Tolerance vs Godliness

[Nineveh]

A druidic "women's eucharist" and a "divorce rite," both posted on the Episcopal Church's official Web site, have outraged Episcopal conservatives.

The "eucharist," subtitled "A Celebration of the Divine Feminine," was posted Oct. 8 on the denomination's Office of Women's Ministries page at dfms.org. It invoked "Mother God" and used a lighted candle, a vase of flowers, a chalice of sweet red wine, a cup of milk and money and a plate of raisin cakes to invoke images of sexuality, fertility and birth.

The rite was attributed to the Rev. Glyn Lorraine Ruppe Melnyk, the pastor of St. Francis in the Fields Episcopal Church in Malvern, Pa.

She and her husband, Bill Melnyk, rector of St. James Episcopal Church in Downingtown, Pa., posted several ceremonies, which invoked pagan gods and goddesses, on tuathadebrighid. org.

One, an "erotic ritual" for the spring festival of Beltane, used Christian phrases for the rite, including an opening "litany" and an "invocation" of the "Earth Mother." The ceremony, which culminates with the lead couple engaging in sex in front of the other participants, ends with a "chant of Communion and Praise" to the tune of the Irish hymn "St. Patrick's Breastplate." The Babylonian god "Bel" honored in the rite has been linked to the Canaanite god Baal, whose worship was condemned in the Old Testament.

A "Eucharist to our Mother Goddess" ritual on the site — which since has been removed — is the same "women's eucharist" that was posted on the Episcopal Church's Web site. Starting last Tuesday, this and the "divorce rite," which includes a Lord's Prayer that refers to God as "You who are Mother and Father to us all," were denounced on several Episcopalian Web sites.

Christianity Today declared that the Episcopal Church is "promoting pagan rites to pagan deities."

"And not just any new pagan deities," wrote Ted Olsen, the magazines' online managing editor. "The Episcopal Church ... is actually promoting the worship of idols specifically condemned in Scripture."

The Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania on Friday released a statement promising to investigate "extremely serious" charges that Mr. and Mrs. Melnyk are practicing Druids and have violated their ordination vows.

But Bishop Charles Bennison Jr. said the two priests have "contributed positively" to the diocese for four years, adding, "I will not allow this situation to turn into a witch hunt of any sort."

The "eucharist" was one of nine resources listed on the women's ministries page as part of a "Women's Liturgy Project" touted Oct. 25 by Episcopal News Service as a way of "honoring a woman's life passages and experiences" including "menstruation, menopause, conception, pregnancy, any form of pregnancy loss, childbirth, forms of leave taking, and many others."

The release invited Episcopalians to download the "worship resources" for use either on Sunday mornings or "any other appropriate setting where the honoring of a woman's life passages and experiences beckons a liturgical response."

However, the divorce and eucharist rites were removed from the church's Web site after church headquarters began receiving complaints.

The Rev. Margaret Rose, director of the denomination's Women's Ministries office, issued a statement on Thursday saying divorce and women's eucharist rites were not approved Episcopal liturgies, but were listed only "to spark dialogue, study and conversation and ponderings around women and our liturgical tradition."

The "women's eucharist," she said in an interview was written by Mrs. Melnyk for a parish study group of women.

"It was written in response to their alienation," she said. "It was not claiming to be a Christian eucharist, but it was a way to look at their own religious traditions and explore them. We don't desire to replace the Sunday liturgy in any way. They wrote it to see what it would feel like to have specifically feminine images."

Mrs. Melnyk also is known on Druid Web sites as "Glispa" or "Raven." Mr. Melnyk, who goes by several druidic names, including "Oakwyse" and "Druis," had posted messages and rituals at druidnetwork.org, druidry.org and other sites. cite (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041101-122457-1902r.htm)

As if Episcopalians don't have enough on their plate...


"honoring a woman's life passages and experiences" including "menstruation, menopause, conception, pregnancy, any form of pregnancy loss, childbirth, forms of leave taking, and many others."

How is this part of Godly worship? What is outright blatent is this part, "any form of pregnancy loss". They want to "honor" abortion?

"But Bishop Charles Bennison Jr. said the two priests have "contributed positively" to the diocese for four years, adding, "I will not allow this situation to turn into a witch hunt of any sort.""

Mr. Bennison thinks as long as these folks are "positive" they are just fine. Even if they are bringing outright paganism into the Episcopal church. No, he doesn't want a "witch hunt" even when the witches are staring him in the face and preaching from Episcopal pulpits. Sitting ducks don't make for much of a hunt.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Nineveh
No, he doesn't want a "witch hunt" even when the witches are staring him in the face and preaching from Episcopal pulpits. Sitting ducks don't make for much of a hunt. Cool! We haven't had a good burning at the stake in a couple centuries!

Now, where'd I leave my Zippo™...? :chuckle:

[Nineveh]

I seriously doubt there will be a burnin'. The way things seem to be going for the Episcopalians they might get promoted.

[PureX]

It's sad that tolerance is now being seen as antithetical to Godliness. Especially so, when we realize that tolerance is an essential component of human freedom. To view God as intolerant is to view God as being antithetical to human freedom. This is the fermenting of an idea that can only lead to terrible oppression and mysery. But Christians seem to be dead-set these days on such a violent and destructive course.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Nineveh
I seriously doubt there will be a burnin'. The way things seem to be going for the Episcopalians they might get promoted. But you'd enjoy seeing one...wouldn't you?:chuckle:

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Gerald

But you'd enjoy seeing one...wouldn't you?:chuckle:

Do you run on batteries?

[Zakath]

Nineveh,

Why does it bother you what the "Whiskeypalians" are doing? Aren't you fundamentally against their entire structure and most of their doctrine anyway?

(The reference to "Mr. Bennison" instead of Bishop Bennison was a dead giveaway.)

:think:

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by PureX

It's sad that tolerance is now being seen as antithetical to Godliness. Especially so, when we realize that tolerance is an essential component of human freedom. To view God as intolerant is to view God as being antithetical to human freedom. This is the fermenting of an idea that can only lead to terrible oppression and mysery. But Christians seem to be dead-set these days on such a violent and destructive course.

impurex, are you even on this thread or was that a cut and paste from another of you ignorant diatribes?

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Gerald

But you'd enjoy seeing one...wouldn't you?:chuckle:

um..

No.

The smell of burning hair makes me sick.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by PureX

It's sad that tolerance is now being seen as antithetical to Godliness. Especially so, when we realize that tolerance is an essential component of human freedom. To view God as intolerant is to view God as being antithetical to human freedom. This is the fermenting of an idea that can only lead to terrible oppression and mysery. But Christians seem to be dead-set these days on such a violent and destructive course.

Ok, Chicken Little -- I think it's time to come back to reality now.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Zakath

Nineveh,

Why does it bother you what the "Whiskeypalians" are doing? Aren't you fundamentally against their entire structure and most of their doctrine anyway?

(The reference to "Mr. Bennison" instead of Bishop Bennison was a dead giveaway.)

:think:

LOL don't read too much into my laziness, doc :)

Anyway, I would have to say, in answer to your question, I'm for any step in the right direction regardless of denom. Like the African Episcopals for example.

Edit: Oops that was African Anglicans (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=618128#post618128).

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by On Fire

Do you run on batteries?

Like the energizer bunny, he is. Or maybe more like Frank from Donnie Darko...

[Gerald]

Originally posted by On Fire
Do you run on batteries? Nope, a plutonium-powered RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator, for those playing along at home), guaranteed for 500 years or 500 million miles, whichever comes first.

:chuckle:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Like the energizer bunny, he is. Or maybe more like Frank from Donnie Darko... A lot of Christians seem to really like that movie.

I can't for the life of me figure out why.

Must be the end-of-the-world thing...

[Zakath]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Like the energizer bunny, he is. Or maybe more like Frank from Donnie Darko... Or possibly "Chuckie" from those silly horror movies... :shocked:

[Chileice]

Originally posted by PureX

It's sad that tolerance is now being seen as antithetical to Godliness. Especially so, when we realize that tolerance is an essential component of human freedom. To view God as intolerant is to view God as being antithetical to human freedom. This is the fermenting of an idea that can only lead to terrible oppression and mysery. But Christians seem to be dead-set these days on such a violent and destructive course.

Trying to move this thread to where I hoped it would be going...
What is the correlation between love and tolerance? It certainly exists but love is greater than tolerance. Many times the loving thing to do is to NOT tolerate the behaviour of the other person. Although I am a generally strong supporter of tolerance, tolerance has its limits: in a family, in the workplace or in a church for that matter. Purex, those who want to perform Druid rites certainly have a right to do so. But to usurp the long-standing traditions of a church to do so do seem extreme. Why can't those people go off and start their own group instead of trying to force their minority view on a group of people gathered for the worship of the Lord as they see fit?

You are right about Nineveh. She certainly doesn't care about the Anglican tradition. But those who have been a part of the Episcolpalian/Anglican/Church of England tradition do. It always seems to be a few who are the tail that wags the dog. True "christian" harmony and good manners would take their beliefs somewhere else.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Zakath
Or possibly "Chuckie" from those silly horror movies... :shocked: Oh, please!

Nothing but Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney for me, thanks.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Chileice

Trying to move this thread to where I hoped it would be going...
What is the correlation between love and tolerance? It certainly exists but love is greater than tolerance. Many times the loving thing to do is to NOT tolerate the behaviour of the other person.

You mean, judge when tolerance ends in the name of love?

Although I am a generally strong supporter of tolerance, tolerance has its limits: in a family, in the workplace or in a church for that matter.

What about God's limits? I hope we agree the Episcopal church is a house of God. Shouldn't what God says have bearing on what is and is not tolerated in His house (or rather a house dedicated to Him)?

Purex, those who want to perform Druid rites certainly have a right to do so.

Would you share the Gospel with them? If so, please tell me what you would say.

But to usurp the long-standing traditions of a church to do so do seem extreme.

Is tradition the standard by which you make your judgement as to when tolerance should end in the name of love?

Why can't those people go off and start their own group instead of trying to force their minority view on a group of people gathered for the worship of the Lord as they see fit?

Do you really want that answered?

You are right about Nineveh. She certainly doesn't care about the Anglican tradition.

By what do you judge I do not care about Anglicans?

But those who have been a part of the Episcolpalian/Anglican/Church of England tradition do.

Do you see it as a good or a bad thing the Episcolpalian/Anglican church threatens a split over sodomy? Do you agree or disagree with Bishop Bennison.

It always seems to be a few who are the tail that wags the dog. True "christian" harmony and good manners would take their beliefs somewhere else.

Which is more important to you? Harmony or Truth?

(by the way, why not just address me instead of refer to me second hand? lol)

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Gerald

Oh, please!

Nothing but Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney for me, thanks.

I was thinking May.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Nineveh
I was thinking May. :confused:

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by Nineveh
Which is more important to you? Harmony or Truth? That's a great question, Nineveh!

I wonder which Jesus thinks is more important? :think:

[firechyld]

How is this part of Godly worship? What is outright blatent is this part, "any form of pregnancy loss". They want to "honor" abortion?


I got the impression it was more about honouring in the sense of honouring a loss, not honouring in the sense of a celebration.

*shrug* There's nothing new or overly radical about these beliefs, and there's certainly nothing new about the actual rituals. I'm just a little surprised to see them in this context...

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by PureX

It's sad that tolerance is now being seen as antithetical to Godliness. Especially so, when we realize that tolerance is an essential component of human freedom. To view God as intolerant is to view God as being antithetical to human freedom. This is the fermenting of an idea that can only lead to terrible oppression and mysery. But Christians seem to be dead-set these days on such a violent and destructive course.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Gerald

A lot of Christians seem to really like that movie.

I can't for the life of me figure out why.

Must be the end-of-the-world thing...

I thought it was kinda weird, but it was okay.

I think I'm gonna have to go with Zakath's suggestion though. You do remind me more of Chuckie. I just had to come up with a creepy rabbit reference, and I didn't think too many people would remember General Woundwort from Watership Down.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Nineveh

You mean, judge when tolerance ends in the name of love?



What about God's limits? I hope we agree the Episcopal church is a house of God. Shouldn't what God says have bearing on what is and is not tolerated in His house (or rather a house dedicated to Him)?



Would you share the Gospel with them? If so, please tell me what you would say.



Is tradition the standard by which you make your judgement as to when tolerance should end in the name of love?



Do you really want that answered?



By what do you judge I do not care about Anglicans?



Do you see it as a good or a bad thing the Episcolpalian/Anglican church threatens a split over sodomy? Do you agree or disagree with Bishop Bennison.



Which is more important to you? Harmony or Truth?

(by the way, why not just address me instead of refer to me second hand? lol)

Nineveh,
I was trying to support your notion that the Anglican church was no place for Druids. But you saw my name and decided everything I said must be false, so you just undermined your own arguement. That has got to be one of the stranger things I have seen at TOL!

[PureX]

Originally posted by Chileice Trying to move this thread to where I hoped it would be going...
What is the correlation between love and tolerance?First I think we need to recognize that love is about finding joy in the happiness and well being of the beloved, rather than seeking our own happiness through the capitulation of the beloved. This is a difference that a lot of people don't see, and don't want to see. Once we understand that the focus of love is on the happiness of the object, rather then on the self, we will soon realize that there is often a challenge involved in this, as the beloved will likely seek their happines in ways that we would not choose for them, and that may leave us out of the picture all together. Anyone who has truly loved, has likely experienced the self-sacrifice involved.

Yet if we do truly love, then we will want the beloved to be free to seek their own happiness rather then forcing them to capitulate to what would make us happiest, and this requires that we sacrifice some of our own selfishness, often in the form of tolerance. Even when we're convinced that what we desire for them is better for them than what they desire for themselves, if we truly love them we'll want them to have the freedom to make their own decisions (even wrong decisions, in our eyes) and to live their lives for themselves. The alternative is that we place ourselves and our desires (regardless of how well intentioned) before theirs, and seek their capitulation to our desires. This is in fact to seek their annihilation - to wish to destroy who they are and to replace them with who we want them to be. This is not love. This is selfishness masquerading as love.

So without sacrifice, often in the form of tolerance, there is no freedom for the beloved, and without that desire that they be free, we are not loving them as we claim we are.
Originally posted by Chileice It certainly exists but love is greater than tolerance. Many times the loving thing to do is to NOT tolerate the behaviour of the other person.Yes, 'tough love' and all that. But people very often misrepresent and misunderstand 'tough love'.

As someone who has some experience with this, I can say that the 'tough love' that works is not judging and condemning the beloved for their beliefs or behaviors. 'Tough love' is not preaching at them or lording our imagined moral superiority over them. 'Tough love' is not "correcting" them in any way, because that isn't love at all. That's selfishness pretending to be love.

All 'tough love' really is, is refusing to condon or participate in behaviors that someone we love chooses to engage in, but that we cannot. That's it. We're not judging them as people, we're not trying to change them or correct them, all we're doing is refusing to condon or participate in behaviors that we believe are wrong for us to engage in with them.

As an example, if I have a friend who is married, and she wanted to engage in some form of intimacy with me, my love for her as a friend would dictate that I refuse to condon or participate in such behavior. That doesn't mean that I judge her or condemn her for wanting to do so, or for engaging in such behavior with others. But it does mean that as her friend I cannot in any way abet such behavior because I believe it's wrong for me to do so both for myself and as her friend.

Another example: if I have a frind who is an alcoholic, and as alcoholics always do, he wants me to go out drinking with him (and I know that in his case to go out drinking means to get drunk) then tough love would dictate that I refuse. I may go out drinking with a non-alcoholic friend, but I won't go with the alcoholic. The point here is that even though the behavior involved may not be something that I disagree with in general, knowing that it will do harm specifically to this friend, I would still refuse to engage in it. (In my own case I don't drink alcohol at all, so this would be an irrelevant scenario, but I was just using it as an example.)

Tough love is really about the lover standing his own ground regarding ideas and behavior choices - it's not about judging, condemning or changing the beloved to suit our idea of who they should be. We aren't being intolerant of who the other person is, we are being intolerant of specific behaviors that we ourselves can't condon or participate in with them.
Originally posted by Chileice Purex, those who want to perform Druid rites certainly have a right to do so. But to usurp the long-standing traditions of a church to do so do seem extreme. Why can't those people go off and start their own group instead of trying to force their minority view on a group of people gathered for the worship of the Lord as they see fit?Why, indeed? I suspect the reason is that they want to force their church community into conforming to their own will and desire, which is not love, and certainly is not freedom or tolerance. Neither would it be for the church community to try and force the others NOT to seek their own joy in Druid cerimonies or whatever else they desire. If the church disagrees, they should refuse to participate. But they need not judge and condemn those who do, and if they do judge and condemn them, it's not out of love - it'll be out of selfishness, and even hate.

Hate is what we feel when those we claim we love defy our desire that they be who we want them to be (which was never love to begin with). True love does not turn to hatred. Only selfishness that has been masquarading as love will turn to hatred when the "beloved" will not capitulate to our will, and they refuse to be who we want them to be ... for us.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by firechyld

I got the impression it was more about honouring in the sense of honouring a loss, not honouring in the sense of a celebration.

*shrug* There's nothing new or overly radical about these beliefs, and there's certainly nothing new about the actual rituals. I'm just a little surprised to see them in this context...

Seems the Episcopals though they were "radical" ideas. A house of God is supposed to honor God.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Chileice

Nineveh,
I was trying to support your notion that the Anglican church was no place for Druids. But you saw my name and decided everything I said must be false, so you just undermined your own arguement. That has got to be one of the stranger things I have seen at TOL!

Actually I was asking you questions to understand your points. I would especially like to know on what you base a judgement for when tolerance ends in the name of love and how you judge I do not care about Anglicans.

[Nineveh]

impurex,
For someone who can never really know anything you use quite a few words to say what you can never know.

Would you mind explaining "moral rape" yet?

[PureX]

Originally posted by Nineveh For someone who can never really know anything you use quite a few words to say what you can never know.I am an intelligent and articulate man. I share my ideas and experiences with others, if they're interested.
Originally posted by Nineveh Would you mind explaining "moral rape" yet? As I have no idea what you're posting about, I don't see how I could explain it to you. I'm certain that I've never mentioned such a thing as a "moral rape", and I can't hardly explain something that exist only in your own mind. So I'm afraid you're out of luck. Perhaps a good psychologist could help you with this.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by impureX

I am an intelligent and articulate man. I share my ideas and experiences with others, if they're interested.

But you can never really know if what you are saying is true or not.

As I have no idea what you're posting about, I don't see how I could explain it to you. I'm certain that I've never mentioned such a thing as a "moral rape", and I can't hardly explain something that exist only in your own mind. So I'm afraid you're out of luck. Perhaps a good psychologist could help you with this.

OEJ said: I believe it's absolutely wrong to rape another person.

You said: Could someone please explain how we know when something is "absolute".

So I asked: impurex,
To help me more fully understand you, would you please give me an example of yourself in the moral rapist's role? And if you would be so kind, would you share with me your thoughts on being the "victim" of a moral rape, using yourself as an example?

And you didn't reply. If you would so kindly care to do so now the post is here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=618024#post618024).

[PureX]

Originally posted by Nineveh But you can never really know if what you are saying is true or not.No one can. So what?
Originally posted by Nineveh OEJ said: I believe it's absolutely wrong to rape another person.

You said: Could someone please explain how we know when something is "absolute".You will note that this comment is about the idea of an absolute, and is not about rape at all.
Originally posted by Nineveh So I asked: impurex,
To help me more fully understand you, would you please give me an example of yourself in the moral rapist's role? And if you would be so kind, would you share with me your thoughts on being the "victim" of a moral rape, using yourself as an example?

And you didn't reply.I didn't reply because I had no idea what you were talking about, and I could see that you had no idea what I was talking about, either. My comment was about the concept of absolutes, and had nothing at all to do with rape. So I had no idea why you were trying to connect the two, and I also could see by your questions that you were desperately trying to pidgion-hole me as someone who condone's or defends rape. And that was just too absurd for a ligitimate response.

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by PureX

No one can. So what?
You will note that this comment is about the idea of an absolute, and is not about rape at all. Can't an absolute be demonstrated by a certain scenario?


I didn't reply because I had no idea what you were talking about, and I could see that you had no idea what I was talking about, either. My comment was about the concept of absolutes, and had nothing at all to do with rape. So I had no idea why you were trying to connect the two, and I also could see by your questions that you were desperately trying to pidgion-hole me as someone who condone's or defends rape. And that was just too absurd for a ligitimate response. If it was too absurd, then we should be able to assume that you believe rape to be wrong in every case (i.e. "absolutely wrong" ). It's alright for you to humbly admit that there may be such a thing as absolutes.

[PureX]

Originally posted by the Sibbie Can't an absolute be demonstrated by a certain scenario? I can't think of any. The problem is that we are finite and relative beings, and as such we don't have any way of testing a supposed absolute to see if it really is.
Originally posted by the Sibbie If it was too absurd, then we should be able to assume that you believe rape to be wrong in every case (i.e. "absolutely wrong" ).I don't see why you should be assuming anything. If you want to know what I think, all you have to do is ask politely. I'm happy to share.
Originally posted by the Sibbie It's alright for you to humbly admit that there may be such a thing as absolutes. I've never claimed that there is or is not such a state as the absolute. There's no way I can tell if there is or not, and no way I can think of that you can tell, either.

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by PureX

I can't think of any. The problem is that we are finite and relative beings, and as such we don't have any way of testing a supposed absolute to see if it really is. How about we just consider the frame of a person's lifetime on earth. Would it be absolutely wrong to rape someone, or can you think of a scenario where it would be ok?

Do you consider 2+2=4 to be absolutely correct, 100% of the time?


I don't see why you should be assuming anything. If you want to know what I think, all you have to do is ask politely. I'm happy to share. Well you can't seem to answer any of Nineveh's questions.


I've never claimed that there is or is not such a state as the absolute. There's no way I can tell if there is or not,...Within our realm of reality, I'm absolutely sure there is such a thing as the state of absolute, not for everything but for some things. ...and no way I can think of that you can tell, either. Are you sure that you are not sure that I cannot be sure if there is a state of the absolute?

[PureX]

Originally posted by the Sibbie How about we just consider the frame of a person's lifetime on earth.But this would not be an absolute scenario, then. You are talking about a scenario that is relative to the span of human existence. Do you understand what the word "absolute" means? The condition called "absolute" means intrinsic, integral, not dependant on external conditions or circumstances. It's not a condition subject to time.
Originally posted by the Sibbie Would it be absolutely wrong to rape someone, or can you think of a scenario where it would be ok?You don't seem to understand that the fact that you or I can't think of a circumstance under which what we call "rape" is not what we call "wrong" has no bearing whatever on determining if something is absolute. The state of absoluteness is not established relative to what scenarios you or I can or can't think up.

Do you think that because I won't accept the assertion that morality is absolute that I must then support rape? This is both irrational and untrue. You need to understand that even if every human being that has ever lived agrees that rape is "bad" that still won't make the badness of rape "absolute". Not even close.
Originally posted by the Sibbie Do you consider 2+2=4 to be absolutely correct, 100% of the time?The equasion 2+2=4 is an abstract concept that exists only in our minds. It's only "correct" as long as we think it is. Therefor it is not absolute - as it's very existence as a concept is relative to the human mind that conceives of it, and to our criteria of what we will consider "equality".
Originally posted by the Sibbie Well you can't seem to answer any of Nineveh's questions. I will answer any sensible question that is asked politely.
Originally posted by the Sibbie Within our realm of reality, I'm absolutely sure there is such a thing as the state of absolute, not for everything but for some things. Are you sure that you are not sure that I cannot be sure if there is a state of the absolute? What you are "absolutely" sure of has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of an absolute state. You could be "absolutely" certain that you are a bunny rabbit. So what?

[the Sibbie]

:doh: Ugh, I'm soooooo wasting my time.


Originally posted by PureX
The equasion 2+2=4 is an abstract concept that exists only in our minds. I sure hope you aren't a public school teacher.


Purex---> :liberals: and :dunce:

[Turbo]

Originally posted by the Sibbie

Purex---> :liberals: and :dunce: Don't forget the new guy! :blabla:

[Nineveh]

Well... after all that I am absolutely sure impurex has rendered himself irrelevant.

[PastorZ77]

There's no way I can tell if there is or not, and no way I can think of that you can tell, either.

Is that an absolute?

[PureX]

Originally posted by PastorZ77 Is that an absolute? Wouldn't the fact that you have to ask sort of prove my point? *smile*

[PureX]

Originally posted by Chileice Trying to move this thread to where I hoped it would be going...
What is the correlation between love and tolerance? It certainly exists but love is greater than tolerance. Many times the loving thing to do is to NOT tolerate the behaviour of the other person. Although I am a generally strong supporter of tolerance, tolerance has its limits: in a family, in the workplace or in a church for that matter. Purex, those who want to perform Druid rites certainly have a right to do so. But to usurp the long-standing traditions of a church to do so do seem extreme. Why can't those people go off and start their own group instead of trying to force their minority view on a group of people gathered for the worship of the Lord as they see fit?

You are right about Nineveh. She certainly doesn't care about the Anglican tradition. But those who have been a part of the Episcolpalian/Anglican/Church of England tradition do. It always seems to be a few who are the tail that wags the dog. True "christian" harmony and good manners would take their beliefs somewhere else. Yes. Let's return to the original idea of the thread, please.

[Nineveh]

impurex,
Who really cares about the thoughts of someone who really isn't sure about anything?

[PureX]

Originally posted by Nineveh Who really cares about the thoughts of someone who really isn't sure about anything? Who cares about the thoughts of people who are so sure they're right that they can't listen, can't learn, and don't care about what anyone else thinks?

It's up to you what you choose to care about. If you don't care about what I think, then don't ask.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by PureX

Who cares about the thoughts of people who are so sure they're right that they can't listen, can't learn, and don't care about what anyone else thinks?

I'd be more inclined to listen to someone who actually *thought* they knew instead of someone who was "absolutely" sure he could never know anything.

It's up to you what you choose to care about. If you don't care about what I think, then quit pestering me with insulting questions.

LOL

I asked you to clarify understanding for me and you find it "insulting"? Maybe you see it that way because you are such a moral vacuum and any attempt to clarify only makes you look worse.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Well... after all that I am absolutely sure impurex has rendered himself irrelevant.

Purex asks penetrating questions formulated in a way that people can absorb them, consider them and respond to them. He is only irrelevant if you make him so. His questions and comments are every bit as relevant as yours because they come from his own experience and learning.

Purex and I often have contrasting beliefs (not so much on this topic. I quite agree with almost all of his great post on page 2) but I still find him engaging, even when I think he is out to lunch. But the difference between you and me is that I not only talk... I listen. I am willing to have my ideas interacted with. That is a necessary part of tolerance that leads to love and understanding. I MUST admit that I could be wrong if I am ever going to have any meaningful exchange with anyone.

Obviously, I don't think I am wrong or I would have changed my mind. But I have sometimes been convinced I was wrong and have had my thinking reshaped by others and by my further reflexion on God, His Word, the words of others and the experience of life. The more you try to build an impenetrable wall around your beliefs, the greater will be the destruction if someone pierces your armor. Your whole wall will fall. Whereas if you maintain an open mind you will be able to reshape portions of the wall in a way that better fits reality as you come to know it. Learning to listen will make you uncomfortable... but you will like yourself better for doing it.:)

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Chileice

Purex asks penetrating questions formulated in a way that people can absorb them, consider them and respond to them.

And then what? Not know?

He is only irrelevant if you make him so. His questions and comments are every bit as relevant as yours because they come from his own experience and learning.

And to what end? Not knowing?

Instead of wading through the next two paragraphs defending impurex, why not inform me of your views. You ingore my attempt to understand where you are coming from in favor of explaining what someone else will never ever know. I don't care what impurex doesn't know, he doesn't know so why should I waste my time? It would be much more fruitful to understand what you do know. Would you please be as so kind?

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Nineveh

And then what? Not know?



And to what end? Not knowing?

Instead of wading through the next two paragraphs defending impurex, why not inform me of your views. You ingore my attempt to understand where you are coming from in favor of explaining what someone else will never ever know. I don't care what impurex doesn't know, he doesn't know so why should I waste my time? It would be much more fruitful to understand what you do know. Would you please be as so kind?

I do not subscribe to Purex's idea that all things are unknowable. I trust myself enough to believe they are knowable. Yet, I have to admit that a thinking person could beg to differ. It is possible to doubt everything. However I feel such an existence limits man's ability to move forward as well as his ability to experience to the fullest the experience he senses.

If you are asking whether I can PROVE to Purex that everything I know is true... I cannot. By the very nature of doubt and to the very nature of the truly relativistic mind it is impossible to prove anything unless the person trusts his/her first hand experience. I cannot prove that man has been to the moon to him nor can I prove that Jesus went to the cross for him unless he is willing to suspend doubt enough to trust the evidence he sees, feels or hears about.

However, for you to say that Purex is invalid or irrelevant makes you as much a doubter as he. You cannot believe that he believes what he says any more than he believes what you say. Therefore you both must suspend doubt enough to believe the other doubter may have something valid to say. That is the beginning of tolerance, which is the beginning of understanding which could actually lead to love between you and Purez or you and others in this world with whom you now feel yourself at odds. You do not have to ACCEPT his philosophical stand in order to try to understand it. Maybe you never will. Maybe I never will. But we have to at least admit that his perception of the world is indeed his perception of the world and that we must take that as a given if we are going to try to influene that perception, even so slightly.

Do you hear what I am saying? I am neither against you nor against him. I am just trying to show how I think tolerance interacts with love in a positive way without being the sum total of love itself.:thumb:

[PureX]

Originally posted by Nineveh I asked you to clarify understanding for me and you find it "insulting"? Maybe you see it that way because you are such a moral vacuum and any attempt to clarify only makes you look worse. You'll note that I changed my response in that post - as it occurred to me that you may not have intended to be insulting. Sometimes with just words to go on, it's not so easy to recognize someone's intent.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Chileice

I do not subscribe to Purex's idea that all things are unknowable.

I didn't think you did. That's why I asked you the questions I did, to understand your views better.

If you are asking whether I can PROVE to Purex that everything I know is true... I cannot.

No, I was refering to post # 18 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=620445#post620445)

However, for you to say that Purex is invalid or irrelevant makes you as much a doubter as he.

Look, if you think advice ar anything else from someone who proclaims he doesn't know anything for sure is helpful, have at it.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by PureX

It's up to you what you choose to care about. If you don't care about what I think, then don't ask.

Thanks for the heads up on the reply change.

I won't anymore. It's useless for me to understand better a person who understands nothing for sure.

[PureX]

Originally posted by Chileice I do not subscribe to Purex's idea that all things are unknowable.Not to quibble, but I don't subscribe to this, either. We can know all kinds of things, be we can only know them in a relative way. Which means that we can only prove them in a relative way. I've never said that we can't know anything, only that we can't be certain that what we think we know is actually true. We can establish the truthfulness of some fact or assertion relative to some momentary standard, but we can't establish truthfulness absolutely. This was always my only assertion - not that we "can't know anything".
Originally posted by Chileice If you are asking whether I can PROVE to Purex that everything I know is true... I cannot. By the very nature of doubt and to the very nature of the truly relativistic mind it is impossible to prove anything unless the person trusts his/her first hand experience.Even then, all we can prove is momentary truthfulness, relative to our capacity for experience.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by PureX

Not to quibble, but I don't subscribe to this, either. We can know all kinds of things, be we can only know them in a relative way. Which means that we can only prove them in a relative way. I've never said that we can't know anything, only that we can't be certain that what we think we know is actually true. We can establish the truthfulness of some fact or assertion relative to some momentary standard, but we can't establish truthfulness absolutely. This was always my only assertion - not that we "can't know anything".
Even then, all we can prove is momentary truthfulness, relative to our capacity for experience.

First, you are right. Excuse me for mis-stating your position. Although, defacto, for a black/white thinker like Nineveh, the net result is the same. The two of you are about as polar opposite as two people can be in your world-views and your understanding of truth and the perception of it. Frankly, I wouldn't want to live in eaither one of your world's of perception. First I evjoy the shades of gray I see in this world and Two, I lkie knowing what I believe even if that knowledge is imperfect and growing. It's kind of fun being in between (even though you risk being runover from both sides!)

[Nineveh]

...and thanks so much for explaining your views to me a little better. Please, from hence forth Chileice don't ever say I don't try to understand your view point or that I have a "closed mind" about your views.

[firechyld]

Seems the Episcopals though they were "radical" ideas. A house of God is supposed to honor God.

As I said, I'm surprised to see them in this context... that being an Episcopalian church. In that context, they certainly are radical ideas. But there's nothing new or radical in the ideas themselves. The individuals in question are aiming for the syncretism of two quite old belief structures, not technically inventing anything purely "new".

[aikido7]

Be careful how you interpret the world. It is that.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by firechyld
But there's nothing new or radical in the ideas themselves. The individuals in question are aiming for the syncretism of two quite old belief structures, not technically inventing anything purely "new".

No one said anything about paganism being "new". I find it hard to see even the idea of paganism creeping into the church buildings as "new". Although this might be a first openly blatant attempt in a while.

Paganism + Christianity = Paganism
There is no way around that, not blatently or incrementally.

[servent101]

The only thing that is not Christian is the literalist dogma that declares that all other structures of belief systems are invalid - God did reveal Himself to the Abraham's offspring as a jealous God - for them to have no other God's - but the meaning, the similarity in the more weightier matters of the law - mercy, compassion, charity, kindness - these are all so similar in pagan religion that one is left to surmise that the source is the same ONE GOD. The culture changes and the message stays the same in all Truth - there are slight variations - but the message is the same, and Pagans that know the truth - if they can get passed the literalist dogma of people like Nineveh - accept Jesus as Lord, and improve their lives with the Revelation of God in the culture Jesus lived in - and strive to live a life worthy of the calling of the Lord. There is no separation - just advancement to purity and true knowledge of God.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by servent101

The only thing that is not Christian is the literalist dogma that declares that all other structures of belief systems are invalid - God did reveal Himself to the Abraham's offspring as a jealous God - for them to have no other God's - but the meaning, the similarity in the more weightier matters of the law - mercy, compassion, charity, kindness - these are all so similar in pagan religion that one is left to surmise that the source is the same ONE GOD. The culture changes and the message stays the same in all Truth - there are slight variations - but the message is the same, and Pagans that know the truth - if they can get passed the literalist dogma of people like Nineveh - accept Jesus as Lord, and improve their lives with the Revelation of God in the culture Jesus lived in - and strive to live a life worthy of the calling of the Lord. There is no separation - just advancement to purity and true knowledge of God.

With Christ's Love

Servent101 How many other "structures of belief systems" declare "Jesus as Lord" ? Would you mind naming a few?

[Lighthouse]

I think serpent101/!!!!Last missed some of the information that stated that the names of goddesses were used in these rituals, in what is supposed to be a Christian house of worship.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by servent101

The only thing that is not Christian is the literalist dogma that declares that all other structures of belief systems are invalid

Like.... the 1st Commandment? Israel repeatedly getting into trouble for idol worship? Those sort of things?

[servent101]

Sibbie - How many other "structures of belief systems" declare "Jesus as Lord" ? Would you mind naming a few?

As you know - most belief systems are closed - and are held captive by clergy - clergy like you, who want to limit the field of knowledge so they can declare that they alone have the inspired voice of God - even in light of the fact that there are two thousand different christian denominations speaking on behalf of the ONE GOD - all saying something different - yet they all claim it is not their understanding that is in question - no they and you all claim that you are only saying what God has already said - you leave out the part where God said what He said to a peculiar people, obstinate and very much uneducated - and for the most part illiterate - and assume that the people who do not have exactly the same doctrine from other parts of the world where they were in isolation - yet the same people reading the same book claiming they are speaking God's Words with no interpretation or understanding of their own thrown in - well reality free rhetoric strikes again.

Of course their recorded faith does not declare Jesus as Lord - but those honest truth seekers if they can get past your literalist hogwash do accept Jesus as Lord - they just do not have the literalist attitude you have - your adrenalin addicted literalist fire and brimstone hell letter perfect nothing but the Bible attitude.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Lighthouse]

Serpent-
I hope you enjoy being comfortable now, because you certainly won't be, in the afterlife.:nono:

[Nineveh]

Sybel101,
Do you believe the Bible will burn your fingers if you actually pick it up to read it?

Who is the "Christ" in your signature?

[servent101]

NinevehLike.... the 1st Commandment? Israel repeatedly getting into trouble for idol worship? Those sort of things?

And of course the people in one isolated geographical location with a pecular culture and development would be instructed in the same way a culture with a different culture and development.

God can choose to instruct different cultures in different ways - it is not up to you to decide that since God did instruct the children of Abraham not to worship Idols - that this is God's instructions in all cultures.

I gather you worship a God who simply ignored all of his creation outside of the small area you are familiar with.

I know you do - but you never thought of your thinking being wrong - assuming you can still think.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[servent101]

Lighthouse - you are already in hell, as well as Nineveh, Sibbie and all who are worshiping this diabolical monster you believe is somehow related to the Lord Jesus Christ.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by servent101

Nineveh

And of course the people in one isolated geographical location with a pecular culture and development would be instructed in the same way a culture with a different culture and development.

God can choose to instruct different cultures in different ways - it is not up to you to decide that since God did instruct the children of Abraham not to worship Idols - that this is God's instructions in all cultures.

Um... do you understand molech, ashteroth and baal were from different cultures?

I gather you worship a God who simply ignored all of his creation outside of the small area you are familiar with.

Like I've asked before, have you ever bothered to actually read the Bible or are you too fearful it might burn your fingers?

I know you do - but you never thought of your thinking being wrong - assuming you can still think.

Look, if a fool like you calls me foolish, I'm happy :)

[Lighthouse]

Not only does the serpent spew venom, he spews vomit!:Servent::vomit:

[servent101]

NinevehUm... do you understand molech, ashteroth and baal were from different cultures?

They were in the same isolated geographical location - and they were obviously not of God - they made child sacrifice, they had temple prostitution, their leaders were wicked and cruel.

You paint all religions in the same way as these that were in the same vicinity of the Nation of Israel - a shame and a travesty. \\
Part of the reason God made sure the Israelis had no Idols was to separate them from their ungodly neighbors - following the obvious false precepts of evil men.

If you actually get out of your conditioning and your adrenalin addiction you might see that Buddhism, Hinduism. Islam - all have a lot in common with the "real" message of the Lord Jesus Christ - and as well see that the differences are only in the literalist interpretation that does not allow for cultural differences. You do not even consider to seek counsel of God on this matter – it is never even been considered by you.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by servent101
They were in the same isolated geographical location - and they were obviously not of God - they made child sacrifice, they had temple prostitution, their leaders were wicked and cruel.

Not all were practicing child sacrifice. So by what do you judge which pagan idol is really God in desguise?

Lessee... you aren't going to be able to name any Egyptian, Roman or Greek dieties. Nor witchcraft or sorcery oriented religions. you aren't left with a whole lot.

You paint all religions in the same way as these that were in the same vicinity of the Nation of Israel - a shame and a travesty. \\
Part of the reason God made sure the Israelis had no Idols was to separate them from their ungodly neighbors - following the obvious false precepts of evil men.

Name one idol that doesn't fall into the catagory of "false precept of men".

If you actually get out of your conditioning and your adrenalin addiction you might see that Buddhism, Hinduism. Islam - all have a lot in common with the "real" message of the Lord Jesus Christ - and as well see that the differences are only in the literalist interpretation that does not allow for cultural differences. You do not even consider to seek counsel of God on this matter – it is never even been considered by you.

Get your head out of false precepts of men and realize the Creator God does not banish people to nothingness, nor does He lable Christ a mere prophet, nor does He allow for the worship of animals. And above all He does not instruct His followers to murder Jews.

No, I don't seek your idea of a god.

[Nineveh]

and btw sybel....

Who is that "Christ" you sign your posts with?

[servent101]

Sibbie - who cares about the thoughts of a person who worships the diabolical moster you do - well actually I do, and so does the Lord, and a lot of other people - we feel sorry for you and hope some day that you will come to your senses, and we are willing to help you.

I guess all I can do is leave the matter in God's hands - and pray for you, and try to share from time to time.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Nineveh]

Sybel,
Who is "Lord"? Who is "God"? Who is "Christ"?

In your own words please :)

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by servent101

Sibbie - who cares about the thoughts of a person who worships the diabolical moster you do - well actually I do, and so does the Lord, and a lot of other people - we feel sorry for you and hope some day that you will come to your senses, and we are willing to help you.

I guess all I can do is leave the matter in God's hands - and pray for you, and try to share from time to time.

With Christ's Love

Servent101


Originally posted by servent101

Sibbie -

As you know - most belief systems are closed - and are held captive by clergy - clergy like you, who want to limit the field of knowledge so they can declare that they alone have the inspired voice of God - even in light of the fact that there are two thousand different christian denominations speaking on behalf of the ONE GOD - all saying something different - yet they all claim it is not their understanding that is in question - no they and you all claim that you are only saying what God has already said - you leave out the part where God said what He said to a peculiar people, obstinate and very much uneducated - and for the most part illiterate - and assume that the people who do not have exactly the same doctrine from other parts of the world where they were in isolation - yet the same people reading the same book claiming they are speaking God's Words with no interpretation or understanding of their own thrown in - well reality free rhetoric strikes again.

Of course their recorded faith does not declare Jesus as Lord - but those honest truth seekers if they can get past your literalist hogwash do accept Jesus as Lord - they just do not have the literalist attitude you have - your adrenalin addicted literalist fire and brimstone hell letter perfect nothing but the Bible attitude.

With Christ's Love

Servent101 Oh sure, try to be nice after spewing your hate everywhere! You're making yourself look worse...everybody's gonna feel sorry for you...I mean I do!


Please just pick one and stick with it. What's it gonna be? NICE or not-NICE?

[Zakath]

Sibbie and Nineveh,

I think if your deity really cared as much about what those clergypersons you mentioned in the first post were doing as you do, he'd step in and do something about it...

... that is if he's really there to do anything about anything...

Should I take the fact that the church is still standing and so are those clergy that he's not particularly interested in the issue?

And on the other line of discussion in this thread...

I've noticed a common theme in all you Enyartians' discussions about absolutes... Is there anything absolute for you people that does not involve sexual deviance?

[Nineveh]

um....
You absolutely vaporized during a debate with him?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Nineveh

um....
You absolutely vaporized during a debate with him? Him who? Your deity? :chuckle:

As I explained to Knight, and several times publicly on the board since, I ended up in the hospital during the final rounds of the debate. I had other things on my mind than debating some two-bit shock jock about his twisted theological views.

How about you try answering the questions instead of playing presuppositionalist word games... :rolleyes:

That's, of course, assuming you can do anything but ape your master, Enyart... :chuckle:

[Nineveh]

No, that would be Mr. Enyart during the 8th round. I must say... timing is everything :)

If I bothered to say those who are Godly in the Episcopal church have already removed the paganism on their website, thus doing the Lord's work, would you care?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Nineveh

No, that would be Mr. Enyart during the 8th round. I must say... timing is everything :)Not really. I always thought that love of your deity was "everything" to you people, not playing word games... perhaps I have been mistaken. :rolleyes:

If I bothered to say those who are Godly in the Episcopal church have already removed the paganism on their website, thus doing the Lord's work, would you care? First, I haven't the faintest idea of what you mean and secondly, I couldn't care less what some group of religionists does to their website... :yawn:

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Zakath

First, I haven't the faintest idea of what you mean and secondly, I couldn't care less what some group of religionists does to their website... :yawn:

So the answer is "No, I reallly wouldn't care what you replied in answer to my meaningless question."

[PastorZ77]

Not really. I always thought that love of your deity was "everything" to you people, not playing word games... perhaps I have been mistaken.


What was it to you when you were one of "you people"?

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by servent101

You do not even consider to seek counsel of God on this matter – it is never even been considered by you.Actually, we do; and that is how we know that your false gods aren't The One and Only Way to The Father, The Only Truth about God or The One and Only Eternal Life. :doh::duh:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


:thumb:

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Zakath

Sibbie and Nineveh,

I think if your deity really cared as much about what those clergypersons you mentioned in the first post were doing as you do, he'd step in and do something about it...

... that is if he's really there to do anything about anything...

Should I take the fact that the church is still standing and so are those clergy that he's not particularly interested in the issue?

And on the other line of discussion in this thread...

I've noticed a common theme in all you Enyartians' discussions about absolutes... Is there anything absolute for you people that does not involve sexual deviance?
Nutjob.:rolleyes:

[servent101]

Sibbie - Oh sure, try to be nice after spewing your hate everywhere!

No hate in the post - sorry, if the truth hurts - well you were warned here on TOL - the TRUTH HURTS - ever hear of Truth Smack -

You are the one clamoring hate in the attitudes of your posts - you, nineveh and lighthouse - but there is not one mention of your behavior in the Bible, so I guess the fact it was written two thousand years ago, simply means nothing - that since the Bible does not mention the attitude you have your attitude is in no way of being articulated, understood, nor the harm you people do in any way can be categorized - reality free rhetoric.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by PureX

It's sad that tolerance is now being seen as antithetical to Godliness. Especially so, when we realize that tolerance is an essential component of human freedom. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS WERE NOT THE TEN SUGGESTIONS


To view God as intolerant is to view God as being antithetical to human freedom. This is the fermenting of an idea that can only lead to terrible oppression and mysery. But Christians seem to be dead-set these days on such a violent and destructive course. NEWS FLASH: GOD IS INTOLERANT! Live with it. Millions of American Christians do.


TOLERANCE KILLS CULTURES

[PureX]

Originally posted by Art Deco GOD IS INTOLERANT! Live with it. Millions of American Christians do. And yet he tolerates everything we do.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by PureX

And yet he tolerates everything we do. Not forever!

[PureX]

Originally posted by deardelmar Not forever! That's just wishful thinking on your part. The fact is, there is no evidence at all that God is intolerant. And there is all the evidence in the world that God tolerates everything we do.

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by PureX

And yet he tolerates everything we do. Ah, but for how long...? God has a history of violent outbursts. He is long suffering yes, but God will get even and pour out his wrath on those who mock Him and despise his Holy name.

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by PureX

That's just wishful thinking on your part. The fact is, there is no evidence at all that God is intolerant. And there is all the evidence in the world that God tolerates everything we do. Your whistling in the grave-yard.:chuckle:

[aikido7]

but God will get even and pour out his wrath on those who mock Him and despise his Holy name.

No "turning the other cheek" for THIS deity!

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by aikido7

No "turning the other cheek" for THIS deity! You have blundered into an area where even angels fear to tread...mocking God. :shocked:

[PureX]

Originally posted by Art Deco Ah, but for how long...? God has a history of violent outbursts. He is long suffering yes, but God will get even and pour out his wrath on those who mock Him and despise his Holy name. And won't you be basking in the self-righteousness on that day, huh?

I think this is the fantasy of lots of very petty people who really want to think they're so much better than everyone else, but that everyone else ignores. So in their resentment they fantasize about how God is gonna avenge their bruised egos by crushing all those who didn't bow down to their imagined moral and spiritual superiority. The fantasy is that God's gonna do to those they hate what they can't do themselves, but wish they could.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by PastorZ77

What was it to you when you were one of "you people"? A consuming passion. :)

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Nutjob.:rolleyes: Another profound, well reasoned response from the resident dim bulb of TOL. :rolleyes:

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by PureX

And won't you be basking in the self-righteousness on that day, huh?

I don't think you need to concern yourself with what anybody else is doing on that day.

I think this is the fantasy of lots of very petty people who really want to think they're so much better than everyone else, but that everyone else ignores. So in their resentment they fantasize about how God is gonna avenge their bruised egos by crushing all those who didn't bow down to their imagined moral and spiritual superiority. The fantasy is that God's gonna do to those they hate what they can't do themselves, but wish they could.

It's not a fantasy, and it has nothing to do with our egos. It's a warning, and you can ignore it all you want. But if you do ignore it, then when that day comes, you'll remember you were warned, and you'll wish you would have listened.

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by PureX

And won't you be basking in the self-righteousness on that day, huh? Your self-righteous condemnation of the self-righteous, borders on the psychotic. Secular Humanists seem predisposed to fits of psychosis, especially over matters of morality.

Why is that? :confused:

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Nutjob.:rolleyes: Sometimes one word says it all...let's hear it for brevity... :BRAVO:

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by aikido7

No "turning the other cheek" for THIS deity! God turned His cheek when Cain killed his brother and warned that no-one should touch him.
God was tolerant with Nineveh when they repented.
God was tolerant with Peter.
God sent Moses to free the Israelites and was tolerant untill the Pharaoh refused.
I did read in Leviticus 18 that God isn't tolerant with immorality such as incest(Lev 18:1-18 or homosexuality(Lev 18:22), beastiality(lev 18:23) . The rest of this chapter of Leviticus explains that God doesn't want us to defile ourselves with such things. Why does God do this? Because He loves us and wants us to be good people, not defiled by things that He calls abominations.

[firechyld]

No one said anything about paganism being "new". I find it hard to see even the idea of paganism creeping into the church buildings as "new". Although this might be a first openly blatant attempt in a while.

Paganism + Christianity = Paganism
There is no way around that, not blatently or incrementally.

Such is the nature of syncretism. You end up with something that cannot really be categorised as either of the original belief structures.

*grin* You realise that I'm not arguing with you, right?

[Lighthouse]

Anyone else agree with Zakath? That I'm dim?








I didn't think so.

[Frank Ernest]

"Anyone else agree with Zakath? That I'm dim?"

LOL Zak resorted to what looks like the "ad hominem" attack?!?!?
You must have depleted his ammo bag. :chuckle:

[Frank Ernest]

"Your self-righteous condemnation of the self-righteous, borders on the psychotic. Secular Humanists seem predisposed to fits of psychosis, especially over matters of morality. "

Hard to understand, especially since SHs don't have a moral code. (Note to SHs: Situational ethics is not a moral code.)

The psychotic part comes in 1) when they accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they are doing (and trying to hide it), and 2) when they use "moral" absolutes to deny that there are moral absolutes.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Art Deco

You have blundered into an area where even angles fear to tread...mocking God. :shocked:

Would those be right angles, acute angles or obtuse angles? I was actually unaware that angles were able to walk. Quite an interesting change to geometry as I learned it.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Anyone else agree with Zakath? That I'm dim?








I didn't think so.

Lighthouse,
You have an inflated view of your own ideas. You rarely look beyond the surface of the issue, you often resort to ad homenims and you comment on absolutely everything which makes most of your comments virtually meaningless. If you listened better, spoke less and didn't take yourself so seriously... others would. So maybe not dim as in stupid, but dim as in unwise.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

God turned His cheek when Cain killed his brother and warned that no-one should touch him.
God was tolerant with Nineveh when they repented.
God was tolerant with Peter.
God sent Moses to free the Israelites and was tolerant untill the Pharaoh refused.
I did read in Leviticus 18 that God isn't tolerant with immorality such as incest(Lev 18:1-18 or homosexuality(Lev 18:22), beastiality(lev 18:23) . The rest of this chapter of Leviticus explains that God doesn't want us to defile ourselves with such things. Why does God do this? Because He loves us and wants us to be good people, not defiled by things that He calls abominations.

For those who love the OT so much and try to show how vengeant we should be... what about these passages, o violent ones?
Originally posted by Nehemiah
Nehemiah 9:
16"But they and our fathers acted proudly,
Hardened their necks,
And did not heed Your commandments.
17 They refused to obey,
And they were not mindful of Your wonders
That You did among them.
But they hardened their necks,
And in their rebellion
They appointed a leader
To return to their bondage.
But You are God,
Ready to pardon,
Gracious and merciful,
Slow to anger,
Abundant in kindness,
And did not forsake them.

God didn't destroy them. What do you know. He kept waiting for them to come back. Maybe we should show some of that same lovingkindness and patience.

Originally posted by David
Psalm 103
7 He made known His ways to Moses,
His acts to the children of Israel.
8T he LORD is merciful and gracious,
Slow to anger, and abounding in mercy.
9 He will not always strive with us,
Nor will He keep His anger forever.

Originally posted by Joel
Joel 2
A Call to Repentance
12 "Now, therefore," says the LORD,
"Turn to Me with all your heart,
With fasting, with weeping, and with mourning."
13So rend your heart, and not your garments;
Return to the LORD your God,
For He is gracious and merciful,
Slow to anger, and of great kindness;
And He relents from doing harm.


A little hard to repent when you have a bullet in your head. Maybe that's why we should warn people in a loving way, in a tolerant way, in a Christ-like way. He who could have destroyed his destroyers, but he asked for their forgiveness. Quite an amazing example to follow, I would say.
:thumb: :thumb:

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by firechyld

Such is the nature of syncretism. You end up with something that cannot really be categorised as either of the original belief structures. Christianity + Paganism = Apostasy and Heresy

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest Hard to understand, especially since SHs don't have a moral code. (Note to SHs: Situational ethics is not a moral code.)Frank, Secular Humanists do have a moral code. From the Humanist Manifesto II Under "Ethics":Ethics are autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanctions. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life...




Posted by Frank: The psychotic part comes in 1) when they accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they are doing (and trying to hide it), and 2) when they use "moral" absolutes to deny that there are moral absolutes. Agreed. :thumb:

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Chileice

Would those be right angles, acute angles or obtuse angles? I was actually unaware that angles were able to walk. Quite an interesting change to geometry as I learned it. My public school training failed me again... I am to take a clean sheet of paper from my desk and write A_N_G_E_L one hundred times...:o

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Art Deco
You have blundered into an area where even angels fear to tread...mocking God. :shocked: I've been doing that, and all I've managed to do is get his followers riled up.

He never shows up himself. :chuckle:

[servent101]

Chileice A little hard to repent when you have a bullet in your head. Maybe that's why we should warn people in a loving way, in a tolerant way, in a Christ-like way. He who could have destroyed his destroyers, but he asked for their forgiveness. Quite an amazing example to follow, I would say.
A long time ago – people condemned Jesus for being easy on the sinner - they – people of the like here on TOL – they would say like the Pharisees – This Man is friends with thieves, prostitutes and all kinds of sinners.

For some reason through this “attitude” of humility that the Lord has towards others – the Lord would convert the sinner to sainthood. Seems a lot of people here miss this – the attitude difference between the sinner and the scribes and Pharisees.

As for the scribes and Pharisees – those who stood in judgment of the sinner – Jesus had a lot of hard words for them.

Somehow there are a few Christians left today – possibly a lot, that think the Words of our Lord towards the Scribes and Pharisees are the example we are to take in attitude towards the sinners – the thieves, sexually immoral etc..

Go figure?

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

[Nineveh]

sybel,
Have you ever bothered to read the Bible?

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Chileice

A little hard to repent when you have a bullet in your head. Maybe that's why we should warn people in a loving way, in a tolerant way, in a Christ-like way. He who could have destroyed his destroyers, but he asked for their forgiveness. Quite an amazing example to follow, I would say.
:thumb: :thumb:

How many repeat offenders are already out there? How many repeat offenders have already been given multiple chances? How many first time offenders, in comparison, die on their first offence? How many victims of those offenders are given a loving warning by the offenders?

Crimminals have had their chances in more than enough cases across this country. They know the difference between right and wrong, regardless of circumstance. And if a crimminal can't differentiate, maybe they didn't need to be walking around free anyway.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

"Anyone else agree with Zakath? That I'm dim?"

LOL Zak resorted to what looks like the "ad hominem" attack?!?!?
You must have depleted his ammo bag. :chuckle: Not at all, you do realize that giving lighthouse payback in kind is a bit different from an ad hominem dropped into the middle of a rational discussion, don't you? ;)

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by servent101

Chileice
A long time ago – people condemned Jesus for being easy on the sinner - they – people of the like here on TOL – they would say like the Pharisees – This Man is friends with thieves, prostitutes and all kinds of sinners.

It's like Jesus said -- people who are well don't need a doctor. He came to save the lost. He didn't join them in their sin, nor did He encourage them to continue in it. He simply preached to them, and He had to be around them to do that.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

It's like Jesus said -- people who are well don't need a doctor. He came to save the lost. He didn't join them in their sin, nor did He encourage them to continue in it. He simply preached to them, and He had to be around them to do that.

You are right on OEJ. He had to be with them rather then condemn them from some distant ivory tower. There is a judgement, but he came to rub shoulders with us so that we could see we are loved and so that we would repent.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

How many repeat offenders are already out there?
How many repeat offenders have already been given multiple chances?
You and me for starters. Biblically I bet both of us could have been condemned. But we are off scot-free. I'm not saying those offenders don't need correction and punishment, just that death is neither correction nor punishment but capricious, non-revocable vengeance. And vengeance should belong to God alone not me or you.

Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith
How many first time offenders, in comparison, die on their first offence? How many victims of those offenders are given a loving warning by the offenders?

Some do die on their first offence. Some who committed crimes at 17 or 18 have been put to death... most of them black or hispanic. Justice makes mistakes. Death can't be corrected. Justice is not blind either.


Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith
Crimminals have had their chances in more than enough cases across this country. They know the difference between right and wrong, regardless of circumstance. And if a crimminal can't differentiate, maybe they didn't need to be walking around free anyway.

I agree. They shouldn't be walking around free if they are a menace to society. But they shouldn't be six feet under. That's my point.

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Chileice

You and me for starters. Biblically I bet both of us could have been condemned. But we are off scot-free. I'm not saying those offenders don't need correction and punishment, just that death is neither correction nor punishment but capricious, non-revocable vengeance. And vengeance should belong to God alone not me or you. I have never claimed to be innocent. I have been punished for my crimes. What makes you think that vengence and justice are the same thing?



Some do die on their first offence. Some who committed crimes at 17 or 18 have been put to death... most of them black or hispanic. Justice makes mistakes. Death can't be corrected. Justice is not blind either. Yes, a few have died for their first offence and I am sorry they couldn't control themselves enough before they commited the crime. I stood shoulder to shoulder with one guy, who happened to be white, that murdered another guy for being hispanic. He is now serving a 30 year sentence. Should he have been put to death? Yes. Why? Because he shot the man in the back of the head with a shotgun in a cornfield in the middle of the night without any provocation. My opinion isn't based on vengence. It's justice for the young man who died that night. Why should we keep the murderer alive? Why should citizens like me be forced to pay for the comforts of a prison cell for this man to live in for 30 years?

I agree. They shouldn't be walking around free if they are a menace to society. But they shouldn't be six feet under. That's my point.
And just where do you think they should be?
Why should we keep murderers alive or on death row for more than a day? I ask these questions because to me, your point makes no sense.

[Free-Agent Smith]

And just out of curiosity, chilice, do you think that Charlse Manson, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Albert Fish, Jim Jones, Gary Ridgeway, Robert Hanson, Henry Lee Lucas, David Berkowitz, Jeffery Dahmer, Richard Ramirez and dozens of other murderers like them should be, or have been, kept alive too?

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Chileice

Lighthouse,
You have an inflated view of your own ideas. You rarely look beyond the surface of the issue, you often resort to ad homenims and you comment on absolutely everything which makes most of your comments virtually meaningless. If you listened better, spoke less and didn't take yourself so seriously... others would. So maybe not dim as in stupid, but dim as in unwise.
Idiot.

How's that for ad hominem?

Anyway...seriously:eek:, what makes you think I'm this way? Do you not realize that less than a year ago I was just like you? My beliefs have changed, Chileice. Because of scripture. Tolerance is not Christ-like. And it never was.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Chileice

You are right on OEJ. He had to be with them rather then condemn them from some distant ivory tower. There is a judgement, but he came to rub shoulders with us so that we could see we are loved and so that we would repent.
Don't forget that He showed us our need to repent, also. If He had not, we wouldn't have. And He did the same with the sinners He ate with.

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Idiot.

How's that for ad hominem?

Anyway...seriously:eek:, what makes you think I'm this way? Do you not realize that less than a year ago I was just like you? My beliefs have changed, Chileice. Because of scripture. Tolerance is not Christ-like. And it never was.

If Christ were intolerant, you would have had no hope. No
one would.

[Lighthouse]

:darwinsm:

Are you serious, Dave?

:darwinsm:

[Dave Miller]

yes

[Nineveh]

Dave will prolly ask this witch to come be a guest speaker at his church building if he hasn't already.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

If Christ were intolerant, you would have had no hope. No
one would.
Originally posted by John (John 7)
The Unbelief of Jesus' Brothers
1 After this, Jesus traveled in Galilee, since He did not want to travel in Judea because the Jews were trying to kill Him. 2 The Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, 3 so His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go to Judea so Your disciples can see Your works that You are doing. 4 For no one does anything in secret while he's seeking public recognition. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world." 5 (For not even His brothers believed in Him.)
6 Jesus told them, "My time has not yet arrived, but your time is always at hand. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it does hate Me because I testify about itthat its deeds are evil. 8 Go up to the festival yourselves. I'm not going up to the festival yet, because My time has not yet fully come." 9 After He had said these things, He stayed in Galilee.

Kind of interesting, isn't it, that Jesus' own brothers didn't believe him at first. But Jesus didn't toast them. He had patience and they later became James, the early head of the church and Jude. Hmmm, maybe the patience method has some merits.

Now isn't this intersting in the very next chapter:


Originally posted by John (John 8)
Jesus the Light of the World
1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 3Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?" 6This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
7So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." 8And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?"
11She said, "No one, Lord."
And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."
12Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."


I can just hear some TOLers yelling: chop her head off!! Nuke her, Jesus! You have to follow the OT law if you are God, let's get a pile of rocks! But you know, Jesus didn't lop her head off or stone her or anything else. He gave her a chance to change. He didn't even lop off the head of the disgraceful pighead that was having an affair with her... probably he seduced her to set up a trap for Jesus... what a disgraceful twit. But Jesus didn't go after him. Yes, he was tough on sin, but he was gentle with the sinners.

He was even gentle with the Pharisees becaus ehe had the power to destroy them. They were trying to kill him. He could have acted in legitimate self-defence. Still, he was patient with them, hoping that some would come to faith. And you know what? Many did. Look at these verses:
Originally posted by John
John 11.45 Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in Him. 46 But some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them the things Jesus did.

All through John we see an increasing number of Jews coming to him, even members of the Pharisees like Nicodemus. Then after his death we see this:
Originally posted by Luke
Acts 6

7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Now what if Jesus had just nuked all those no good rotten priests who led him to the cross? What about Saul? That scum-sucking Christian hater. He should have been eliminated for he was far more than a first-time offender. But God was patient and allowed him the time to repent. Will all repent? Heavens no! But do you and I know who will and who won't? We don't have a clue. So Dave is right on. And Dave is serious, Lighthouse. I'm sorry you don't take the scripture as seriously as he appears to. I'm sorry you let yourself get on board the satanic train of vengeance and hate. You were better off a year ago. How can so many be led astray by such an evil plot?

Yes, love is greater than tolerance. But tolerance is a Christian virtue... a Christ-like virtue. Jesus was the most tolerant man who walked the earth. He was perfection surrounded by a sea of imperfection and yet he tolerated it and loved us. He was power personified and yet he did not use it to beat anyone into submission. If Christ were intolerant... you would have no hope. I would have no hope. Hopelessness would reign supreme.




:help:

[Dave Miller]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Dave will prolly ask this witch to come be a guest speaker at his church building if he hasn't already.

Which witch? Which witch is whitch?

[firechyld]

lighthouse....

Anyone else agree with Zakath? That I'm dim?

You're a bright kid. But you act dim sometimes. That's why it's so frustrating when you do your "dense" routine... you're not actually stupid.

Chileice ...

You have an inflated view of your own ideas. You rarely look beyond the surface of the issue, you often resort to ad homenims and you comment on absolutely everything which makes most of your comments virtually meaningless. If you listened better, spoke less and didn't take yourself so seriously... others would. So maybe not dim as in stupid, but dim as in unwise.



lighthouse....

Idiot.

How's that for ad hominem?

Anyway...seriously, what makes you think I'm this way? Do you not realize that less than a year ago I was just like you? My beliefs have changed, Chileice. Because of scripture. Tolerance is not Christ-like. And it never was.

This is exactly the kind of thing that irks me. Chileice had some good advice for you there. Improving your communication skills hardly makes you change your beliefs... but it does stop you coming across as a jerk.

[aikido7]

My mother made me a child molester.

If I buy her the yarn, will she make me one, too?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by aikido7

My mother made me a child molester.

If I buy her the yarn, will she make me one, too?

Aikido, if you're going to post nonsense, do it in one of the spam threads.

[Lighthouse]

Christ did not tolerate sin. And He called sinners out. Are you all blind to this fact?!

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Aikido, if you're going to post nonsense, do it in one of the spam threads. He was joking?

[Free-Agent Smith]

I have never claimed to be innocent. I have been punished for my crimes. What makes you think that vengence and justice are the same thing?


Yes, a few have died for their first offence and I am sorry they couldn't control themselves enough before they commited the crime. I stood shoulder to shoulder with one guy, who happened to be white, that murdered another guy for being hispanic. He is now serving a 30 year sentence. Should he have been put to death? Yes. Why? Because he shot the man in the back of the head with a shotgun in a cornfield in the middle of the night without any provocation. My opinion isn't based on vengence. It's justice for the young man who died that night. Why should we keep the murderer alive? Why should citizens like me be forced to pay for the comforts of a prison cell for this man to live in for 30 years?

And just where do you think they should be?
Why should we keep murderers alive or on death row for more than a day? I ask these questions because to me, your point makes no sense.

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

And just out of curiosity, chilice, do you think that Charlse Manson, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Albert Fish, Jim Jones, Gary Ridgeway, Robert Hanson, Henry Lee Lucas, David Berkowitz, Jeffery Dahmer, Richard Ramirez and dozens of other murderers like them should be, or have been, kept alive too? I thought maybe you missed my posts to you.

[logos_x]

Brandon

What has gotten into you? You won't even hear what Cheleice has to say?

It has nothing to do with being right, or being wrong. It has to do with being who you are, in Him. And you aren't acting like yourself.
It doesn't ring true, and you come across as one of the hypocrites you are so fond of rebuking.

You become what you focus on.
If you can communicate without being an inconsiderate boob, then why act like one?
And don't try the "Jesus did it" bit....that dog won't hunt.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by logos_x

Brandon

What has gotten into you? You won't even hear what Cheleice has to say?

It has nothing to do with being right, or being wrong. It has to do with being who you are, in Him. And you aren't acting like yourself.
It doesn't ring true, and you come across as one of the hypocrites you are so fond of rebuking.

You become what you focus on.
If you can communicate without being an inconsiderate boob, then why act like one?
And don't try the "Jesus did it" bit....that dog won't hunt.
I have heard so much of what Chileice has said. I agree with him at times, but he's ignoring the truth, here. I used to believe exactly what he does. I now know I was wrong. I will not run form sinners, but I won't tolerate sin, either. And if they don't care about the truth, I'll shake the dust from my feet. I thought I knew who I was in Christ, but I was so farr off. Then I saw the scriptures that contradicted me. And I felt so free. I am dead to sin. The plank has been removed from my eye. And I can now see clearly to remove the speck from my brother's eye.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

I have never claimed to be innocent. I have been punished for my crimes. What makes you think that vengence and justice are the same thing?


Yes, a few have died for their first offence and I am sorry they couldn't control themselves enough before they commited the crime. I stood shoulder to shoulder with one guy, who happened to be white, that murdered another guy for being hispanic. He is now serving a 30 year sentence. Should he have been put to death? Yes. Why? Because he shot the man in the back of the head with a shotgun in a cornfield in the middle of the night without any provocation. My opinion isn't based on vengence. It's justice for the young man who died that night. Why should we keep the murderer alive? Why should citizens like me be forced to pay for the comforts of a prison cell for this man to live in for 30 years?

And just where do you think they should be?
Why should we keep murderers alive or on death row for more than a day? I ask these questions because to me, your point makes no sense.

Sorry for the delay but I have been quite busy. TOL is a fill in when I can thing. I don't think we are too far apart except on the death penalty. I don't think punishment is vengeance necessarily. But it can be. I think lots of times the death penalty is applied in cases in response to an overwhelming cry for vengeance. And I think it can be applied capriciously. And the worst part... if you are wrong, there is no recourse.

I don't think my tax dollars should be the driving force behind keeping a person alive. If that is the case, then abortion makes sense and so does euthanasia. It is certainly cheaper to abort than to support a welfare baby. And WAY cheaper to knock off some old grandpa before he sucks up my tax dollars on his long-term illness. The amount spent on keeping a few people in prison for the lon-term is nothing compared to what is spent on welfare and SS. But that is NOT a reason to allow abortion or euthanasia. At least it isn't for a pro-life person like myself.

God has saved many people in prison. Sometimes a man or woman has to come to the end of the rope before they allow God any room in their lives. There will be judgement for those who take the lives of another... even the life of a criminal. Life is sacred and I am not God. I will leave the determination of life and death to Him.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

I thought maybe you missed my posts to you.

As far as all those mass-murderers go... I certainly have a hard time letting them live. I am for them living based on principle.... not on any warm feeling I have toward them. I too am tempted to let my desire for vengeance get the best of me. But I still think letting them live is the God-honoring thing to do.

[Chileice]

Originally posted by lighthouse

I have heard so much of what Chileice has said. I agree with him at times, but he's ignoring the truth, here. I used to believe exactly what he does. I now know I was wrong. I will not run form sinners, but I won't tolerate sin, either. And if they don't care about the truth, I'll shake the dust from my feet. I thought I knew who I was in Christ, but I was so farr off. Then I saw the scriptures that contradicted me. And I felt so free. I am dead to sin. The plank has been removed from my eye. And I can now see clearly to remove the speck from my brother's eye.

When I was young, I let my zealouness ruin my relationship with my brother. He got into a cult group and I got into a very strict discipleship fellowship. We couldn't get together without argueing. So I just didn't get together with him. Later after I got out of college, got done criticizing all the luke-warm churches, got done trying to correct the whole world for how they could not be discipling everyone exactly how I was taught, I began to get in touch with my brother again. We had set up a time to get together for Christmas at my uncle's home and to spend a couple of weeks together and rebuild the relationship and actually enjoy one another again.

Well, it never happened. He was killed before it happened. The nice long letter I had written him was sitting by the door stamped and ready to go to the post office when my wife and I got the call. You see, lighthouse, you can love people even if you don't agree. And you had better well come to understand that before you have to live with the regret of being a hard-nose jerk in the name of God. The weird thing is, he had gotten out of the cult.... without my help. All my hardness did was ruin a relationship with someone I loved, and nothing can bring that back, not even all the "right doctrine" in the world. That's why I even bother with you, lighthouse. Because I see a lot of me in you. And I would love to help you avoid the amazing heartache of being right and killing love.
Originally posted by lighthouse
2 Corinthians 3
Christ's Epistle
The New Covenant Written on Hearts
1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need, as some others, epistles of commendation to you or letters of commendation from you? 2 You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3 clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.

The Spirit, Not the Letter
4 And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Maybe in this context, these verses will make sense to you. The letter can kill. In many things I was right, even back in college. But my spirit was hard-edged and cold and looking for a fight. That made the letter kill. When my spirit changed the same letter can now be shared in a life-giving way. Something to consider, my friend.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Chileice

As far as all those mass-murderers go... I certainly have a hard time letting them live. I am for them living based on principle.... not on any warm feeling I have toward them. I too am tempted to let my desire for vengeance get the best of me. But I still think letting them live is the God-honoring thing to do. How is it 'God-honoring' to ignore His Word: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." We have glorified murder to the point that children are committing murder, and people are getting away with murder. OJ Simpson and Bill Clinton are two of the most glaring examples. Letting people walk, who we know are guilty of murder is our fault, for not prosecuting them with everything possible to get them to justice.

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Chileice


I don't think my tax dollars should be the driving force behind keeping a person alive. If that is the case, then abortion makes sense and so does euthanasia. It is certainly cheaper to abort than to support a welfare baby. And WAY cheaper to knock off some old grandpa before he sucks up my tax dollars on his long-term illness. The amount spent on keeping a few people in prison for the lon-term is nothing compared to what is spent on welfare and SS. But that is NOT a reason to allow abortion or euthanasia. At least it isn't for a pro-life person like myself.

God has saved many people in prison. Sometimes a man or woman has to come to the end of the rope before they allow God any room in their lives. There will be judgement for those who take the lives of another... even the life of a criminal. Life is sacred and I am not God. I will leave the determination of life and death to Him.

I don't support abortion, euthanasia, welfare nor d