| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
Sadly, the box is completely unnecessary. I do understand your point. Agree to a great extent. but.... some teaching about how to treat others that is generally agreeable is not a completely bad idea.. Can be a horrible one. I obviously reject the top down "this is how you act, what your must do, and when how and what you must pray, on this schedule, every moment of your life by the Law written by One Man who claimed God Told Him So" Religions. My choice, and thus those religions automatically put me under Death sentence. ( which pretty much sums up that argument, eh? ) But perhaps, a simple, "Evil is hurting others unnecessarily." can be agreed on by most? That's as restrictive a box as I'd urge. | ||
| Mackja |
The premise is wrong. It has only been over the last 300-400 years that civil governments got involved in marriage. In the west marriage was solely the realm of the Church, only when John Calvin wrote his Geneva Accords did we see any involvement of civil government. Prior to the Christian era it was the community that recognized marriage. Second it is necessary to understand what marriage is for, once we establish that then we know what it is (classical thought and reason). Marriage is for the building up of the family to build up the state (this understanding goes back way before the Christian era). This is what marriage is for, this can only happen through the relationship between man and woman period the end. Weather a heterosexual couple can or cannot have children is not even relevant, stupid statement. If a couple does not chose to have children the marriage is not fulfilling its prime function and brings up other issues. The argument of equality is also a real week position, same sex relationship cannot do what heterosexual relationship can, bring forth life. The unions are unequal in capacity and can never be equal. Civil unions are a totally different issue, and this is the way this issue should be dealt with. Give committed couples in recognized legal civil unions the same benefits as married couples. Marriage is preserved as to what it really is, and legal recognition avails itself to those who choose same sex relationships. | ||
| Mackja |
Yup man does mess it up, but if we did not mess it up from the beginning, we would not need religion, because we would be in paradise in harmony with God! But we screwed it up and screw ups seek out God to try and get it right, each person has his own capacity to understand (box created) and has to live within that capacity. One thing to realize is that their are absolute objective truths, unfortunately society is trying to force objective truth to be subjective, wow we are so screwed up!! | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
My argument regarding marriage is that ALL marriages be deemed "civil unions". Strait, homosexual. Ultimately, it's the governmental recognition of the union that is in question. It is the dissolution of property in question as to government's interest. The moral aspects of marriage are and should be completely beyond the scope of government. When offered "civil unions", gays and lesbians declined. While these civil unions would have all the government recognition of dissolution of property, it was the societal and moral recognition that was desired. I do not believe that homosexuality is the worst sin man can commit. I do not believe that homosexuality and salvation are mutually exclusive. I do believe that continuing a sin, unrepented, makes a restored relationship with God problematic. I have a hard time believing a serial adulterer is in a restored relationship with God. I have a hard time believing a pathological liar is in a restored relationship with God. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. | ||
| Aesquire |
A well reasoned argument, historically correct, ... and it seems we mostly agree, even coming at it from different directions. Too many points of agreement, so..   Btw, I heard a version of Depeche Mode's "Personal Jesus" the other day, with a really nice heavy drum part. I suspect that this song can be taken as the surface hucksterism, and anti-religious, or as a simple call to reach out.... depending on how you approach it. I have no idea what Depeche Mode's original thought was, but.... I went looking for it this evening and I find this song has been covered by Marilyn Manson. ??? And I find his visuals to push the dark side of the song, and he's deliberately offensive, which is his schtick. ( annoying the parents sells records ) Musically, it's not bad, and I find watching girls in lingerie ride mechanical bulls slowly pleasant. Only look for it if you're a fan of Manson. I also found this very nice live version from the original band. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2GEOcEcRtY But this is the version I thought best here, in the spirit of seeking truth. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
To circle back on the box discussion. From that I am NOT saying cooperative worship. "not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing" I don't know that God cares whether or not you spritz or dunk. I don't know that God cares whether you use grape juice or wine. I don't know that God cares whether or not women wear pants or skirts. To me these items are simply parsley around the stake. Differences without distinctions. It isn't until you have true differences in core beliefs that those differences become distinctions. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. | ||
| Aesquire |
Ok. I agree, and won't comment on Christian sects I don't know the details of. I do have 3 funny stories about scaring away those nice folk that come to your door to save your soul. One is personal experience, one from a friend and his wife, who I trust, and one is probably apocryphal. A group of college students rented an old farmhouse, that had a trap door to the basement in the kitchen... One day the student studying in the living room is interrupted by his room mate, who runs down from upstairs, yells, "Let them in! Take them to the Kitchen! Keep them talking!...Just Do IT!" and runs into the kitchen... The doorbell rings and the bewildered student invites in the Nice Folk, and takes them to the kitchen and offers them coffee or drinks. A few minutes later, the trap door slams open, his room mate naked from the waist up, wearing a black hood. Who then yells, "Damn it Zoltan! It was your turn to clean the altar!" then dives back into the basement, slamming the trap door behind him. The Nice Folk ran away........ | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
True story. I was standing in my garage when two folks of the door knocker variety (usually Mormon or Jehovah's Witnesses) rolled up. I just happened to be cleaning my pistol and turned around to find them staring at me. They didn't say a word, they just turned and continued walking down the sidewalk. Was a bit funny. | ||
| 86129squids |
I can add one... I worked in downtown Knoxvegas with a motley crewe of interesting peeps, one I would classify as an idiot/savant, but certainly more of the latter. The city block where we worked was infested weekly with one or more street preachers, who found it their duty to HOLLER/preach their take on the Bible every Saturday afternoon. Often with amplification... My friend, who was generally a very eloquent and well spoken guy, decided enough was enough one day. He took up station on the opposite corner, and took up the Little/Brown handbook, and proceeded to preach every bit as loudly of the sins of using bad English. Street preacher had a weird day that day.  | ||
| Mackja |
Their is only one way to restore our relationship with God, that is through repentance, and penance. The repentant must approach God with a contrite heart, with a true desire to repent for their sins, and work hard not to repeat them. Their are people who suffer form habitual sins, and this is a huge struggle, but the same thing goes, you have to stop. To participate in a mortal sin (sins that will bring you to death 1st John 5) with no desire to repent, means you have no desire to restore the relationship with God or the community (Church) and risk loosing salvation. We know this is the normal way, but then their is God's mercy, but falling back on that as your life preserver is dangerous. This notion of my relationship with my God is also a dangerous one, it causes us to conform God to our will. Instead we understand he is our God that I am in a relationship with. I must conform to His will, this is what is meant by conversion. You can't have Christianity on your own terms, by ourselves, that fly's totally against the reason for Christ coming in the first place. Christianity is a communal, because humanity is communal, Christ is the Church, we are the body, for the body to function it must come together. This is also the same reason their is only one Church, man has broke the unity God asked for (I prey Father that they may all be one as I am in you and you are in me) the devision have done great harm to the body of Christ, one church with 33,000 denominations crazy. Logic dictates their can only be one truth for if their is more than one truth their is no truth at all. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
All sins are mortal sins. | ||
| Mackja |
Not so, 1st John 5:16-17 16 If a man knows his brother to be guilty, yet not of such a sin as brings death with it, he should pray for him; and, at his request, life will be granted to the brother who is sinning, yet not fatally. There is a sin which kills; it is not over this that I bid him fall to prayer.[4] 17 Sin may be wrong-doing of any kind; not all sin is fatal. | ||
| Tankhead |
Logic dictates their can only be one truth for if their is more than one truth their is no truth at all. First of all it is "there" not "their" Logic? Really? Logic has nothing to do with anything you have typed yet. Please do not use that word when speaking of any of this nonsense below. You seem brainwashed. I honestly feel sorry for you and the punishment you torture yourself with. Ask yourself why it has to be this difficult and sacrifice,repentance, and penance. Salvation: you do these things not because they are the logical thing to do but because you want salvation? Seems not that genuine. Their is only one way to restore our relationship with God, that is through repentance, and penance. The repentant must approach God with a contrite heart, with a true desire to repent for their sins, and work hard not to repeat them. Their are people who suffer form habitual sins, and this is a huge struggle, but the same thing goes, you have to stop. To participate in a mortal sin (sins that will bring you to death 1st John 5) with no desire to repent, means you have no desire to restore the relationship with God or the community (Church) and risk loosing salvation. We know this is the normal way, but then their is God's mercy, but falling back on that as your life preserver is dangerous. This notion of my relationship with my God is also a dangerous one, it causes us to conform God to our will. Instead we understand he is our God that I am in a relationship with. I must conform to His will, this is what is meant by conversion. You can't have Christianity on your own terms, by ourselves, that fly's totally against the reason for Christ coming in the first place. Christianity is a communal, because humanity is communal, Christ is the Church, we are the body, for the body to function it must come together. This is also the same reason their is only one Church, man has broke the unity God asked for (I prey Father that they may all be one as I am in you and you are in me) the devision have done great harm to the body of Christ, one church with 33,000 denominations crazy. Logic dictates their can only be one truth for if their is more than one truth their is no truth at all. (Message edited by tankhead on May 20, 2015) | ||
| Mackja |
No I am not brainwashed and I most certainly am not putting myself through any torture lol. I am quite happy with my life. This is a blog where each of us has the opportunity to comment on a subject as we understand it, if you have an opposing view or don't agree with what I post I most certainly respect that. Please expand on what you have a problem with. It is hard to articulate some of these issues with out getting long winded, I try to be short and as direct as I can be. I am open to criticism and discussion. I believe my positions are reasonable from a Christian point of view. Discussion is the exchanging of ideas and thoughts. PAX | ||
| Tankhead |
Man I don't want to sound rude. I am sorry if it came across that way. Brainwashed as if you are not thinking clearly... for instance you wrote: Yup man does mess it up, but if we did not mess it up from the beginning, we would not need religion, because we would be in paradise in harmony with God! Which to me is a silly non objective thing to say. All conjecture and faith based: subjective. Besides: You wouldn't have been born to enjoy paradise because Adam and Eve would never have needed to have children. And who did the children marry again if they were the only onnes on the planet?? How does that work? And then you write this: One thing to realize is that their are absolute objective truths, unfortunately society is trying to force objective truth to be subjective, wow we are so screwed up!! THERE!!! THE WORD IS THERE. Anyway, Your whole premise before that is subjective, but yet you think that society is trying to force objective truth(?) to be subjective. Nothing logical in the two above statements. Help me understand what you are trying to say. (Message edited by tankhead on May 20, 2015) (Message edited by tankhead on May 20, 2015) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all." "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God." Venial or Mortal, our human sin nature has doomed us. A child doesn't have to be taught to lie, to steal to cheat to covet. It's ingrained in our human nature. As such any sin, venial or Mortal, separates man from God. The distinction is irrelevant. | ||
| Mackja |
Off the hip shot, I am at work for 13 hours a day, and can just get to post here and there, yes if man in the beginning would have been obedient to God, our history would be totally different. I don't follow why Adam and Eve would not need to have children, humanity must move forward or not exist. God did not give any indication that woman would not have children, he said that child birth would be painful. I infer that to mean in paradise child birth would not have any pain, but children would be born. There are objective truths (man must have air and water to live)and their are subjective truths (two people in a room, one says "I am freezing" while the other one is hot) relativism is the problem, classical thought looks at what something is by what it is for, this is built on reason, observation and logic. Relativistic thought takes something that is and makes it what someone wants it to be, with no reason at all. These to schools of thought are not compatible, and this is the problem. One side reasons objective truth and the other takes that truth and makes it subjective. Abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia are the issues at hand today. Other things come into play, such as natural law, moral law, but relativism does not recognize natural law or moral law as objective truth, relativism is subjective. Maybe this will show what I am trying to say. | ||
| Tankhead |
Nope. I got nothing out of it. No idea what you are trying to say. I will say that the idea of having a rib taken from me and turned into the women that I will be having sex with for the rest of my life is very creepy and strange though. | ||
| Mackja |
FT bstrd, everything you stated is correct, except the distinction is relevant. Sitting around with the guys doing some trash talk about my lap times which I exaggerated about is a sin, it is a lie, but this will not prevent me from entering to the kingdom of heaven, on the other hand if I am an abortion mill doctor, killing children left and right, if I do not fully repent of those sins before I die, other than the mercy of God I will not enter into the kingdom. This is where purgatory comes in, I know this is a stumbling block for many, this is just how I understand it. | ||
| Reepicheep |
He's not a tame lion. I expect some of the stuff I feel the worst about is stuff that God laughs about, and some of the stuff I never batted an eyebrow over makes God weep for me. Which is another way of saying I am, in the whole scope of things, not actually that bright.  | ||
| Mackja |
I do not take the creation narrative literal, as science reveals provable truth to us, I believe those things in scripture must be looked at as allegory, the truth of God creating all things visible and invisible does not change. While many Christian's are fundamentalist and think scripture must be believed literally, most do not. Some will say "the bible says" most will say "the bible means", for me the meaning is what is the most important, how God went about it is not a real concern and no bearing on our salvation. I don't know how else to put it. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The existence of Purgatory is an area we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's a distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism. An existence of purgatory would imply that Jesus' sacrifice was insufficient to provide grace for all sins. As a hypothetical, if I stepped on a land mine and blasphemed just prior to death, I would have committed a venial sin and while not condemning myself to hell would have condemned myself to Purgatory. | ||
| Tankhead |
But didn't you just correct ftbastard with the literal words of mortal sin? Do you or can you understand my confusion? | ||
| Tankhead |
That is directed at mackja. | ||
| Tankhead |
Ft bstrd can't you see how silly all I'd this is. If I do this and don't do that but I do this two times while walking backwards..... to silly for an intelligent guy like you | ||
| Tankhead |
All of this is | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
What is the source of morality? From where is morality derived? Who determines what is moral and what is not? Is morality consistent with evolution? By that, I mean is living a moral life counterproductive to evolutionary forces? If so, are human beings excluded from evolutionary processes? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Tank, I agree completely. It's the difference between religion and a relationship. I'm not interested in theological gotcha clauses, trap door damnation. The equation is fairly simple. Men make it complicated. | ||
| Tankhead |
Lap times are lies and abortion is killing both are sins. Who told you one is worse than the other? Who? Where do you get this Wisdom from? You don't take the bible literally, only sometimes, when you need to make a point. So I hope you understand my confusion? | ||
| Tankhead |
But where did you get the equation? |
