible book of Proverbs is good at this lol). The word fool, simply means lacking sense, disregarding good advice, stupid (not intelligently lacking)…so this is descriptive, not just an insult. You call anyone a fool nowadays, and it’s a big insult…but in the bible it’s a word used to describe a person who takes a certain course of action.
I know that all sounds anal, just saying though…[/quote]
…i don’t doubt Zeb will agree with this explanation, but if you read the chain of comments that led up to his reply to Dustin, that paints a different picture…
Edit: so if we are all bad, why do [some/a lot of] christians make a distinction between people based on their socalled sins, and make it look like those ‘sinners’ are more bad than they are?
[/quote]
I suppose it depends on your definition of good.
Tell me do good people lust in their hearts after their friends wife?
Do good people try to take credit for something that they don’t fully deserve?
Are good people short tempered with a children?
Do good people act arrogant around others because they have more knowledge in one particular field?
Do good people walks past a homeless man on the street knowing that a five dollar bill could feed that person?
My point is simple ephrem, in the truest sense of the word in trying to be “good” we all fall short. You, me all of us.
To answer your final question: As a Christian I know I’m a sinner and I try to do better, I try not to sin and I even try to be “good”. When I fail I feel remorse and I know I’m forgiven. There is an active effort not to go down that same road again, knowing that it’s wrong. Those who flaunt sin as a lifestyle, not caring nor even thinking about it, are on the wrong path.
Tell me do good people lust in their hearts after their friends wife?
[/quote]
If she’s hot enough, yes.
No.
Can be if they are short tempered people.
Maybe?
Yes, if they think the 5 dollar investment would likely go to crack or a week’s supply of Boonsfarm.
I disagree with the whole “self-loathing” Christian perspective. Everybody makes mistakes, but there are some who assert we are unworty pieces of shit by default. I disagree with this notion. God made us who we are, if we are inherently evil, it’s his fault and we should not have to apologize for it.
Don’t get me wrong, that’s not saying that we should be sorry and contrite for our mistakes, but we should be remorseful for the way God made us.
You cannot control how you feel, you can only control what you do.
Tell me do good people lust in their hearts after their friends wife?
Do good people try to take credit for something that they don’t fully deserve?
Are good people short tempered with a children?
Do good people act arrogant around others because they have more knowledge in one particular field?
Do good people walks past a homeless man on the street knowing that a five dollar bill could feed that person?
My point is simple ephrem, in the truest sense of the word in trying to be “good” we all fall short. You, me all of us.
To answer your final question: As a Christian I know I’m a sinner and I try to do better, I try not to sin and I even try to be “good”. When I fail I feel remorse and I know I’m forgiven. There is an active effort not to go down that same road again, knowing that it’s wrong. Those who flaunt sin as a lifestyle, not caring nor even thinking about it, are on the wrong path.[/quote]
…since i don’t believe a God made us in his image, or that we have to live our lifes according a set of rules brought forth from him, it really does depend on your definition of good…
…imo, we are highly evolved mammals, not separate from nature, who tried to make sense of life and reality by inventing a supernatural force. And yet we’re still governed by natural impulses that at it’s core are a-moral…
[quote]pcoberley wrote:
I hope you are not referring to me; NO way on new age religion. As for Falwell and Robertson,… my point about how bad organized religion can be. But I think you give them too much credit, their own words send them back to the minority and the majority of Christians don’t agree with their world views.
Unfortunately in America the right to free speech brings the dumbest quotes to light, so be careful to not bash all because of one and before you go to sleep think back at all you said out loud and thank God you aren’t being taped.[/quote]
And yet when I do speak up about these kinds of people the ones to leap to their defense are invariably the Christians who claim to distance themselves from their ilk.
And Pat, when people like Ted “I’ll hire a male hooker” Haggard can claim to have been on the phone with the (ex)president of your damn country on a weekly basis, I’d say it’s moved a long way away from “minority”. If you can’t pick out what I mean by hate (i.e. gays), ignorance (i.e. evolution) or stupidity (Haiti and the Devils pact) then you must have some serious issues.
I disagree with the whole “self-loathing” Christian perspective.[/quote]
There is no Christian self-loathing. Maybe I didn’t explain it well enough. There is an inherent desire to sin which we all have. As Christians we try to turn away from this sin and are successful sometimes. It’s not a matter of self-loathing it’s a matter of continuing to try to do better.
Christianity is a religion based on that very concept, if you understand that then you’re further along than most. We are an imperfect group, or we wouldn’t need Christ.
God made you with free will, you can choose to do the wrong thing or you can choose to do the right thing. God didn’t make you to do either, it’s up to you.
We should be happy that we’ve hurt someone? Maybe you better rethink that one.
From your thoughts spring action. Every good and bad action first begins as a thought. The better and more pure your thoughts the better and more pure your action.
Tell me do good people lust in their hearts after their friends wife?
Do good people try to take credit for something that they don’t fully deserve?
Are good people short tempered with a children?
Do good people act arrogant around others because they have more knowledge in one particular field?
Do good people walks past a homeless man on the street knowing that a five dollar bill could feed that person?
My point is simple ephrem, in the truest sense of the word in trying to be “good” we all fall short. You, me all of us.
To answer your final question: As a Christian I know I’m a sinner and I try to do better, I try not to sin and I even try to be “good”. When I fail I feel remorse and I know I’m forgiven. There is an active effort not to go down that same road again, knowing that it’s wrong. Those who flaunt sin as a lifestyle, not caring nor even thinking about it, are on the wrong path.[/quote]
…since i don’t believe a God made us in his image, or that we have to live our lifes according a set of rules brought forth from him, it really does depend on your definition of good…
…imo, we are highly evolved mammals, not separate from nature, who tried to make sense of life and reality by inventing a supernatural force. And yet we’re still governed by natural impulses that at it’s core are a-moral… [/quote]
[quote]pcoberley wrote:
I hope you are not referring to me; NO way on new age religion. As for Falwell and Robertson,… my point about how bad organized religion can be. But I think you give them too much credit, their own words send them back to the minority and the majority of Christians don’t agree with their world views.
Unfortunately in America the right to free speech brings the dumbest quotes to light, so be careful to not bash all because of one and before you go to sleep think back at all you said out loud and thank God you aren’t being taped.[/quote]
And yet when I do speak up about these kinds of people the ones to leap to their defense are invariably the Christians who claim to distance themselves from their ilk.
And Pat, when people like Ted “I’ll hire a male hooker” Haggard can claim to have been on the phone with the (ex)president of your damn country on a weekly basis, I’d say it’s moved a long way away from “minority”. If you can’t pick out what I mean by hate (i.e. gays), ignorance (i.e. evolution) or stupidity (Haiti and the Devils pact) then you must have some serious issues.[/quote]
It’s pretty easy to pick out Christians who are imperfect because we all are. But that’s not the point is it?