Religion How secular family values stack up

[PtldPlatypus]

Pretty hard to separate the good news of salvation from the small print. The latter may be motivational be the former certainly is the primary message of the Bible.

I believe that you have a flawed perception of the New Testament. The writings of the apostle Paul make it very clear that those who attempt to justify themselves through the law will find themselves condemned by the same, and that the purpose of the law is not to provide us with a method by which to please God, but to point us to our need for God.

 

[crowTrobot]

So you haven't debated government actions?

Not much if any. I tend to stay out of Denny's threads : )

I have definitely never suggested there might be such a thing as an objective moral resolution to treatment of animals. You're thinking of someone else there. Further maybe?

 

[crowTrobot]

I believe that you have a flawed perception of the New Testament. The writings of the apostle Paul make it very clear that those who attempt to justify themselves through the law will find themselves condemned by the same, and that the purpose of the law is not to provide us with a method by which to please God, but to point us to our need for God.

I was just pointing out that regardless of whatever anyone thinks should be the motivation for obedience the former statement is certainly true (according to the Bible). Ultimately there is no acceptance without obedience.

 

[magnifier661]

Not much if any. I tend to stay out of Denny's threads : )

I have definitely never suggested there might be such a thing as an objective moral resolution to treatment of animals. You're thinking of someone else there. Further maybe?

If you do it once, then you are guilty of all. If your values ever question actions of others then ridiculing another is a contradiction. Meaning, if you think you have a right to judge, then you are just as guilty of that action when you are guilty of what you judged.

Example: If you think stealing is wrong and want someone arrested for taking something of yours, yet you cheated on taxes, you are just as guilty. It may not look the same in your eyes, but they are both stealing.

 

[magnifier661]

I was just pointing out that regardless of whatever anyone thinks should be the motivation for obedience the former statement is certainly true (according to the Bible). Ultimately there is no acceptance without obedience.

So you can't be in love unless you are obedient to your partner? Or do you think that a mutual love would have both partners sharing an equal obedience and sacrifice for one another?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I was just pointing out that regardless of whatever anyone thinks should be the motivation for obedience the former statement is certainly true (according to the Bible). Ultimately there is no acceptance without obedience.

Except that's not the case. Acceptance of Christ's sacrifice is not commanded. Faith is not instructed. It's simply explained. Basically the gospel is, "You have sinned and aren't worthy to be with God, but He has made a way for you too be with Him; it's up to you." There is no obedience to earn acceptance. The acceptance is already offered. As Romans 5:8 states, "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

 

[magnifier661]

Except that's not the case. Acceptance of Christ's sacrifice is not commanded. Faith is not instructed. It's simply explained. Basically the gospel is, "You have sinned and aren't worthy to be with God, but He has made a way for you too be with Him; it's up to you." There is no obedience to earn acceptance. The acceptance is already offered. As Romans 5:8 states, "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

I think thats because they are critical thinkers and don't understand the meaning of grace.

 

[crowTrobot]

Basically the gospel is, "You have sinned and aren't worthy to be with God, but He has made a way for you too be with Him; it's up to you." There is no obedience to earn acceptance. The acceptance is already offered. As Romans 5:8 states, "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

That's some serious spin there.

If the offer isn't valid unless you accept it, there is no salvation without obedience.

 

[crowTrobot]

I think thats because they are critical thinkers and don't understand the meaning of grace.

Last I read you think accepting Jesus isn't a requirement for salvation at all, so I'm not addressing your belief here.

 

[magnifier661]

Accepting Christ saves you from the burden of death. Salvation has already been made. When you see me in Heaven we can talk about it more. After your mind is free

 

[crowTrobot]

If you do it once, then you are guilty of all. If your values ever question actions of others then ridiculing another is a contradiction. Meaning, if you think you have a right to judge, then you are just as guilty of that action when you are guilty of what you judged.

Not exactly sure what you're talking about here, but Christians seem to almost universally agree that slavery is objectively immoral. The values I referred to are theirs, not mine (necessarily). Again my only point was that the Supreme Court does not follow the 10 Commandments, so the fact that they are on a wall is irrelevant.

 

[crowTrobot]

Accepting Christ saves you from the burden of death. Salvation has already been made. When you see me in Heaven we can talk about it more. After your mind is free

Sounds like you're trying to drum up business for your dealer.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

That's some serious spin there.

If the offer isn't valid unless you accept it, there is no salvation without obedience.

So when you give someone a Christmas gift, their acceptance thereof constitutes obedience to you?

 

[crowTrobot]

So when you give someone a Christmas gift, their acceptance thereof constitutes obedience to you?

Yes if the acceptance involves requirements.

I (supposedly) can't just say to the air "Yeah Yahweh I don't believe in you, but if you do happen to be out there I'll take some of that salvation" and go back to my stealing killing bearing false witness while worshipping other gods life, and poof I'm accepted.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Yes if the acceptance involves requirements.

I (supposedly) can't just say to the air "Yeah Yahweh I don't believe in you, but if you do happen to be out there I'll take some of that salvation" and go back to my stealing killing bearing false witness while worshipping other gods life, and poof I'm accepted.

Well, considering that Faith is a precursor for acceptance, it would be pretty difficult to accept a Faith-based salvation while simultaneously disavowing belief in God. But that still doesn't constitute an obedience requirement.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

So are the prisons filled with God-fearing Bible Thumpers?

Yes.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...ists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/

~75% of inmates self-identify as Christian.
Between 0.07% and 0.2% of inmates identify as Atheists.

 

[crowTrobot]

Well, considering that Faith is a precursor for acceptance, it would be pretty difficult to accept a Faith-based salvation while simultaneously disavowing belief in God.

No it's not. I just did exactly that. If there is eternal life in Heaven with the creator of the universe available without any obedience requirements I'll definitely take some of that.

You're just using "Faith-based" as a spin term trying to hide the obedience requirement of belief.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

No it's not. I just did exactly that. If there is eternal life in Heaven with the creator of the universe available without any obedience requirements I'll definitely take some of that.

You're just using "Faith-based" as a spin term trying to hide the obedience requirement of belief.

You call belief obedience, and claim I'm engaging in spin? You crack me up.

 

[Further]

Not much if any. I tend to stay out of Denny's threads : )

I have definitely never suggested there might be such a thing as an objective moral resolution to treatment of animals. You're thinking of someone else there. Further maybe?

Nope, not me. I agree there is no absolute or non-subjective right or wrong. However, I do believe we live in a community and with norms and balance, and there are collectivly agreed upon (subjective for sure) morals or ethical base standards. In the grand scheme of things there is nothing in inherently wrong with killing at random. But, within the constructs of a civilization ethics become defined by our history, scholars and citizenry. The norms, laws and and intelligent stewerdship create a set of standards which may be looked at as morality.

And I certainly have not commented on how those constructs affect animals. I'm planning a hunting trip for next winter.

 

[crowTrobot]

You call belief obedience, and claim I'm engaging in spin? You crack me up.

If you're saying belief isn't commanded in the Bible you're making up your own religion.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

If you're saying belief isn't commanded in the Bible you're making up your own religion.

If you're saying that a precursor is a command, then you're making up your own language.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Denny told me to get more traffic in the OT section, religious threads always pay off!

You guys carry on, I'm getting the popcorn.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150205/us--obama-prayer_breakfast-f3b989dcc5.html

Obama had a more non-denominational message for the audience that also included prominent leaders of non-Christian faiths. The president said that while religion is a source for good around the world, people of all faiths have been willing to "hijack religion for their own murderous ends."

"Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ," Obama said. "In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.

"So it is not unique to one group or one religion," Obama said. "There is a tendency in us, a simple tendency that can pervert and distort our faith."

Obama called for all people of faiths to show humility about their beliefs and reject the idea that "God speaks only to us and doesn't speak to others."

 

[crowTrobot]

If you're saying that a precursor is a command, then you're making up your own language.

I'm not. I'm saying belief is commanded in the Bible and is a requirement for salvation.

 

[crowTrobot]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150205/us--obama-prayer_breakfast-f3b989dcc5.html

Obama had a more non-denominational message for the audience that also included prominent leaders of non-Christian faiths. The president said that while religion is a source for good around the world, people of all faiths have been willing to "hijack religion for their own murderous ends."

"Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ," Obama said. "In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.

"So it is not unique to one group or one religion," Obama said. "There is a tendency in us, a simple tendency that can pervert and distort our faith."

Obama called for all people of faiths to show humility about their beliefs and reject the idea that "God speaks only to us and doesn't speak to others."

Having to be a closet atheist must be a bitch.

 

[Further]

I'm not. I'm saying belief is commanded in the Bible and is a requirement for salvation.

I'm not sure about the New Testament, but I a rabbi at my old synagogue said that one of the main differences between judaism and Christianity is that to be a good Jew, we only need to ACT in accordance with the laws, but one does not need to believe or think in any particular way. In fact, the purpose of studying the Talmud (one of the main Jewish texts) is to learn to think, to learn to question. The hope is that once one ACTS in accorordance with the 613 mitzvots (laws), they will choose to believe, but it's not a necessity.
Whereas the rabbi said that christians were required to believe and that this belief is placed over actions. But what I don't know about the New Testament is if it states that one must believe explicitly, or if that has simply become the custom in that organization? Certainly born again christians must profess belief, but I'm not sure if this pertains to all denominations or if it is innate to their scripture.

 

[crowTrobot]

I'm not sure about the New Testament, but I a rabbi at my old synagogue said that one of the main differences between judaism and Christianity is that to be a good Jew, we only need to ACT in accordance with the laws, but one does not need to believe or think in any particular way. In fact, the purpose of studying the Talmud (one of the main Jewish texts) is to learn to think, to learn to question. The hope is that once one ACTS in accorordance with the 613 mitzvots (laws), they will choose to believe, but it's not a necessity.
Whereas the rabbi said that christians were required to believe and that this belief is placed over actions. But what I don't know about the New Testament is if it states that one must believe implicitly, or if that has simply become the custom in that organization? Certainly born again christians must profess belief, but I'm not sure if this pertains to all denominations or if it is innate to their scripture.

Believe in Jesus as the savior is explicitly commanded

 

[Denny Crane]

Having to be a closet atheist must be a bitch.

It doesn't seem he practices religion but he chose to join the United Church of Christ as and adult (e.g. Free Will).

http://atheism.about.com/od/barackobamareligionfaith/a/ObamaReligion.htm

 

[MarAzul]

Believe in Jesus as the savior is explicitly commanded

No it is not.

 

[MarAzul]

Denny told me to get more traffic in the OT section, religious threads always pay off!

You guys carry on, I'm getting the popcorn.

You should have called Sly. I had a gig for you to checkout, giving orders instead of humping on command.