By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Pope: Gayness as dangerous as the rainforest being destroyed.

Comrade Tovya on 23 December 2008
appolose said:
Comrade Tovya said:
appolose said:
Comrade Tovya said:

 

There was no mention of Jesus either, but that's not necessarily relevant.  In any event, as for proving that the righteous will be going to heaven; Romans 4:3 "For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.'"  And then Romans 10:9 "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your hear the God raised him from the dead, you will be saved".  Therefore, faith equates to righteousness, faith leads to salvation, and, thus, the righteous are saved.   This is one example of may others (I posit).

The problem here is you assume, by God telling Satan not to kill Job, that God is merely giving Satan a command.  However, he's not saying "You won't do this, because I told you so", he saying "You won't do this, because I, being omnipotent, will prevent you from doing it".  Satan's not doing what he says out of obedience, but out of helplessness.

In any event, it's hardly playing the role of God if were just doing what we think He tells us to do.  He says go and save people, because people have sinned.  So in order to try to save a person, one would have to admit that they have sinned.  Of course I'll "pass judgement" on someone; if they do something that the Bible forbids, and if I think the Bible is true, how on Earth could I not?

 

 

No, you are missing my point... God never said that the righteous will "go to heaven".  It's just popular myth.

And yes, it is quite relevant when you tell people that "God will allow you into the pearly gates of Heaven" when such a thing may never happen.  If you truly revere God, is it not a form of blasphemy to put words into his mouth? God never stated such, and it's evil to put words into the mouth of God. 

No, I just showed that he did say it (if you believe the Bible is inspired).  To put it roughly,  Believing in God=Salvation, Believing in God=Righteousness, Therefore Salvation=Righteousness, as per the above verses.  And, again, it isn't blasphemous to do what He says to do.  And I'm certainly not putting words into his mouth; my arguments are purely scriptural.

Hypothetically, if I told your mother that I was going to get her out of debt and move her from her cardboard box, and into a nice little house, and then never showed up... wouldn't that be wrong?

And as for your last point, with that train of thought, then you are saying that God was being dishonest when he said that angels didn't have freewill?  It takes freewill to make the choice to declare war on God.  Angels have never had this... so how could this have happened?  If God intended to give angels the freewill of rebelion, then he could have just as easily gave them to freewill to worship him by choice.. in which case there would have been no purpose for the creation of man.

The Bible never says angels are without free will, and in the example you presented I argued that Satan wasn't obeying him, just that God wouldn't let him do it if he tried.

Secondly, another point you are skipping is that God is unable to be in the presence of sin.  Heaven is "pure" and "perfect".  So if Satan really is a sinful rebel against God, then he is unable to enter Heaven and stand at the side of God to pass judgement on the man named Job.

I'm fairly sure there are no verses that say God can't be in the presence in the presence of evil; after all, he is (Biblically) omnipotent and omnipresent, so from that we can see He is quite capable and must be.

And if Satan really could go to war against God, he sure as heck could also make the choice to rebel against God again and strike down Job in defiance of the almighty.

Again, he couldn't have because God wasn't just commanding him.

The point is, Christianity's idea of righteousness is that the belief that a man/god died for you makes you perfect before God... and that's just not in line with what the Tanach (the "old" Testament) says about righteousness. 

I agree; I wasn't saying good works save a person, but what I was saying is that you (should) sin either less or not at all when you become a Christian, according to Paul.

And don't get me started on the sacrifice thing, because that's another issue all together.  God doesn't accept the sacrifice of human beings as attonement for sin anyway... and furthermore, the Torah is quite specific that human sacrifice is an abomination to God as well.  And for be it from God to tell us something is evil, only to turn around and do the same thing himself.  If God is not without blemish, then he's not God at all.

That's more referring to someone sacrificing someone else.  In Jesus's case, it was either he sacrificing himself, or God telling him to, which is kinda the same thing anyways.  As it says somewhere in the NT "Greater Love has no one than this; when a man lay down his life for a friend".  Here, ther is no problem with human sacrifice, as it is self.

So it's safe to assume that if you truly believe that God is perfect, then we can know that he is no hypocritical tyrant that tells us not to do something that he himself would do.

 

 

 

Okay, you kind of confused me by writing your responses in my quote, but I will try and break it down if I can...

A) I think we are still not seeing eye-to-eye on something.  I'm not talking about what makes a man righteous, I'm saying simply that the Bible does not say, "When you die, and if you are righteous, you will go to heaven"

That's popular belief only, and is not scripturally founded.  The Catholic Church started this doctrinal belief in going to heaven, 1700-years ago... it's just not Biblically founded.

B) Back to my original point... it's one of the biggest reasons why Christians have such a tough time prostelitizing Jews with any success.  The simple belief that a servant of God (Satan) would have the ability to make war on a being that omnipotent and all-powerful is just absurd.  Satan would have no more power to make war on God than myself.  Both us and angels are little more than fleas on a dog in comparrison.  The dog scatches, and we fall off, because we are powerless before an almighty being. 

And I know this a mere human who has never been before the almighty presence of the supreme being... therefore an angelic being who spends his entire existence before his power would no this even more than I.  Even the thought of "making war on God" is just silly.  It's not possible, and it quite comical really.

C) And God is quite specific about not being able to be within the presence of evil. Just one example is when God walked with Moses on Mt. Sinai.  Only he was considered righteousness enough to be before God... not even Aaron was given that honor, and he was the Lord's own priest.  Still, only Moses was considered righteous enough to be in the presence of God.  And if Satan really is this evil being, he would be standing before God (I'm pretty sure Aaron was a little bit more righteous than the Christian version of Satan)

D) And you are wrong when it comes to righteousness as well.  Christianity teaches that all men are "born into sin" and need attonement to be considered righteous before God.  This is not what God originally said.. once again, this is another fabricated doctrine of the original Church.

The Tanach teaches us that God doesn't change... he is the same from the beginning to the end.  Mankind never needed a "new" covenant to replace the original one God made with man (at Sinai for Jews, and post-flood for goyim) because the original plan for mankinds redemption has always been good enough.  the Jewish scripture is very specific when it says that God is not a man that he would change his mind, nor a breaker of promises.  He gave each of us guidelines of righteousness long for Jesus walked the Earth, and those guidelines were promised to be such forever.  If that is not true, than he is a liar, and then there is no God.

And as for your last point that the god-man Jesus sacrificed himself, and that God thought that was okay, is just wrong.  The very act of human sacrifice is an abomination to God (abomination=just about as bad as it gets).

And God only expects us to follow rules that keep us pure and holy... therefore, since God himself is pure and holy, he wouldn't break that rule either, otherwise, he himself would no longer be without blemish. 

Human sacrifice is just wrong no matter how you paint it... it always has been an abomination and always will be.



MarioKart:

Wii Code:

2278-0348-4368

1697-4391-7093-9431
XBOX LIVE: Comrade Tovya 2
PSN ID:

Comrade_Tovya
Around the Network
akuma587 on 23 December 2008

I think America's support of Israel has caused way more problems for us than it has solved. It always ends up dragging us into conflicts we shouldn't be involved in in the first place in the Middle East.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Torillian on 23 December 2008
Kasz216 said:
Tremble said:
Easy ... "The Bible may not exclude the possibility of alien life" ... The bible talks about the creation of life on earth, nowhere else.

We have scientific proofs that most of the things that are said in the bible are wrong. Saying the world's been created by god is a lie, saying man kind's been created by god is a lie, all the stuff about Marie being a virgin ... Guess what? Lie (scientific proof: jesus blood is AB type).

 

What..... none of that is scientifically proven...

At all dude.

I mean there is like... few even historical mentions of jesus outside religious texts. Let alone blood samples.

Unless you take the shroud of turin, but nobody's really sure on that one since the carbon dating showed middle ages period, though it was carbon dating from the outside which may have been just the repairs of the shroud of turin.


Also. Virgin Births have happened actually.

Just not one record withing humans. (unless you count jesus.)

Birds do it, Bees do it. I've got no clue about educated flees either... but why not people too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

Eh actually if that did happen I think Jesus would of been a girl.

Wouldn't THAT have been a twist.

 

You saw that episode of House, too? ^^



...

Kasz216 on 23 December 2008
Torillian said:
Kasz216 said:
Tremble said:
Easy ... "The Bible may not exclude the possibility of alien life" ... The bible talks about the creation of life on earth, nowhere else.

We have scientific proofs that most of the things that are said in the bible are wrong. Saying the world's been created by god is a lie, saying man kind's been created by god is a lie, all the stuff about Marie being a virgin ... Guess what? Lie (scientific proof: jesus blood is AB type).

 

What..... none of that is scientifically proven...

At all dude.

I mean there is like... few even historical mentions of jesus outside religious texts. Let alone blood samples.

Unless you take the shroud of turin, but nobody's really sure on that one since the carbon dating showed middle ages period, though it was carbon dating from the outside which may have been just the repairs of the shroud of turin.


Also. Virgin Births have happened actually.

Just not one record withing humans. (unless you count jesus.)

Birds do it, Bees do it. I've got no clue about educated flees either... but why not people too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

Eh actually if that did happen I think Jesus would of been a girl.

Wouldn't THAT have been a twist.

 

You saw that episode of House, too? ^^

admittidly....

yes.

Funny stuff.  Even funnier that it's real.

 



Kasz216 on 23 December 2008
akuma587 said:
I think America's support of Israel has caused way more problems for us than it has solved. It always ends up dragging us into conflicts we shouldn't be involved in in the first place in the Middle East.

Possibly.

I don't know.  Without them we really wouldn't have an influence in the area....

plus in general the US more then any other country seems to care about taking care of jewish people after the Holocaust. (Odd since we were on the other side of the world.)

A lot of people suggest it's because of all the jewish people who moved here and that the Jewish lobby is one of the biggest in politics.

Which... i'm not sure how... what with 3% of the population.

 

 



Around the Network
akuma587 on 23 December 2008
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
I think America's support of Israel has caused way more problems for us than it has solved. It always ends up dragging us into conflicts we shouldn't be involved in in the first place in the Middle East.

Possibly.

I don't know. Without them we really wouldn't have an influence in the area....

plus in general the US more then any other country seems to care about taking care of jewish people after the Holocaust. (Odd since we were on the other side of the world.)

A lot of people suggest it's because of all the jewish people who moved here and that the Jewish lobby is one of the biggest in politics.

Which... i'm not sure how... what with 3% of the population.

 

 

From what I have seen, it is groups like the Evangelicals who lobby for involvement is Israel as much or more than Jewish people in America.  Or maybe they or just more visual.  Regardless, they have far more clout than the Jews.  And Jews tend to be reliably Democratic, and Democrats tend to be the anti-war party.

It does kind of give us an "in" in the Middle East, but what have we done in the Middle East that hasn't resulted in some major backlash or some kind of catastrophe.

Iran Contra?  Iraq War? Supporting corrupt regimes in Israel? Leaving military troops stationed in Muslim holy land?  Everytime we start messing around in the Middle East we just make another mess.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 23 December 2008
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
I think America's support of Israel has caused way more problems for us than it has solved. It always ends up dragging us into conflicts we shouldn't be involved in in the first place in the Middle East.

Possibly.

I don't know. Without them we really wouldn't have an influence in the area....

plus in general the US more then any other country seems to care about taking care of jewish people after the Holocaust. (Odd since we were on the other side of the world.)

A lot of people suggest it's because of all the jewish people who moved here and that the Jewish lobby is one of the biggest in politics.

Which... i'm not sure how... what with 3% of the population.

 

 

From what I have seen, it is groups like the Evangelicals who lobby for involvement is Israel as much or more than Jewish people in America.  Or maybe they or just more visual.  Regardless, they have far more clout than the Jews.  And Jews tend to be reliably Democratic, and Democrats tend to be the anti-war party.

It does kind of give us an "in" in the Middle East, but what have we done in the Middle East that hasn't resulted in some major backlash or some kind of catastrophe.

Iran Contra?  Iraq War? Supporting corrupt regimes in Israel? Leaving military troops stationed in Muslim holy land?  Everytime we start messing around in the Middle East we just make another mess.

 

Yeah, except when it comes to israel.  That's why democrats support israel too.  As for the Evangelicals... they're... TV loud... but when it comes to Jewish people, they're always on the radio and more of a "Remember guys, Israel is good, and lots of bad stuff happened... and  that guy from Iran said he wanted to destroy israel."

Basically the Israeli people target the evangelicals more quietly (with stuff like talk radio) and spur them into action.

What with lots of people seeing Jewish and Christian people having an alliance despite traditional Islam actually being more like Christianity then Judiasm.

As for making a mess in the middle east yeah...

I kinda think that's the point.

If you can't get an in... and a large bit of the population are going to hate you. (If you actually think America stopping support of Israel would change anything i'd say your crazy.)

It's strategically sound to make a mess of the area, rather then let them gain clout.

Not the best thing morally... but I can see the reasoning that both Democrats and Republicans have in screwing with the middleast.

 



SnesTea on 23 December 2008
L.C.E.C. said:
Being protestant, I have no specific respect for the pope...

However... I think I may have to agree... only replace "destruction of the rain forest" with "global warming", and "as", with "more", and we're golden...

Meh... looking at it from a christian standpoint... gayness = abomination, strictly forbidden in the bible... cutting down the rain forest... = not specifically mentioned...

So that must be his reasoning... I can't go ahead and say he's flat-out wrong... but I can't say he's completely right either...

 

Global warming is bullshit.



Kasz216 on 23 December 2008
Snesboy said:
L.C.E.C. said:
Being protestant, I have no specific respect for the pope...

However... I think I may have to agree... only replace "destruction of the rain forest" with "global warming", and "as", with "more", and we're golden...

Meh... looking at it from a christian standpoint... gayness = abomination, strictly forbidden in the bible... cutting down the rain forest... = not specifically mentioned...

So that must be his reasoning... I can't go ahead and say he's flat-out wrong... but I can't say he's completely right either...

 

Global warming is bullshit.

There are still plenty of reasons to not want the rain forest destroyed.

 



akuma587 on 23 December 2008

I just take a very negative attitude towards our involvement in the Middle East because I can think of almost nothing in terms of ways it has benefited America OR the Middle East in an unequivocally positive way.

Its essentially an economic sinkhole for America. We can pour as much money as we want into the Middle East, but its like trying to dig a hole to China. You simply aren't going to accomplish anything.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson