Topic: God's Will??? (Read 34035 times)

12AX7 · « **Reply #25 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:04:02 AM »

Quote from: ivan on June 28, 2007, 10:56:58 AM

However, those contradictions are not part of these people's arguments.

That's why I presented the opportunity for clarification. You did mean Christian, right?
There seem to be two different lines of communication going on; some of us are equating
"religious" with "Christian", and others (ok; maybe just me) are equating "religious" with "religious".

hackess · « **Reply #26 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:06:42 AM »

Quote from: xolik on June 28, 2007, 10:23:16 AM

There is that one sect that does exactly this, but the name of it escapes me for the moment. They don't take medicine of any kind and rely on prayer to every little medical irritation. But on the other hand, there are many reputiable hospitals that are run by religious groups. St. Joseph's in Burbank comes to mind. They're an excellent hospital. And there's always the Cedars option if you're Jewish. So yeah, it is ignorant to state that when it comes to religion and science\medicine they are mutually exclusive to each other.

Not the Jehovah's Witnesses? No blood transfusions? Nothing that would put anything that used to be part of some other living thing into their bodies so they're perfect for their entrance to the Kingdom?

12AX7 · « **Reply #27 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:09:56 AM »

Also, you dont have to go any further than the Bible to find those glaring contradictions. It is a sin to kill someone; but it's ok to put them to death for, say, adultery.

Vespertine · « **Reply #28 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:10:33 AM »

Someone needs to point me to the bible passages that state that abortion is a sin. To my memory (and my memory could very well be flawed), the bible has people being punished to death for a wide variety of infractions. When it comes to abortion, I seem to recall something about "if a man causes a woman to lose the child she carries he shall make a remittance to her spouse of <insert types and quanitites of animals here>". A fine? That's it? You can get stoned to death for cutting your hair, but causing a woman to abort gets you a fine. If I'm not remembering that correctly, by all means, someone let me know.

Vespertine · « **Reply #29 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:11:39 AM »

Quote from: catwritr on June 28, 2007, 11:06:42 AM

Not the Jehovah's Witnesses? No blood transfusions? Nothing that would put anything that used to be part of some other living thing into their bodies so they're perfect for their entrance to the Kingdom?

You're right about the Jehova's Witnesses, but I thing xolik might have been referring to the Christian Scientists.

12AX7 · « **Reply #30 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:13:49 AM »

Quote from: Vespertine on June 28, 2007, 11:10:33 AM

Someone needs to point me to the bible passages that state that abortion is a sin. To my memory (and my memory could very well be flawed), the bible has people being punished to death for a wide variety of infractions. When it comes to abortion, I seem to recall something about "if a man causes a woman to lose the child she carries he shall make a remittance to her spouse of <insert types and quanitites of animals here>". A fine? That's it? You can get stoned to death for cutting your hair, but causing a woman to abort gets you a fine. If I'm not remembering that correctly, by all means, someone let me know.

Because back in the day, men OWNED your ass. You didnt have the right to take action (cut your hair), but he did (beat the hell outta you for ...whatever).

xolik · « **Reply #31 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:19:29 AM »

Quote from: Vespertine on June 28, 2007, 11:11:39 AM

You're right about the Jehova's Witnesses, but I thing xolik might have been referring to the Christian Scientists.

That's them! I wish they wouldn't call themselves that.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #32 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:26:14 AM »

Yeah, sounds too much like scientologists.

ivan · « **Reply #33 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:31:47 AM »

Folks, all the death penalty stuff in the Old Testament does not contradict a Christian's belief that killing is a sin. The whole point of Christianity is that the Old Testament is... well, old. It's history. It's part of old, pre-Christian judaic tradition. Christ challenged the old beliefs and proposed a new doctrine. Believing in Christ's way is what makes one a Christian. A Christian who uses the Old Testament's eye-for-an-eye doctrine (something that Christ specifically challenged) to justify violence is guilty, at best, of ignorance and illogic, and at worst of outright blasphemy. But try telling that to the holier-than-thou pro-death penalty anti-abortionist soi-disant Christians.

Christ had nothing to say about abortion per se, but he was pretty specific about the non-violence and non-judging thing (although he did sort of freak out over the money traders at the temple). I think it's impossible to honestly reconcile the death penalty with Christ's teachings; but it's also impossible to reconcile killing anyone. As soon as the notion is introduced that a fetus is a person, killing it becomes a sin. And, like I mentioned earlier, the notion that a fetus is a person is a thoroughly modern concept. So the fact that abortion isn't specifically mentioned by Christ does not mean it's ok for a Christian to take the life of an unborn child.

12AX7 · « **Reply #34 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:37:58 AM »

Neither is it ok to kill an opposing soldier. My grandfather explained this (he was a Methodist minister, BTW) to me as a "lesser of two evils" model. What if one has to choose between killing one man, or letting an entire platoon be killed?
Sometimes the lesser of two (or more) evils must be chosen; I believe this could apply to abortion in some select cases.

-edit: which is the sort of reason I don't follow the common "Christian" (religion) model; though most of my beliefs are based therein.

ivan · « **Reply #35 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:44:25 AM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on June 28, 2007, 11:37:58 AM

Neither is it ok to kill an opposing soldier. My grandfather explained this (he was a Methodist minister, BTW) to me as a "lesser of two evils" model. What if one has to choose between killing one man, or letting an entire platoon be killed?
Sometimes the lesser of two (or more) evils must be chosen; I believe this could apply to abortion in some select cases.

-edit: which is the sort of reason I don't follow the common "Christian" (religion) model; though most of my beliefs are based therein.

Yeah, life if full of difficult choices. I don't know how people can take a bead on an enemy soldier without having to kill something inside themselves.

But I do know that a true Christian would not send his country into a pre-emptive war.

12AX7 · « **Reply #36 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:46:39 AM »

No, but one might choose what they honestly thought was the lesser of two evils, easily. Either party.

ivan · « **Reply #37 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:48:13 AM »

You'd make a fine Christian, 12AX7. And I mean that as a sincere compliment.

12AX7 · « **Reply #38 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:49:01 AM »

Quote from: ivan on June 28, 2007, 11:44:25 AM

I don't know how people can take a bead on an enemy soldier without having to kill something inside themselves.

It's more of a shut off, or suspension, if you will. Trust me; life is much more precious after the experience.

12AX7 · « **Reply #39 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:49:45 AM »

Quote from: ivan on June 28, 2007, 11:48:13 AM

You'd make a fine Christian, 12AX7. And I mean that as a sincere compliment.

Why thanks. I do take that as a compliment.

TheJudge · « **Reply #40 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:51:47 AM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on June 28, 2007, 11:37:58 AM

Neither is it ok to kill an opposing soldier. My grandfather explained this (he was a Methodist minister, BTW) to me as a "lesser of two evils" model. What if one has to choose between killing one man, or letting an entire platoon be killed?

But if God's will is not to kill others, then isn't logical that in a "kill or be killed" scenario, God simply wants you dead?

12AX7 · « **Reply #41 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:52:41 AM »

Heh. In that ideal world there wouldn't be any soldiers, Judge.

You know, since "God's will is not to kill others" would apply to everybody...

ivan · « **Reply #42 on:** June 28, 2007, 11:59:49 AM »

Exactly.

RelandR · « **Reply #43 on:** June 28, 2007, 12:01:26 PM »

Application of Old testament stuff, loophole - take 1:

(from memory, words to this effect)::

"... Think not that I am come into the world to change the old law, yay verily I say unto thee that not one jot nor tittle of the law shall diminish until all things be fulfilled ..."

The gist of all the explanations I've ever heard seem to hold that what Christ really meant here was that even though the law doesn't change, [seeming] errors in [the old laws] are merely mis-interpretations that were "cleared up" in His teachings. Therefore some laws are verbatim and others were, well, misunderstood all along ... but you have to read deep in between the lines, (and it helps to have the spiritual gift of insight), to ferret out the difference.

That thinking gives way for more choices than a Chinese menu.

RelandR · « **Reply #44 on:** June 28, 2007, 12:12:23 PM »

Quote from: ivan on June 28, 2007, 11:44:25 AM

...
But I do know that a true Christian would not send his country into a pre-emptive war.

... yes, I've heard somewhere that Christians don't believe in killing for convenience ...
To break that rule should in the least make the culprit guilty of negligent homicide I should think.

... how many thousands of counts would that be again ?

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #45 on:** June 28, 2007, 12:13:19 PM »

Quote from: xolik on June 28, 2007, 10:23:16 AM

There is that one sect that does exactly this, but the name of it escapes me for the moment. They don't take medicine of any kind and rely on prayer to every little medical irritation. But on the other hand, there are many reputiable hospitals that are run by religious groups. St. Joseph's in Burbank comes to mind. They're an excellent hospital. And there's always the Cedars option if you're Jewish. So yeah, it is ignorant to state that when it comes to religion and science\medicine they are mutually exclusive to each other.

What do you mean 'sometimes?' Back in the OT days, that was pretty much how He rolled.

That's called 'Christian Science'.

ivan · « **Reply #46 on:** June 28, 2007, 12:13:56 PM »

.

Quote from: RelandR on June 28, 2007, 12:01:26 PM

Application of Old testament stuff, loophole - take 1:

(from memory, words to this effect)::

"... Think not that I am come into the world to change the old law, yay verily I say unto thee that not one jot nor tittle of the law shall diminish until all things be fulfilled ..."

The gist of all the explanations I've ever heard seem to hold that what Christ really meant here was that even though the law doesn't change, [seeming] errors in [the old laws] are merely mis-interpretations that were "cleared up" in His teachings. Therefore some laws are verbatim and others were, well, misunderstood all along ... but you have to read deep in between the lines, (and it helps to have the spiritual gift of insight), to ferret out the difference.

That thinking gives way for more choices than a Chinese menu.

"...You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you."

The tough part for a true follower of Christ is to stand idle in the face of violence. "Turn the other cheek" was a serious admonition. Christ was very hard-nosed about it. But also remember, Christ's paramount directive was to follow him. It is a life-changing decision. One was to abandon one's family and friends and walk the path. I think he was calling for exactly the kind of world that 12AX7 evoked: a world without violence.

Real Christianity, the way Christ meant it, is not very compatible with everyday life. Economies would probably collapse. Also, it would be seen as a cult

12AX7 · « **Reply #47 on:** June 28, 2007, 12:18:03 PM »

Quote from: ivan on June 28, 2007, 12:13:56 PM

I think he was calling for exactly the kind of world that 12AX7 evoked: a world without violence.

Real Christianity, the way Christ meant it, is not very compatible with everyday life. Economies would probably collapse. Also, it would be seen as a cult

I think He really just wanted us to strive for it; the faith part comes into play because you know you'll never get there.
But you're right; it is not compatible with today's ways.

--edit for clarity: talkin bout Jesus now; not teh God.

RelandR · « **Reply #48 on:** June 28, 2007, 12:20:51 PM »

If only the sermon on the mount constituted the bulk of the treatise, we'd have another great shangra-la formula.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #49 on:** June 28, 2007, 12:29:00 PM »

Well, it wouldn't be practical unless it had a 100% (and fast) conversion rate. Apart from one or two quotes, Jesus seems like a pretty damn on the ball dude who was many years in advance of his time (probably still in advance of many people today in my opinion), and aside from not believing in his dad I'd say that a lot of what he taught is present in the way I comport myself. Jehovah is a psycho, no buts about it. There are dozens of sites giving quotes (taken out of context yes, but that doesn't really help Him in most cases) that support claims to his barbarism and sadism and I need not regale you with copy/pastes here. The point is, He must have really gotten his act together after He had a son. I mean, let's say that the Old Testament is basically a chronical of His early adventures, his college years if you will. He's tailgating on weekends, blowing up cities, what have you, he's living it the Hell up! But then in the sequel, he's obviously settled down a bit and HOLY SHIT, his son is a HIPPIE!

Jesus is everything that Jehovah isn't. He hangs out with bums, hookers and tax collectors in direct conflict with the elders of the day. He promotes non-violence and being nice to everybody. He's a do-unto-others kinda guy, while His Skydaddy has nothing but contempt for all who have a slightly different opinion on things than he does.

There should be a thread about Pacifism actually. Crap, I'm SOCing...sorry guys, I forgot where I was going with this...hopefully I already made a point of some sort.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: God's Will??? (Read 34035 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7