(February 2, 2015 at 12:52 am)Drich Wrote: That's not true is it. At best all one can say is "I" have never witnessed God doing anything for me. Because if your mind is closed to God then no matter what happens you would simply attribute whatever you wittnesed to something else. It's only when one is face to face with God that He can not be denied.

Truthfully, I can state, I have never witnessed god doing anything for anyone.

The concept of god one has in one's mind cannot even be honestly attributed to changing one's life. Each individual changes his life either for the better or for the worse, but invoking god's name would be intellectually dishonest.

My mind is open, but it is god who has never bothered to make an appearance.

(February 1, 2015 at 3:41 pm)Drich Wrote: I am simply asking you to substantiate your claims... Nothing more that what I do willing or when asked.

No, you aren't, you're bullshitting us, and then hoping to exhaust our patience. Mission accomplished. Remain as ignorant as you please, or don't. Nothing to do with me.

Quote:Again show me.

Show yourself. It's no one else's responsibility to make sure you've done your own due diligence before you post bullshit. It's your own, and if you haven't - that's on you and you alone. Stop being lazy and do work, eh?

(January 30, 2015 at 1:55 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: O.k., I'm still trying to understand how you see this.

What do you see as God's law?

The Law of Moses (All of it)

Quote:Most of the Bible's laws are impossible to obey, because there is no Jewish temple.

And then their the bit where Christ extends the Law beyond action to include even involentary thought.
Therefore we need to turn to the redemption/attonement side of the law.
This is well documented in the book of Romans.

Quote:You aren't a Messianic Jew as far as I know. If we take Jesus' "love thy neighbor" as the guide, then how do we condemn homosexual sex?

The command is to love/agapao thy neighbor as yourself, not to love/eros thy neighbor.

In the greek there are four roots to the word we translale into the one word 'love.' Each one of these words describes a different aspect of love.
In the Greatest commands (love thy neighbor) the word love is Agapao which mean to respect to entertain/welcome

Eros is the physical/passion aspec of love/

The command given is to respect others as you respect yourself meaning do not hold other to a standard you yourself are not held to.

I've done that.

Quote:After all, homosexual sex is not hurting anybody, and it is actually an expression of love - just like heterosexual sex.

Which again is also not sanctioned/considered a sin outside of a santified marriage.

Quote: The only justification for condemning homosexuality is some Bible verses. The Jews traditionally condemned homosexuality, but they also tried to follow all the dietary rules, etc.

And when they couldn't they sought attonement. The same is true now.

Quote:It seems like your approach is:
- follow the Bible laws when it doesn't conflict with your own morals

Actually I've adopted God's righteousness, and see 'morality' for what it is.

Quote:- break the Bible laws and repent when morally necessary

We are all 'breaking' the Moral law all the time. That is why the law allows for repentance.

Quote:- follow your own morals when no Bible law applies

Freedom from the law as a means to righteousness is the reason Christ died on the cross. This means we are free from 'bible law' If we seek His attonement as outined in scripture.

Quote:Is that a good summary? Of course we also need to decide which Bible laws apply to Christians, so we know when to repent.

All, and None apply.

Is Drich still "kicking our teeth in"?

(February 2, 2015 at 1:43 am)TRJF Wrote:

(February 2, 2015 at 12:52 am)Drich Wrote: To say you endorse soceity but completely shun rape, genocide, and oppression is like saying you will only eat the fruit of a tree who can only be planted on the mass grave of a nations worth of dead children... If you will only eat this fruit, then You are responsible for the planting of this tree, and all the death who died to bring this tree to life.

What?

No, to say you endorse society but completely shun rape, genocide, and oppression is like saying "I can't control what happened in the world before I got here. I wish none of the bad stuff happened, and that people had lived in harmony from day 1. I wish no one had ever been raped, or killed; I wish no one had ever felt the need to rape, or kill. But we can't change the past. We can acknowledge it, and remember it, and give our gratitude, our respect, our thanks, our sincere apologies, to those who died to get us where we are today."

If I could go back and undo all the rape, genocide, and oppression, I would. Would you?

No I would not. Why? Because actions have consenquences. If you change something like slavery in the past, you forever change the future. For instance if we abolished slavery before it even took root In America how many African American do you think their would be? Look at the parts of Africa Slaves were pulled from, where do you think the better place is to live?
Like wise what would happen if we did not push out/kill off the native American population?

We would not have been able to develop this country. we would be tied to tribal life.
That may not sound so bad to our hippy population but ask yourself
What would happen to a stone age people when faced with the SS and their MP-40, K-98's, the jap soldiers with their Type 38 and type 44's not to mention Messerschmitts and Zeros?

Or we would have fallen to any number of conquorers before...

If you truly resent the genocide this country was apart of you could always give what you have back, as the genocide was not total. No? want to keep your stuff? yeah, well me too.

Believe it or not even rape has it's place in the assimilation of one culture into another. If not for rape we (the majority) would all still live in xenophobic clans, all related to one another in one way or another. How long before our genetic material was too corrupt? According to the example The Modern Amish population has provided about 8 generations.

---

(February 2, 2015 at 10:22 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Is Drich still "kicking our teeth in"?

As Rythm has back himself in to a position where he feels justified in his ad hoc remarks, rather than speak responsiably citing and referencing his claims as I do. Plus the fact none of you wish to discuss the actual topic, I'd say Yes the wolves have been defanged.

(No need to kick in teeth if they remain kicked in.)
Or should I use:

(February 2, 2015 at 12:52 am)Drich Wrote: Kinda like the Big Bang or macroevolution are repeatable, huh?

We have evidence of the Big Bang, not proof. We have evidence of macro-evolution, not proof. The evidence, however, is overwhelmingly in favor of both. Should some contrary evidence come up, these ideas would be reevaluated after evaluating the new evidence for validity.

(February 2, 2015 at 10:54 am)IATIA Wrote:

(February 2, 2015 at 12:52 am)Drich Wrote: Kinda like the Big Bang or macroevolution are repeatable, huh?

We have evidence of the Big Bang, not proof. We have evidence of macro-evolution, not proof. The evidence, however, is overwhelmingly in favor of both. Should some contrary evidence come up, these ideas would be reevaluated after evaluating the new evidence for validity.

We have theoritical hypostsis based on what has been found. For Macroevolution another more plausible explaination is the fossils attributed to evolution are just an extinct sub-species of a given phila, and for the big bang we have nothing more than observation and theory which again does not fit the defination of empirical evidence. Neither do. And, if you take a step back because neither of these theories can be tested or repeated therefore they do not fit the 'scientific method' (as testing and repeating a process are crutial/what is used to disqualify God.) qualifier you all have been going on about (what seperates Faith from science.) Because the big bang and the theory of marcroevolution do not fit the Scientific method, and because neither can be supported with empirical evidence, both are indeed On the fringes of science and not apart of legitmate science/applied science. Meaning it takes a rather large measure of faith to accept them.

Now God on the other Hand only requires a mustard seed's worth of faith. If one can invest this mustardseed's faith in Him, He will provide the empirical evidence needed to establish and maintain a life time of belief.

I used to have far more than a 'mustard seed's' worth of faith. He remained deafeningly silent.

(February 2, 2015 at 11:23 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I used to have far more than a 'mustard seed's' worth of faith. He remained deafeningly silent.

What did you place that faith in?

A religion? Or God? Did you do the religious thing follow the rules of a given religion or did you seek out God on his terms?

(February 2, 2015 at 11:25 am)Drich Wrote:

(February 2, 2015 at 11:23 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I used to have far more than a 'mustard seed's' worth of faith. He remained deafeningly silent.

What did you place that faith in?

A religion? Or God? Did you do the religious thing follow the rules of a given religion or did you seek out God on his terms?

At the time I believed I was placing my faith in God and waiting to see what I should be doing.