A picture is worth a thousand words... (churches, agnostics, priest)
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.
"You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."
Just stating by faith is not substantiated by the bible. Trust me, I've studied it, including at University. I know the Bible.... I'm an atheist because of it.
I'm with Jim. There are people I have a great deal of respect for who happen to believe things I think are bizarre. But they are good people who do good things. That's what counts.
Anybody can talk the talk. I reserve my respect for those who walk it.
Please tell us exactly how evangelical, Calvinist or any other of that ilk give a rats behind about the welfare of children once they are born. SNAP? Get rid of it. Same for Head Start. Same for pick any program that gives a hand up for those who are disadvantaged.
Save us from your outrage. I don't see ONE church group providing free daycare for single parents (usually mothers) so they can better provide for their children. That would be real compassion.
I grew up in a Calvinist church, the RCA. My sister had my niece the day before her high school graduation, out of wedlock of course.
She spoke to the minister about having the baby baptized, and she was told she could only do so if she would go before the consistory (sort of a church board made up of older men) and publicly repent of her sin. She was a teenage girl who had sex with her loser boyfriend and then was so terrified when she realized she was pregnant that she hid it for much of the pregnancy until she couldn't anymore. She even lied to our family doctor when he asked her point blank if she was pregnant, she was so deep in denial.
There was no way she was going to be able to do that, and so she chose not to have her daughter baptized and never went to church again.
All the church saw was sin. My sister is 57 and has been an atheist now for most of her adult life.
It's not so much immoral - it's actually moral - humanist morals - because that was NOT Christian dogma until people (using Human morality' saw that was immoral and so sinful nature had to be supposedly Gone up to the age of reason (age 7, so i heard) and then Bang, you are going to hell unless you get right with God. It is reprehensible. It stinks.
And I do bot have the right to tell people what to believe, though a Christian would assume that's how I think - because they do. But nobody has the right to tell me that I can't say, post or shout what I see terribly flawed, irrational and Bad about all this. So that's what I do.
And you have every right to . I wasn't addressing that. My post you quoted was aimed specifically at the latter part of post 65 where the poster attempted to dictate how Christians must believe about children and accountability. Said posters opinion has no relevance on how others must believe , that's what my point was about .
Quote:
I can't see where you are being mentally tied up. Acts and deeds are what people do. What else could it be? Please explain what you think the difference is between 'men' and their deeds and people and Their deeds.
The poster I quoted wasn't distinguishing between the deed and the person. That's my point, not any semantical difference between men and people . The verse doesn't call the people dirty rags, as the poster tried to imply , but calls their deeds as worthless as dirty rags as an attempt to gain righteousness. Big big difference between the two, just as we ourselves can consider a persons actions in one area as worthless without meaning the person themselves are worthless as human beings . The person I quoted attempted to misquote scripture to bash believers . I corrected the misquote .
Quote:
No, because it is against human morality, which is what we all use. There is no reason why killing people can be represented as good (aside from people with a super -race fixation or the tricky but legitimate case of people who don't want to live any more) and there has to be some kind of justification - defending your wife, kids and the people who run the country.
But the dogma of Christianity gives a very good reason why we should kill kids before they hit age 7. What's the moral reason why not? You tell me. Why not breed like it would shock Qiverful and send each one to heaven before they can be accountable as 'sinful' (1) There is a humanist reason why - they get one life and taking that away is a crime. Christian Dogma says (sorry, I should have said can be seen as suggesting - sloppiness on my part) that sending as many souls to heaven before they get a chance to sin is the way to do it, and only this Unwritten law means we can't do that. We have to struggle under this massive burden and threat and die in fear.
We release you from this spell.
I have to post this great Moment. Also as a token of how I see LoR as a metaphor of the religious struggle - but Tolkien had the metaphor back to front.
Viewer discretion is advised. Scenes of gratuitous violence. Enjoy.
"I feel as one new awakened. I wish you had come earlier, Gandalf".
(1) I know about the fact that they are born sinful and how the doctrine had to be changed, because apparently just baptiing them as Christians only sems to give the church dibs on the kid, but it really didn't seem to get rid of the Sin. But let's not do that right now.
You are taking my response into a different context than I gave it in. The poster I quoted made the claim that abortion shouldn't be a theological problem since the aborted fetus would presumably go to heaven. I responded with the post about killing Christians since they will also go to heaven . That isn't a defense of the doctrine of accountability but simply pointing out that one can oppose both abortion and the murder of Christians as wrong morally even though both victims are believed to go to heaven as a result of being killed .
BTW, huge LOTR fan here . First read the books in high school . Jacksons movies were the first I thought did justice to the book it was based on. The Harry Potter movies failed at that task .
Last edited by wallflash; 09-07-2018 at 09:33 PM..
I grew up in a Calvinist church, the RCA. My sister had my niece the day before her high school graduation, out of wedlock of course.
She spoke to the minister about having the baby baptized, and she was told she could only do so if she would go before the consistory (sort of a church board made up of older men) and publicly repent of her sin. She was a teenage girl who had sex with her loser boyfriend and then was so terrified when she realized she was pregnant that she hid it for much of the pregnancy until she couldn't anymore. She even lied to our family doctor when he asked her point blank if she was pregnant, she was so deep in denial.
There was no way she was going to be able to do that, and so she chose not to have her daughter baptized and never went to church again.
All the church saw was sin. My sister is 57 and has been an atheist now for most of her adult life.
^^^
To soon to rep, but this is what the problem is.
I grew up in a Calvinist church, the RCA. My sister had my niece the day before her high school graduation, out of wedlock of course.
She spoke to the minister about having the baby baptized, and she was told she could only do so if she would go before the consistory (sort of a church board made up of older men) and publicly repent of her sin. She was a teenage girl who had sex with her loser boyfriend and then was so terrified when she realized she was pregnant that she hid it for much of the pregnancy until she couldn't anymore. She even lied to our family doctor when he asked her point blank if she was pregnant, she was so deep in denial.
There was no way she was going to be able to do that, and so she chose not to have her daughter baptized and never went to church again.
All the church saw was sin. My sister is 57 and has been an atheist now for most of her adult life.
"You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."
Just stating by faith is not substantiated by the bible. Trust me, I've studied it, including at University. I know the Bible.... I'm an atheist because of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
Under the Mosaic Covenant and the original quote it was defined as action according to the Law, but we can see from the circumstances of the citation that the FORM was not enough, and THAT was the reason Jeremiah recognized the need for a "New Covenant" which he visualized AS such a commitment: "written on their hearts" (that does NOT mean "memorized.")
You asked me to define "righteousness," may I ask you to define "commitment?"
Please tell us exactly how evangelical, Calvinist or any other of that ilk give a rats behind about the welfare of children once they are born. SNAP? Get rid of it. Same for Head Start. Same for pick any program that gives a hand up for those who are disadvantaged.
Save us from your outrage. I don't see ONE church group providing free daycare for single parents (usually mothers) so they can better provide for their children. That would be real compassion.
Absolutely right.
Yes, "Jesus loves us this I know" ... and since Jesus is doing all the loving, the people don't have to.
All one has to do is look at the dispassionate policies of the so-called "Bible Belt," a place that SHOULD be a haven for the poor, the sick, and the elderly.
Instead, the Bible Belt has become a virtual prison for them -- and those that can get out of that region usually do.
When I applied for Medicaid in North Carolina, I couldn't get it -- because my disability wasn't on the list of "accepted" disabilities. My caseworker actually told me that my best chance of obtaining government help was to ... care to guess? Any ideas?
Yeah ... to GET PREGNANT!
What few policies that do exist in these hateful states are geared toward helping children -- not necessarily the mother, mind you. In fact the only reason why the mother qualifies at all for help is because she needs to maintain the welfare of the child. In other words, her value as a human being depends entirely on her having a baby -- and without that baby, well, go curl up in a corner and die.
My caseworker said that people who can are fleeing like refugees across the Mason-Dixon line where those evil secular and liberal states are offering far better and more lenient programs. But how long will that last? Since the entire South have horrible access to health care and government programs, it means all of the burden of helping these people will fall on just a handful of states. At what point will those states simply be overwhelmed?
Thanks, Christians of the Bible Belt, for being as un-Christlike as you can possibly get while still having the temerity to call yourself Christians.
One thing is for certain: This is not the same country I immigrated to when I was 16. Who knows? The way this presidential administration is behaving, they'll have me handcuffed to a seat on a plane deporting me back to India -- where I would probably get much better health care.
You asked me to define "righteousness," may I ask you to define "commitment?"
You are the one who used both terms, "righteousness" and "commitment". I have no idea what context you want to present.
From my perspective, I don't really care. They are meant to mean some sort of relationship with an entity that I have no way of being shown that it exists, never mind, that it exists, the way it is shown in various different ways in the OT, NT, Koran, Book of Mormon, writings of Ellen White, or however Joel Olsteen wants to portray this entity.
Yes, "Jesus loves us this I know" ... and since Jesus is doing all the loving, the people don't have to.
All one has to do is look at the dispassionate policies of the so-called "Bible Belt," a place that SHOULD be a haven for the poor, the sick, and the elderly.
Instead, the Bible Belt has become a virtual prison for them -- and those that can get out of that region usually do.
When I applied for Medicaid in North Carolina, I couldn't get it -- because my disability wasn't on the list of "accepted" disabilities. My caseworker actually told me that my best chance of obtaining government help was to ... care to guess? Any ideas?
Yeah ... to GET PREGNANT!
What few policies that do exist in these hateful states are geared toward helping children -- not necessarily the mother, mind you. In fact the only reason why the mother qualifies at all for help is because she needs to maintain the welfare of the child. In other words, her value as a human being depends entirely on her having a baby -- and without that baby, well, go curl up in a corner and die.
My caseworker said that people who can are fleeing like refugees across the Mason-Dixon line where those evil secular and liberal states are offering far better and more lenient programs. But how long will that last? Since the entire South have horrible access to health care and government programs, it means all of the burden of helping these people will fall on just a handful of states. At what point will those states simply be overwhelmed?
Thanks, Christians of the Bible Belt, for being as un-Christlike as you can possibly get while still having the temerity to call yourself Christians.
One thing is for certain: This is not the same country I immigrated to when I was 16. Who knows? The way this presidential administration is behaving, they'll have me handcuffed to a seat on a plane deporting me back to India -- where I would probably get much better health care.
Lots of people of Indian and Pakistani extraction in Canada, and your pre-existing condition is not a reason to turn you down for immigration. There may be other reasons, mostly labor force related, but medical conditions are not one of them.
You are the one who used both terms, "righteousness" and "commitment". I have no idea what context you want to present.
From my perspective, I don't really care. They are meant to mean some sort of relationship with an entity that I have no way of being shown that it exists, never mind, that it exists, the way it is shown in various different ways in the OT, NT, Koran, Book of Mormon, writings of Ellen White, or however Joel Olsteen wants to portray this entity.
Thank you for dodging. I didn't think you had the guts to face the implications. You are pperfectly happy with your idea that "Faith only" is some kind of intellectual assessment without any basis in action because you don't want to THINK that dedication to a way of life IS what Jesus and most of Christianity teaches regardless of how well any particular group may perform. I'm sorry you apparently had a "Reform Theology" experience. Go back to sleep.
Last edited by nateswift; 09-08-2018 at 12:17 AM..
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.
