Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps you're thinking of either Sandi Patty or Amy Grant? Both, particularly the latter, had crossover careers into the secular world, I think, or at least crossover hits. Amy was sort of the girl next door, safe female to have a crush on ... a couple of her songs that did well that I recall were "My Father's Eyes" and "El Shaddai".
IIRC, both of them ended up divorced which sort of wrecked them with their more staid fans. That wasn't supposed to happen with any of "god's anointed". Lots of disillusionment. Besides it ruined the fantasies everyone was projecting on them ;-)
Yes! Sandi Patty was the one I was thinking of ... and now I remember always getting her confused with Amy Grant back when I was searching out some new music to listen to.
I dunno, if you look at only what Jesus is recorded as having said, and not later ( particularly Pauline) interpretations, the same guy who said "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath", who asked "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?", maybe this guy would be ok with two human beings who wanted to join their lives in a loving committed relationship... We quite frankly, can only guess because it was evidently not important enough for Jesus to teach about...
Words of Jesus:
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, ’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Matthew 19:4
If Jesus was pleased with homosexual unions as well, it stands to reason that He certainly would have mentioned those kind of unions since He is talking about God's original design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
It isn't about championing equality because it opposes Christianity, it is because if you start from an assumption of equality, it is an irrational position. I have yet to hear any consistant non-religious argument against homosexual marriage. It boils down to, "I think its icky!" or "God thinks its icky!", neither of which are a good reason to discriminate...
Funny how the term "icky" is commonly used to make the opposition appear as silly. If you have never heard any secular arguments then you didn't look hard enough. Interesting enough, the person against homosexuality here is an atheist so I can retract my statement that I've never heard of a single atheist being against homosexuality. See I am willing to admit when I'm wrong something I've never once seen an atheist do ever.
I rather not get into a point by point discussion on gay marriage since it has nothing to do with the OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
Requiring an Atheist child to recite the pledge is as discriminatory as asking your child to pledge allegiance to one nation under Allah or Brahman. You believe that neither of those gods are real, so it shouldn't be a big deal for you, right? You would be ok with the football coach leading the team in a prayer to their ancestors for safety, or an invocation to Lucifer, Star of the morning, at a graduation because since you don't believe in them, it isn't a problem...
The problem is not that Christians are Christian in public, it is that they are trying to use the sanction of government to enshrine their religion above all others. In our pluralistic society, this is offensive not to mention unconstitutional.
Does the pledge say One Nation under Jesus Christ? No, it simply acknowledges a God which most religions do. Even if you argue that the founding fathers were not Christians, but Deists, that still means they believed in a Supreme Being and believed our laws should have foundations rooted with religion. Should the majority have to give up a tradition just to satisfy any incarnation of belief or non-belief? What's next? Demanding that the President stop saying God bless America?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
Sure and it can symbolize genocide, and oppression to others. If the memorial is only supposed to be for Christians, you should say so plainly, otherwise maybe you find some symbolism that is not so polarizing. You would be offended at an Islamic crescent where that cross was supposed to be, so maybe it points to the idea that neither symbol would be appropriate...
-NoCapo
I wouldn't be offended by any religious symbol other than Satanic if that symbol gave comfort and peace to mourners. I certainly don't get outraged that there are Stars of David in military cemeteries.
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, ’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Matthew 19:4
If Jesus was pleased with homosexual unions as well, it stands to reason that He certainly would have mentioned those kind of unions since He is talking about God's original design.
I don't think you can make that assumption any more than you can argue that it is ok with him, since he didn't condemn it. It is certainly less clear than the intention that divorce not be an option, yet most churches do not disfellowship, or shun as "living in sin" those who are divorced and remarried. It seems to me that a believer who really followed what Jesus taught would be much more concerned with denying legal marriage to those improperly divorced, than to those Jesus never mentioned...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Funny how the term "icky" is commonly used to make the opposition appear as silly. If you have never heard any secular arguments then you didn't look hard enough. Interesting enough, the person against homosexuality here is an atheist so I can retract my statement that I've never heard of a single atheist being against homosexuality. See I am willing to admit when I'm wrong something I've never once seen an atheist do ever.
I rather not get into a point by point discussion on gay marriage since it has nothing to do with the OP.
Sure. If we were to dissect the point you raised (done this before ), I would point out that these points are either demonstrably false, or clearly empty justifications for some ulterior motive, since they are applied in a patently hypocritical manner. I have yet to see a rational, coherent non-theistic argument, and your link didn't change that... At its core it is because of personal or religious discomfort that some want to deny equal protection under the law to others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Does the pledge say One Nation under Jesus Christ? No, it simply acknowledges a God which most religions do. Even if you argue that the founding fathers were not Christians, but Deists, that still means they believed in a Supreme Being and believed our laws should have foundations rooted with religion. Should the majority have to give up a tradition just to satisfy any incarnation of belief or non-belief? What's next? Demanding that the President stop saying God bless America?
Let me be clear, I don't particularly care about the blatant pandering politicians do to fool you believers into thinking they are in your corner, I am just kind of amazed that you keep falling for it. We are no longer required to say the pledge, although it shouldn't have "God" in it in the first place, any more than it should have "Jesus" or "Allah". But we had to have a court case about it. We have had to fight to ensure that children are not required to pray to a god they don't believe in, to ensure that belief in a particular god or even a generic god is not a requirement for public office, or that the government doesn't get to subsidize a particular religion.
If the government can endorse generic religion over no religion, then the wall separating it from choosing one religion over another is badly damaged, and will offer you little protection if some other religion becomes politically dominant. Seperation of church and state is good for all of us, not just non-believers. After all you are a non-believer of only one less religion than I...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I wouldn't be offended by any religious symbol other than Satanic if that symbol gave comfort and peace to mourners. I certainly don't get outraged that there are Stars of David in military cemeteries.
But you might have a problem if you had to have a Star of David or a pent instead of a cross. That is why each of these symbols may be appropriate for an individual, but none of them are appropriate for a nation like America.
See, there are symbols that are meaningful to others, that would be offensive to you. Maybe that is why in a memorial representing a wide range of people, a symbol to our entire nation, we shouldn't pick an instrument of torture, a sign by which nations were conquered, people enslaved, Jews, Romany, Homosexuals, and Pagans were tortured and murdered, a symbol under which Europe was bathed in blood for centuries. It may give you comfort, just like the Confederate Battle flag comforts some of the folks I grew up with, but it is not appropriate as a universal symbol of healing, of remembrance and comfort.
I am not advocating removing Christian's right in any way, I just think ya'll could be a bit more understanding that your religion is not universal, and to not push for any changes to laws, public policy, or symbolism that you would object to if it was another religion. A very practical application of what a certain carpenter said...
The unfortunate issue is that most people believe in a religious God rather than a spiritual one.
"Religious" here would be rendered as materialistic; materialistic practice is the one in conflict with spiritual practice. You deem it "unfortunate" in that quote, yet you uphold it as if it were good.
Quote:
Those who think the Bible is 100% true, those who deny science, those who believe their religion ought to become civil law, and more than anyone else
None of those things is necessarily the result of materialistic practice.
Quote:
As for aiming contempt at God - well, that stands to reason, doesn't it? If worshiping a rather primitive, immoral, and perpetually angry God causes otherwise good people
Only God is good. The "otherwise" are not.
Quote:
Atheists would be happy to leave Christians alone if they could adopt a more enlightened liberal view of God instead of this heavy-handed fundamentalist variety that constantly puts religion at odds with freedom. As such, I suppose atheists are more interested in "de-converting" people away from fundamentalism, NOT away from Christianity altogether.
A more liberal and less-strict form of spiritual practice is a practice which verges towards materialistic practice. By your statement, materialists will continue to badger Christians because slavery to depravity will continue to clash with freedom from depravity, the former of which is freedom to you. Plus, your statement that materialists will leave Christians alone if they adopt a more materialistic practice conflicts with your earlier statement- "My beef is with [that which is in conflict with God], not God."
Quote:
to engage in diplomacy whenever possible.
There can only be violence when those two rivals clash. One fights to overthrow the other. One king reigns. One God.
Quote:
We learn in history class that Hitler was evil because of the Holocaust.
You learn in spiritual practice that the Holocaust is evil because it was perpetrated through materialistic practice.
Quote:
And then we're faced with a God that held NONE of those things as sacrosanct. Morality shouldn't suddenly change just because God is committing the act.
It doesn't. God is God. Moral materialism is moral materialism. Materialistic practice is an enemy of spiritual practice. They do not adopt each other; they fight with, and kill, each other.
Quote:
The mere fact that we humans CAN think of better ways to handle these situations makes a prima facie case that human morality is leagues and fathoms ahead of any morality found in the OT.
"The mere fact that we humans CAN think of [different] ways to handle these situations makes a prima facie case that human morality is leagues and fathoms [apart from] any morality found in the OT."
Quote:
Most of us have learned that surviving within the boundaries of "good" are far more rewarding than survival within the boundaries of "evil."
That can be said only of the ground amenable to seed germination. Some surfaces are like stony ground, some are too entangled.
Now you're really reaching. First of all, God doesn't "appear" to be immoral, angry and sadistic ... because he actually WAS all of those things in the OT. I'm not making things up, taking things out of context, or misinterpreting vague passages that could mean a hundred other things. No. When God sent bears to tear apart 42 little children, that's what the Bible says. Plain and simple. There is no escaping the "fact" that God sent those bears to murder kids for doing nothing but calling Elijiah an "old baldy." You can't rationalize it, you can't sweep it under the carpet, you can't redefine it to make it seem less bad. No, that was an act of utter depravity. We've executed people right here in America for doing far less, but we're supposed to worship and adore a criminal?
Again, that is your opinion. Without the Bible, morality becomes a matter of personal opinion, and not absolute. Furthermore, it is unfair to lay down judgment without knowing all the facts. We only have what the Bible reports, and your analysis is loaded with errors regarding the bear attack.
"First, the King James Version has done us a disservice by translated the term as “children.” The Hebrew word can refer to children, but rather more specifically means "young men." The NIV, quoted here, uses the word “youths.” Second, the fact that the bears mauled 42 of the youths indicates that there were more than 42 youths involved. This was not a small group of children making fun of a bald man. Rather, it was a large demonstration of young men who assembled for the purpose of mocking a prophet of God. Third, the mocking of “go on up, you baldhead,” is more than making fun of baldness. The baldness of Elisha referred to here may be: 1) natural loss of hair; 2) a shaved head denoting his separation to the prophetic office; or more likely, 3) an epithet of scorn and contempt, Elisha not being literally bald. The phrase “go up” likely was a reference to Elijah, Elisha’s mentor, being taken up to Heaven earlier in 2 Kings chapter 2:11-12. These youths were sarcastically taunting and insulting the Lord’s prophet by telling him to repeat Elijah’s translation.
And do we know that God purposely directed the bears to attack them? I notice that not everyone was attacked. Maybe the punishment for mocking God in those days was He removed his hand of protection. She-bears are dangerous to be around, ya know.
That's all I have time for now. It would be nice if you allowed the courtesy of giving me time to respond to your massive posts instead of piling more on along with your friends. It's a "burying the opponent" tactic.
That's all I have time for now. It would be nice if you allowed the courtesy of giving me time to respond to your massive posts instead of piling more on along with your friends. It's a "burying the opponent" tactic.
Actually, I think it's a "She's got time on her hands because her health isn't good" thing. Were her health good I'm convinced Shirina's posts would be even more formidable.
p.s. There's no conspiracy. People post because they have ideas and opinions.
Obviously, you missed the point in my post where I say that the concept of evil doesn't exist in other animal species. They behave occurred to their breed. The only thing you demonstrate here is that dogs are different according to their breed. That doesn't prove individuality. If I go to the pet store and pick up a Labrador Retriever then I can come home confident knowing the dog will be very friendly and playful. Chimps may show a bit more individual personality, but they will still behave according to their instincts. Every human being will behave and make decisions completely different from each other. We have all distinct identity and personality.
You're biological ignorance is truly profound. All conspecific individuals will, by definition, exhibit many share behaviors and commonalities. This is what conspecific means!
Individual variability among conspecifics is relative to the entire species. In the case of humans, all individuals have more commonalities than differences. Because we're so tuned in to other humans the degree of individual variability might seem greater than in other species, but this is simply not always the case. Relative to other species, humans exhibit a moderate level of individual variability; some species are even more varied than we are, others are significantly less.
Do you have any knowledge of biology and psychology, or are you just spewing ignorance based on what you'd like to be true rather than what is?
Actually, I think it's a "She's got time on her hands because her health isn't good" thing. Were her health good I'm convinced Shirina's posts would be even more formidable.
You're biological ignorance is truly profound. All conspecific individuals will, by definition, exhibit many share behaviors and commonalities. This is what conspecific means!
Individual variability among conspecifics is relative to the entire species. In the case of humans, all individuals have more commonalities than differences. Because we're so tuned in to other humans the degree of individual variability might seem greater than in other species, but this is simply not always the case. Relative to other species, humans exhibit a moderate level of individual variability; some species are even more varied than we are, others are significantly less.
Do you have any knowledge of biology and psychology, or are you just spewing ignorance based on what you'd like to be true rather than what is?
Listen, if I'm wrong then simply point it out instead of this arrogant trash talk about how stupid and ignorant I am. You have said nothing here to disprove a single thing I pointed out just using common sense and observation. Bold generic talk will get you nowhere. Species more varied than humans? Example would be nice. Yes please show me where a room of 10 animals of the same species would exhibit more variety in behavior than a room of a 10 human beings. You accomplish a lot more by educating people than just constantly bragging and throwing in their face that they are ignorant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), I would point out that these points are either demonstrably false, or clearly empty justifications for some ulterior motive, since they are applied in a patently hypocritical manner. I have yet to see a rational, coherent non-theistic argument, and your link didn't change that... At its core it is because of personal or religious discomfort that some want to deny equal protection under the law to others.
