A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

[Guest]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] Jedi would not have anything to do

Since when does Jedi need something or someone to help her find something to do or say? I have thought on many occasions that you are probably getting more attention than you deserve. [/qb]

That's not my fault darling. [/qb]

Next time you get a chance look at who started this thread. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Guest]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by accepted:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] [b]

You answer just endorses the christian moral standards as foundational to the constitutional language, for while the founders were determined not to superimpose a particular doctrine of God in the constitution their writings all ascribe to the reality of God in the making and keeping of this nation.


{Fledgist: Assertion without proof.}

{Jedi: BALD FACED DENIAL!}

Again where can you find any culture where the morals are not based on the foundational religious leanings of the people making up that culture?


{Fledgist: China.}

[/qb]

HAAAAAA! now this is rich, here is the professor asserting that the people of China having to live under the dictatorship of a communist government have adopted their morals from Karl Marx.

[Mutty]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb] Jedi I find this interesting:


{Jedi: Actually it went more like this..."Lead the people into the land knowing that they were less than capable of defeating their foes... and then go before them and slay their opponents this way the world would know that they were God's chosen people and He was the one and only Almighty God."}

So you really feel that there was no other way, huh?

Now as far as I can tell, Israel was the aggresor. The only foe they had were the ones they themselves created - the Canaanites. The Canaanites did not dclare war on them, bother them oe entice them to war. It was Israel who first scandalized them (the propoganda), then tried under Moses to not force the people out of the land, but to actually exterminate them off the face of the earth because God said so. Granted, there may have been truth to the matter that they were some vile people (if the bible is to be believed and is not just a propaganda tool), but they were not bothering Israel with it and with thinking like that, it sets a bad precedent that if you or I find something revolting, we can, with God's approval, eliminate it like say an abortion clinic with a nice home made bomb. After all, the Egyptians were not choirboys either. [/qb]

Seems to me some men sailing in boats came to this side of the world and exterminated a whole bunch of people who were going about their merry affairs worshipping their gods on totem poles and sending up smoke signals to one another. Now 2000 odd years later here we are you and I arguing about God's blood thirsty ways over the internet of all things. Food for thought huh? [/qb]

Well these 'men' did indeed use god and religion as their basis for stealing and killing...er, converting these heathens and saving their souls through death. Now I'm sure all of us would discount their claim that god wanted them to do this, but when Israel did it in the name of God and documented these acts in the holy bible, it is accepted as simply being the will of god. This is one reason why in the other thread I present the scenario that perhaps God is NOT at fault, but rather, Israel like the Spanish Conquistadors or Crusaders of Europe before them who committed the heinous acts and claimed they did these things in the name of god or with his blessing. What makes Israel's claim to slaughters and slavery acceptable as opposed to say, the "Christian" Europeans?

[Fledgist]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by accepted:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb] [b]

You answer just endorses the christian moral standards as foundational to the constitutional language, for while the founders were determined not to superimpose a particular doctrine of God in the constitution their writings all ascribe to the reality of God in the making and keeping of this nation.


{Fledgist: Assertion without proof.}

{Jedi: BALD FACED DENIAL!}


{Fledgist: No such thing. Of course, I expect shrieking from you.}

Again where can you find any culture where the morals are not based on the foundational religious leanings of the people making up that culture?


{Fledgist: China.}

[/qb]

HAAAAAA! now this is rich, here is the professor asserting that the people of China having to live under the dictatorship of a communist government have adopted their morals from Karl Marx. [/qb]

Please tell me where I said this. I said no such thing.

[Fledgist]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by WitchyOoman:
[qb] Fledgist, how much will you charge me for a "thinking-contract"? [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] I want to pay you quarterly, and have you do ALL my thinking FOR me here on j'com - okay? How much and how often must I pay you for your services, then? [img]/forums/images/graemlins/704555_dwl.gif[/img] I wanna hire you with a signed contract before everybody else does... [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]


(Damn embarrassing typos. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] ) [/qb]

For you, madam, my per horam rate would be moderate.

[JesusDread]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Greetings! As usual this board is always full of eloquent writers and thinkers. It’s just a pity so many of you are sooo wrong regardless how intellectual you seem to be.

First let’s get the real meaning of what sin is. Sin literally means error; therefore anything that can be deemed as wrong could be classified as sin.

The debate about what is sin and what is not can be simplified by this analogy.

1. If there is no god, then there is no guilt in sin or literally no such thing as sin.

2. If you aren’t sure if there is a God then sin will be defined by your conscience.

3. If there is a God then we are all guilty of sin and need to get right with Him. Therefore just because you know God or claim to follow Him doesn’t exclude you from sin, it only assures you of the opportunity to be forgiven or redeemed.

Whichever opinion you choose will be by the liberty of your free will and any consequences attached to your decision will be your responsibility if and when there ever comes a time to pay up.

If there was no God then whatever we do or think will never matter in the long run.

Now if there is a God, and it is my opinion that there is along with the vast majority of human beings, then what you or I think does not determine what sin is or isn’t. To know what sin is would mean you have to know what God says sin is.

If you deviate from what the One and True God classifies as sin then you are standing in line to be paid its wages which is spiritual death. You can’t blame God for man’s sin because He gave us a free will to choose and our choice determines where we will end up when we depart this world for the spiritual realm.

Now my limited knowledge of God has led me to know and accept the God of Abraham and Isaac, Jacob and Moses, and His only begotten Son Jesus as being the only true authority on what sin is and how to free myself from its bondage. I am quite confident that I am right and that many boardies may take offense to this because it threatens their belief structure.

As I said, being that my beliefs are right, then it only shows that those that don’t come to know God will never be forgiven of their sins because they will never have repented of them to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is the only one who forgives sin and is the only way to eternal life.

So while opinions may come and go as will the debates on what is good and what isn’t, God is true and eternal and I have a heavy heart for all mockers, false worshipers and atheists. My advice is try and find a good bible teaching church and stop debating what is already set in stone, GOD IS REAL and so is SALVATION FROM SIN in JESUS!

PS If I don’t reply to any of your rebuttals it is not that I am ignoring your rants and ravings, I might just be off-line. Peace!

[accepted77]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb] Jedi I find this interesting:


{Jedi: Actually it went more like this..."Lead the people into the land knowing that they were less than capable of defeating their foes... and then go before them and slay their opponents this way the world would know that they were God's chosen people and He was the one and only Almighty God."}

So you really feel that there was no other way, huh?

Now as far as I can tell, Israel was the aggresor. The only foe they had were the ones they themselves created - the Canaanites. The Canaanites did not dclare war on them, bother them oe entice them to war. It was Israel who first scandalized them (the propoganda), then tried under Moses to not force the people out of the land, but to actually exterminate them off the face of the earth because God said so. Granted, there may have been truth to the matter that they were some vile people (if the bible is to be believed and is not just a propaganda tool), but they were not bothering Israel with it and with thinking like that, it sets a bad precedent that if you or I find something revolting, we can, with God's approval, eliminate it like say an abortion clinic with a nice home made bomb. After all, the Egyptians were not choirboys either. [/qb]

Mutty if i recall and I am speaking without access to the bible. If I recall Abraham actually conquered the land from the five Kings and gave it back to them because the timing was not right for God to punish these people "the abominations of the Caananites had not yet run its course".

The land belonged to Abraham by conquest as he had to deliver Lot from these five Kings and refused any tribute from them. My memory tells me that God used Joseph to deliver Egypt and used Egypt to teach these tribal people to be a nation. He moved them out when the political tide turned against them and they status went from honoured citizens to slaves.

The land issue is still with us today the Isrealites claimed the land by inheritance and conquests rights. To them the caananites were squaters while they were in exile in Egypt. That these people were abominations, Zumins and Anakins (giants), were a stumblingblock to the Isrealites these people were feared, it took faith to rout them.
Some unnatural breeding had taken place to produce these giants it was the nature of that evil that gave faith and allayed the fears of the Isrealites to subdue and clean the land of these aliens.

The two people could not exist their differing constrasts would not allow it. To the victor went the spoils. This is the biblical story.

[accepted77]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fledgist:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by accepted:

Originally posted by Fledgist:


Fledgist:
The reality is that the legal systems of Western civilisation developed from two sources: customary law and Roman law. English Common Law, as it developed over the centuries, began with judges applying custom and setting precedents on that basis -- which means that some practices enshrined in law today date back to the legal practices of the Germanic tribes. The Roman civil code system is itself simply the codification of a legal tradition going back to the establishment of Rome, with possible roots in Etruscan legal practice. Roman influence is notable in another respect, namely that the profession of law originated in the Roman Republic.

All of this either predates Christianity, or developed independently from it.

Fledgist?
Would you have us all believe that the christian influence on the Law is less significant than the customary Germanic origins?
Kindly explain why buggery in English law is still a crime or why up untill this year it was still a criminal offense here in the U.S?.
Why is adultery still a crime under English law?

Are these examples of germanic custom?.

What about the mideval habbit of putting animals on trial for murder was that based on Germanic customs or was it a careless interpretation of the biblical view of Baalam on the ***, where the *** spoke to announce an angel blocked the way?.

Mideval interpretation ascribed gifts of discernment to animals which "implied" spiritual awareness and by extension souls. So a donkey kicking a man to death was put on trial for murder.

Was this germanic culture?.

Fledgist, you are much too learned to deny the heavy bias towards biblical law in our criminal Justce system.

Fledgist,
The only significant relationship is that Roman legal practice and the Latin language were preserved as organisational tools by the Roman Catholic Church, which, as Thomas Hobbes said, 'is but the ghost of the Roman Empire sitting crowned on the grave thereof.'

Accepted, Disengenious

The Declaration of Independence (U.S constitution) does not mention God but the preamble does "embuded by their creator, with life liberty and the persuit of happiness".
Fleddgist: That is not the case. The phrase which you misquote comes from the Declaration of Independence.
I stand corrected
Will be back with the views of the framers and the bias towards God being in the national psyche.

Even Neitzhie treatsie on morals quotes Mathew in "where your heart is so are your treasures also", he admits morals begin in the metaphysical.

Fledgist: Might we have a citation please? Presuming, of course, that you are referring to the Genealogy of Morals?

Accepted will do

[DC]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by CEW:
Back to the subject of faith though. Most sincere Christians will tell you there are lots of things in and about the Bible they don't understand. Then again, I do not know of any Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, or anyone who has all the answers to questions around their beliefs, or lack thereof. I am reminded of a Winston Churchill quote: "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. And most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened." Maybe we all have seen Truth - to some degree - at some point in our lives. The problem seems to lie in our interpretation of what we see. I guess like Pilate, we constantly ask ourselves: "What is truth?" I seem to recall his wife Claudia, in the movie The Passion, told him: "If you cannot feel truth, I cannot tell it to you." Could it be that Truth is not something we can logically explain? The Christian accepts that Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life." Who is to say that s/he is wrong in accepting that?

Agreed..

**and the questioning continues**
....and how do we obtain that truth? Is truth subjective or is it objective? Is truth what works? Or is truth only what can be proven by logic/reason? Is truth what we see or is truth in what we don't see? Is truth how we know or is it it what we know?......

[msgoody2shoes]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by JesusDread:
[qb] Greetings! As usual this board is always full of eloquent writers and thinkers. It’s just a pity so many of you are sooo wrong regardless how intellectual you seem to be.

First let’s get the real meaning of what sin is. Sin literally means error; therefore anything that can be deemed as wrong could be classified as sin.

The debate about what is sin and what is not can be simplified by this analogy.

1. If there is no god, then there is no guilt in sin or literally no such thing as sin.

2. If you aren’t sure if there is a God then sin will be defined by your conscience.

3. If there is a God then we are all guilty of sin and need to get right with Him. Therefore just because you know God or claim to follow Him doesn’t exclude you from sin, it only assures you of the opportunity to be forgiven or redeemed.

Whichever opinion you choose will be by the liberty of your free will and any consequences attached to your decision will be your responsibility if and when there ever comes a time to pay up.

If there was no God then whatever we do or think will never matter in the long run.

Now if there is a God, and it is my opinion that there is along with the vast majority of human beings, then what you or I think does not determine what sin is or isn’t. To know what sin is would mean you have to know what God says sin is.

If you deviate from what the One and True God classifies as sin then you are standing in line to be paid its wages which is spiritual death. You can’t blame God for man’s sin because He gave us a free will to choose and our choice determines where we will end up when we depart this world for the spiritual realm.

Now my limited knowledge of God has led me to know and accept the God of Abraham and Isaac, Jacob and Moses, and His only begotten Son Jesus as being the only true authority on what sin is and how to free myself from its bondage. I am quite confident that I am right and that many boardies may take offense to this because it threatens their belief structure.

As I said, being that my beliefs are right, then it only shows that those that don’t come to know God will never be forgiven of their sins because they will never have repented of them to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is the only one who forgives sin and is the only way to eternal life.

So while opinions may come and go as will the debates on what is good and what isn’t, God is true and eternal and I have a heavy heart for all mockers, false worshipers and atheists. My advice is try and find a good bible teaching church and stop debating what is already set in stone, GOD IS REAL and so is SALVATION FROM SIN in JESUS!

PS If I don’t reply to any of your rebuttals it is not that I am ignoring your rants and ravings, I might just be off-line. Peace! [/qb]

JD..this is definitely the BEST post in this thread!!! Thanks for sharing it.
MsGoody

[Diplomat]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by DC:

Originally posted by CEW:
Back to the subject of faith though. Most sincere Christians will tell you there are lots of things in and about the Bible they don't understand. Then again, I do not know of any Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, or anyone who has all the answers to questions around their beliefs, or lack thereof. I am reminded of a Winston Churchill quote: "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. And most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened." Maybe we all have seen Truth - to some degree - at some point in our lives. The problem seems to lie in our interpretation of what we see. I guess like Pilate, we constantly ask ourselves: "What is truth?" I seem to recall his wife Claudia, in the movie The Passion, told him: "If you cannot feel truth, I cannot tell it to you." Could it be that Truth is not something we can logically explain? The Christian accepts that Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life." Who is to say that s/he is wrong in accepting that?

Agreed..

**and the questioning continues**
....and how do we obtain that truth? Is truth subjective or is it objective? Is truth what works? Or is truth only what can be proven by logic/reason? Is truth what we see or is truth in what we don't see? Is truth how we know or is it it what we know?....

Very interesting questions, some of which I was pondering during Bible Study tonight.

[Mutty]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

[QUOTE]Originally posted by accepted:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb] Jedi I find this interesting:


{Jedi: Actually it went more like this..."Lead the people into the land knowing that they were less than capable of defeating their foes... and then go before them and slay their opponents this way the world would know that they were God's chosen people and He was the one and only Almighty God."}

So you really feel that there was no other way, huh?

Now as far as I can tell, Israel was the aggresor. The only foe they had were the ones they themselves created - the Canaanites. The Canaanites did not dclare war on them, bother them oe entice them to war. It was Israel who first scandalized them (the propoganda), then tried under Moses to not force the people out of the land, but to actually exterminate them off the face of the earth because God said so. Granted, there may have been truth to the matter that they were some vile people (if the bible is to be believed and is not just a propaganda tool), but they were not bothering Israel with it and with thinking like that, it sets a bad precedent that if you or I find something revolting, we can, with God's approval, eliminate it like say an abortion clinic with a nice home made bomb. After all, the Egyptians were not choirboys either. [/qb]

Mutty if i recall and I am speaking without access to the bible. If I recall Abraham actually conquered the land from the five Kings and gave it back to them because the timing was not right for God to punish these people "the abominations of the Caananites had not yet run its course".

The land belonged to Abraham by conquest as he had to deliver Lot from these five Kings and refused any tribute from them. My memory tells me that God used Joseph to deliver Egypt and used Egypt to teach these tribal people to be a nation. He moved them out when the political tide turned against them and they status went from honoured citizens to slaves.

The land issue is still with us today the Isrealites claimed the land by inheritance and conquests rights. To them the caananites were squaters while they were in exile in Egypt. That these people were abominations, Zumins and Anakins (giants), were a stumblingblock to the Isrealites these people were feared, it took faith to rout them.
Some unnatural breeding had taken place to produce these giants it was the nature of that evil that gave faith and allayed the fears of the Isrealites to subdue and clean the land of these aliens.

The two people could not exist their differing constrasts would not allow it. To the victor went the spoils. This is the biblical story. [/qb]

Accepted do you remember way back when I proposed the theory that the Canaanites were actually a mixed breed of fallen angels (nephilim) and humans and you initially rejected my wild assumptions which I started from in Genesis 67 only to finally agree (at least) with some of my conclusions upon further investigation. LOL!!! Well according to the biblical theme, that would have been the case which may have justified the Canaanite conquest in all of its gore. Looking at it in that "spiritual" light that might even begin to approach an acceptable light, but as for the slaughter of the Midianites twice (once in Deuteronomy and once in Judges) and the Amalekites, neither of which were technically Canaanites, that is another story.

Good points though.

[accepted77]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by accepted:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb] Jedi I find this interesting:
Accepted do you remember way back when I proposed the theory that the Canaanites were actually a mixed breed of fallen angels (nephilim) and humans and you initially rejected my wild assumptions which I started from in Genesis 67 only to finally agree (at least) with some of my conclusions upon further investigation. LOL!!! Well according to the biblical theme, that would have been the case which may have justified the Canaanite conquest in all of its gore. Looking at it in that "spiritual" light that might even begin to approach an acceptable light, but as for the slaughter of the Midianites twice (once in Deuteronomy and once in Judges) and the Amalekites, neither of which were technically Canaanites, that is another story.

Good points though. [/qb]

Mutty,

I remember you went left feild with this.

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Gen 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Mutty we agree, the scriptures agree something fishy went on here and the flood didnt stop it, notice it says also after this.

When God made his covenant with Abram he was in effect the owner of all Isreal, but God didn't want him to claim it, time was not right
Gen 15:16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

You ae also right that the Amalekites were not Caanites but they were part of this iniquity.
Numbers 24:20 And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his parable, and said, Amalek was the first of the nations; but his latter end shall be that he perish for ever.

By the time Abraham's seed came back to inherit the promise, Amalek had joined forces with the iniquity, Remember Amalek was of Esau, Amalek was 'one blood'. Amalek had joined the Horites and the Zumins and the Anakins, these blood had been corrupted by iniquity, these were relatives that could not be allowed to contaminate the bloodline. These had inheritance claims. These were once of promise. Thats why Saul saved the King, it was hard to exterminate cousin Joe.

But cousinn Joe had demon seed, cousin Joe had to go.

Its hard to count bretheren among the lost, to see the christian return back to the world. Today its spiritual death its more or less the same, cut off the diseased arm to save the rest of the body or the whole body dies.

[Guest]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by DC:
[qb]

Originally posted by CEW:
Back to the subject of faith though. Most sincere Christians will tell you there are lots of things in and about the Bible they don't understand. Then again, I do not know of any Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, or anyone who has all the answers to questions around their beliefs, or lack thereof. I am reminded of a Winston Churchill quote: "Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. And most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened." Maybe we all have seen Truth - to some degree - at some point in our lives. The problem seems to lie in our interpretation of what we see. I guess like Pilate, we constantly ask ourselves: "What is truth?" I seem to recall his wife Claudia, in the movie The Passion, told him: "If you cannot feel truth, I cannot tell it to you." Could it be that Truth is not something we can logically explain? The Christian accepts that Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life." Who is to say that s/he is wrong in accepting that?

Agreed..

**and the questioning continues**
....and how do we obtain that truth? Is truth subjective or is it objective? Is truth what works? Or is truth only what can be proven by logic/reason? Is truth what we see or is truth in what we don't see? Is truth how we know or is it it what we know?...... [/qb]

This sounds very much like the post-modernist.

[Diplomat]

Re: A moral dilemma for Ex-Christians???

Originally posted by Jedi l:
*** In response to the post above ***
This sounds very much like the post-modernist.

Which is?