Question for Christians on this board

[gtownspur]

You should have used biblical examples with food or something for Mooks to understand.

[clambake]

Interesting Joch. Faith without question. Mirror image of current democracy. A deadly mix, religion and politics. An untrue expression of faith being powered by the push that want to believe. They do know how to secure their engine.

God gave us lust for knowledge. I think God expects us to use it.

[Phenomanul]

Interesting Joch. Faith without question. Mirror image of current democracy. A deadly mix, religion and politics. An untrue expression of faith being powered by the push that want to believe. They do know how to secure their engine.

God gave us lust for knowledge. I think God expects us to use it.

Joch never implied we didn't have to ''study the scriptures''.... or that we are to accept everything without question.

As far as your 'deadly mix' comment on religion and politics is concerned...
Why are Christians somehow expected to be completely quiet on the political front? We have been instructed to be the 'light of the world'... and though the political arena should not be the main venue for Christians to impact their world, there's no denying that its sphere of influence is in fact greater and far reaching. Nevertheless, tasks in that area should be limited to social outreach i.e. helping widows, orphans the needy, and rehabilitative programs for prisoners, etc... making war or the such should not be the chief objective.

The thing that bothers me however, is that others also expect us to remain completely immobile when it comes to shaping the laws that we ourselves are governed by. Again people, it is a democratic process; we live in a democratic society. Men fought to give every citizen in this land the right to self-governance -- i.e. a 'government for the people, by the people.' Anyhow, we are no less Christians for being concerned that the sanc y of marriage be upheld, for being concerned that our government is not doing enough about preventing pornography from reaching our children, for being concerned about the sanc y of life and that this is a fight we are compelled to embrace. The issues will change with the times.... just as the laws will change with time.

Again, eventually secularism will have its way and purge as much of the 'biblical' morality out of our laws as possible.

1. A Christian by definition (in part) is one who is an adherent to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that would precipitate them from "ignoring" any of the Commandments.

2, Christ/God condemn sexuality, therefore his followers (those that adhere to His teaching) are compelled to do the same.

With that being said, the thrust of Christianity is not to condemn sexuality (sin in every form is condemned ), but to pass along the Message that Christ defeated our compulsion to submit to the temptation of sin.
The verse reads as follows; "For Christ did not come into the World to condemn the World, but that the World through Him might be saved".

To supplement Joch's passage: Here is one of my favorite passages.

JESUS - I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.

John 16:33

[101A]

#6 God kills constantly

In modern English, "Thou shalt not murder" is a more accurate translation.

[clambake]

You can study the scriptures and find 10 different interpretations from 10 different self-proclaimed experts. The odds of accuracy are impossible. Which leads individuals to choose their own, preferred definition that is a phantom, not an absolute.

[turambar85]

So you judge them.... on the perception that they are judging gays? I see.... It's a two way street mookie.

Personally, I believe GOD's laws supercede the laws of men; most Christians believe this to be true - but it is irrelevant. The people that lobby to vote on 'moral' issues simply want their viewpoint reflected in the laws that govern their land. Does the democratic process not hold this accessibility to self-governance to be a virtue?

So basically what you are saying is that you feel angered by the fact that others (with differing viewpoints) are granted the same access to the democratic process as yourself. You would rather they not lobby at all. That's not how democracy works.

But don't fret. There will come a time when Christianity becomes an 'archaic belief system. When the Christian viewpoint becomes the minority one. And when that time comes, you will feel free to do as you please under a considerably more relaxed set of moral laws. Moral code will be governed by relativism. It will be a time when being politically correct will trump Absolute Truth itself. That day is not far from today.

So, out of curiousity, do you believe that it is a good thing for God's laws to become man's laws? Is this what God would desire, if God were capable of desiring in the first place?

[xrayzebra]

So, out of curiousity, do you believe that it is a good thing for God's laws to become man's laws? Is this what God would desire, if God were capable of desiring in the first place?

Ever read the US Cons ution? And Declaration of Independence. Obviously some people do and did.

[clambake]

Some thought the reasons for war were gospel.

[2centsworth]

You can study the scriptures and find 10 different interpretations from 10 different self-proclaimed experts. The odds of accuracy are impossible. Which leads individuals to choose their own, preferred definition that is a phantom, not an absolute.

did you come up with that by yourself? Please backup your argument.

[clambake]

It's a faith in the unknown. That's a reach, at best.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

In modern English, "Thou shalt not murder" is a more accurate translation.

Wrong. Kill is the most accurate translation. Murder is the more PC version. Just like they are changing slave to servant. Oh yeah and God does murder.

[turambar85]

Ever read the US Cons ution? And Declaration of Independence. Obviously some people do and did.

LOL, X-ray, I wasn't referring to you, but the argument stands, and it irrelevant to your point.

I am not asking if it is American, but if it is from solid religious rationalization.

Simply spouting American tradition is not a viable argument for all topics X.

[turambar85]

Wrong. Kill is the most accurate translation. Murder is the more PC version. Just like they are changing slave to servant. Oh yeah and God does murder.

There is a fundamental difference in kill and murder. I am sorry, but you are mistaken.

Kill isn't more PC, but simply means a just murder, whereas murder is an unjust killing. Thus, God cannot murder, but only kill. And we can both kill and murder, but our just and reasonable killings are not murder.

[xrayzebra]

LOL, X-ray, I wasn't referring to you, but the argument stands, and it irrelevant to your point.

I am not asking if it is American, but if it is from solid religious rationalization.

Simply spouting American tradition is not a viable argument for all topics X.

Splitting hairs is not an argument. American tradition? How
so? Our country, contrary to the liberal point of view, was
founded on Christianity.

[turambar85]

Splitting hairs is not an argument. American tradition? How
so? Our country, contrary to the liberal point of view, was
founded on Christianity.

Again, X, this is not in regards to the American historical tradition, but whether or not a Christian, qua Christian, is acting wisely in promoting laws based on his or her beliefs.

You are entirely missing the point being made, per usual.

The question is, as religious beliefs are founded on faith, and faith is founded on free will, if we might consider ourselves wise to make laws based on God's dictates, particularly when you consider that Christ himself said "give unto Caesar that which is Caesars."

Once religious faith laws are taking into the political spectrum, not only do they lose the article of faith that made them favorable to God, but they also become enmeshed in the single most crooked profession known to man, even including that of the lawyer. And, then the greater question becomes begged when you consider that, to God, all sins are created equal. Thus, to lie is as bad as to murder...so we must, if making laws solely from religious views, they must be treated equally, and we must receive prison or death for telling lies.

I am not saying that Christians should keep their religious views to themselves from a purely secularist point of view, but rather of one that would protect a historical tradition of personal faith and understanding.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

There is a fundamental difference in kill and murder. I am sorry, but you are mistaken.

Kill isn't more PC, but simply means a just murder, whereas murder is an unjust killing. Thus, God cannot murder, but only kill. And we can both kill and murder, but our just and reasonable killings are not murder.

Ok I see what your saying. Let me clarify what Im saying. We were talking about God breaking the 10 Commandments. Yes I know there is a major difference between killing and murdering. The translation of the oldest existing text is thou shalt not kill. Some Bibles replace kill mith murder. They do that to sugercoat it and help make sense out of a senseless book. Im not saying we shouldnt kill. Thats what the Bible says.


All of that aside.
Is genocide considered murder?
Is there such a thing as a just genocide?
Does God have to play by the 10 Commandments?

[turambar85]

Ok I see what your saying. Let me clarify what Im saying. We were talking about God breaking the 10 Commandments. Yes I know there is a major difference between killing and murdering. The translation of the oldest existing text is thou shalt not kill. Some Bibles replace kill mith murder. They do that to sugercoat it and help make sense out of a senseless book. Im not saying we shouldnt kill. Thats what the Bible says.


All of that aside.
Is genocide considered murder?
Is there such a thing as a just genocide?
Does God have to play by the 10 Commandments?

Conceivably, and I will not stand in defense of the legitimacy of the Bible following translation, or prior to at that point, my only beef was with the use of terminology.

In response...

Yes,
No,
Yes, or he is not God. The 10 commandments can be fake, the Christian God could be wrong, but if God were in a position to follow or break laws, we would find the choice to not even exist. The handcuffs of perfection are the price you pay to be God.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

Yeah I think God can do anything he wants. So when he murders people and commits genocide its ok. Hes like you guys Ill do what I want. Do as I say not as I do.

Yeah the commandments could be fake. It bothers me when people pick and choose from it.

[turambar85]

Yeah I think God can do anything he wants. So when he murders people and commits genocide its ok. Hes like you guys Ill do what I want. Do as I say not as I do.

Yeah the commandments could be fake. It bothers me when people pick and choose from it.

Ok, God in the abstract could...however, God as a perfect en y could not.

[xrayzebra]

Again, X, this is not in regards to the American historical tradition, but whether or not a Christian, qua Christian, is acting wisely in promoting laws based on his or her beliefs.

You are entirely missing the point being made, per usual.

The question is, as religious beliefs are founded on faith, and faith is founded on free will, if we might consider ourselves wise to make laws based on God's dictates, particularly when you consider that Christ himself said "give unto Caesar that which is Caesars."

Once religious faith laws are taking into the political spectrum, not only do they lose the article of faith that made them favorable to God, but they also become enmeshed in the single most crooked profession known to man, even including that of the lawyer. And, then the greater question becomes begged when you consider that, to God, all sins are created equal. Thus, to lie is as bad as to murder...so we must, if making laws solely from religious views, they must be treated equally, and we must receive prison or death for telling lies.

I am not saying that Christians should keep their religious views to themselves from a purely secularist point of view, but rather of one that would protect a historical tradition of personal faith and understanding.

Once again, you missed the point. Laws based on his
or hers faith. I answered the question. The answer, look
at what you own country was based on.

But once again, you want to put out the same old
arguments. We are not in a college class or with some
instructors, filling in the for the professor, we are talking
real world. Read the do ents that your country was
founded. on. I didn't miss the point. You did!

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

Ok, God in the abstract could...however, God as a perfect en y could not.

Who says God is perfect and just and loving? Organized Religion.

An all powerfull being has power over everything. Assuming God exists and is all powerfull of course.

[turambar85]

Once again, you missed the point. Laws based on his
or hers faith. I answered the question. The answer, look
at what you own country was based on.

But once again, you want to put out the same old
arguments. We are not in a college class or with some
instructors, filling in the for the professor, we are talking
real world. Read the do ents that your country was
founded. on. I didn't miss the point. You did!

I can't miss the point of my question, good God.

I asked whether or not it is a good idea, not whether or not it is common practice. Our country was founded on slavery as well, but we were able to overcome that....

Stop living based on what you assume to be the views of dead men, and live in the present. Explain why it is good logically, why I am flawed logically, and then we can have debate.

That which is in the real world began in a college classroom. The founding fathers weren't gargage men.

[turambar85]

Who says God is perfect and just and loving? Organized Religion.

An all powerfull being has power over everything. Assuming God exists and is all powerfull of course.

I only said perfect.

And whether or not this is true is irrelevant. I am simply saying that if God is perfect, he cannot break commandments.

[xrayzebra]

I can't miss the point of my question, good God.

I asked whether or not it is a good idea, not whether or not it is common practice. Our country was founded on slavery as well, but we were able to overcome that....

Stop living based on what you assume to be the views of dead men, and live in the present. Explain why it is good logically, why I am flawed logically, and then we can have debate.

That which is in the real world began in a college classroom. The founding fathers weren't gargage men.

Well you live in the country. oh forget it. you want
an argument. You don't really want any truth. Live in
peace.

[THE ONE AND ONLY]

I only said perfect.

And whether or not this is true is irrelevant. I am simply saying that if God is perfect, he cannot break commandments.

Yeah I added just and loving.

Since God breaks the Commandments, he isnt perfect.