ClimateSanity
New member
We can point out your arrogance in your words, but you still won't see it because it's so ingrained.
Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
Honest Answers.
- Thread starter Halster
- Start date
You can certainly make a logically cogent argument for following the christian hobby. If you accept the premise that there is an angry god willing to burn you in sulfur if you don't love Jesus, which is exactly what the NT and the Jewish bible say together, or indeed a loving god that has your best interests at heart, which it really doesn't say, then either way the only logical course of action is to do what you are told. However, logical conclusions based on faulty premises may not describe the best course of action.
Stuart
That's mighty condescending of you, CS. And it robs your complaint, while pointing out something useful about your approach to me. So I suppose I owe you a thanks on the illustration.
Last edited:
* Faith provides meaning to the life we are living and salvation from death.
Lon
Well-known member
My couple of atheist professors had personal problems and used the classroom as a cudgel and indoctrination centers. 1) It is anti-intellectual. 2) Poor moral display 3) a waste of my hard earned money.
As far as a God who sends people to hell, you are being dishonest or a dupe yourself. The core message is NOT a god who sends people to hell. If you think it is, you were lied to or someone explained it very badly. John 3 is very clear: the Son came to seek and save. If this is all your cursory glance at Christianity has gotten you, you have my pity. It is frankly and sincerely, wrong. -Lon
"Nonsense ....lightens up your day". :think:
It was just another exchange here on ToL. :idunno:
As we (or at least I) use words to point out your arrogance by deeds; simply responding in kind.
If you don't enjoy the message, don't harbor the mind-set.
Yeah, well that's inexcusable. But I'd also say there are people who feel the same way about their time at Liberty 'University' and other similar institutions, not because of the attitudes of individuals but because those qualities appear to characterise policy in general.
Romans 11:22
...unless you think Saul of Tarsus didn't know what he was writing, which is a reasonable position to take.
Stuart
Lon
Well-known member
:up: Thanks.
private vs. public at that point.
My only two options? I think it is out of context, and specifically about the 'avenue' in which God would deliver the gospel. "Cut-off" is rather about a people who would no longer carry that message. It is only about the avenue, delivery that is being cut off. You see it today. Jews don't proselytize.
I guess the reason why there is a consitutional block on the US government establishing a religion is so the baptists of Danbury, Connecticut would not be persecuted by the congregationalists of Danbury, Connecticut, and so forth, but if the government was to actively promote godlessness in its publicly-funded institutions would that constitute a breach of the establishment clause? It would probably require an amendment to the Amendment. (And if TH is reading, for all those who say atheism is a religion, I say it is a hobby!).
I don't see my own interpretation of 'cut off' as unreasonable. You can rightly say I am cherry-picking scripture (just following the christian example all around me!) but I still think it is entirely representative of Paul's attitude. Another thing about hell is that it only appears with the birth of the sweet baby Jesus.
Stuart
And what of Revelation 21:8 King James Version (KJV) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
John recorded those words also. Of course, hell is not a place of eternal torment for humans, but simply a place of nonexistence, of total oblivion, the death of the mind that survives the first death, which is that of the body, in which the mind/spirit had developed..
Lon
Well-known member
Just an idea: Since we are trying to foster society, it is better to share what is good. The removal of 'all offense' is a ridiculous attempt imho. It does need to be done carefully, but I don't really have a problem if the Muslim kids want to bring prayer mats. It isn't a force, doesn't harm, and I think, helps others appreciate where another is coming from, even if they don't participate themselves. I'm not sure how it would work, or if it wouldn't interfere a bit with instruction, but the kids are already distracted, and not with good things. I'm not sure what the atheist kids would do. As long as it is a societal positive, we should probably start encouraging more of it. Perhaps a private or magnet "all faiths" school or something.
(Just something to kick around, so go ahead and get all four tires, I think it has as many "it would never works" as it may have culturally redeeming qualities. We just have to do something about us/them polarization and a secular state that doesn't foster understanding will never accomplish that, especially now, with both parents working).
Anytime the Coast Guard is present, the storm is right behind it. It is about the need. The discussion about 'why' there is a storm is rather secondary on my agenda. "Let's talk about 'why' AFTER the needs of people are taken care of first. I believe the manger at least an honest and earnest approach.
Lon
Well-known member
It is about par, but usually talk of global warming is 'our fault' doesn't happen until weeks or months after.
Lon
Well-known member
You'd have to do better than the comparison as well. "Dire" we can all relate to. "The armchair commentators we will always have among us."
Are we spectators or participants? Doers or commentators?
I wouldn't mind getting involved in politics, but I'd feel an obligation to go get the skill-set required.
So where are you on the whole need for sinners to be saved scenario?? :think:
Lon wrote.........You'd have to do better than the comparison as well. "Dire" we can all relate to. "The armchair commentators we will always have among us."
Are we spectators or participants? Doers or commentators?
S-word.........Or are we fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, who shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Lon wrote.........I wouldn't mind getting involved in politics, but I'd feel an obligation to go get the skill-set required.
S-word..........Well, if you wouldn't mind getting involved in politics, then go and get the skill-set required, and do it.
Lot wrote.........So where are you on the whole need for sinners to be saved scenario??
S-word.......... I'm not here to save anyone. I will point out were I believe a person may be doing wrong, but that's it. They have their saviour, and It's not me.
Lon
Well-known member
This all the point (for me): We need not stand in the way Psalm 1:1
Talking about the weather takes a back seat as far as I'm concerned and I 'think' rightly so.
Ecclesiastes 12:1-14
In the UK, where they have an established church, there is a long history of church-provided schooling that has come to be funded by the state but has retained the direction of the church. Because this exists, other religions insist on also being allowed to set up so-called faith schools, also state-funded (and that is to ignore the private schooling that is also religious). The Jewish and islamic faith schools are always in the news for stretching the state rules about qualifying for funding. There have been many studies and reports on the negative effects on cohesion in society of faith schools, which often end up segregating communities along racial or ethnic lines. But the inertia of the whole history of schooling provision means politicians think there is no appetite for questioning it. Standard state schools are seen to be poor-quality so any alternative is seen as better, no matter that it is actually self-selection for attitude that gives better outcomes, not any positive religious effect.
What you are talking about is students being allowed to express elements of faith at school, which is a different thing of course. I still remain convinced that religious observance should be rated as unsuitable for people under 18 years of age. There is no way young people can comprehend the dark adult themes involved.
The example of the UK shows that if you think a secular state is failing to foster understanding, try a non-secular one with an established church. If schools in the UK could encourage more mixing across society then that should be a good thing. A further complication is that christianity is dying in the West, and especially in Europe. So the justification for the established church and its influence is disappearing all the time. If the Church of England were to go out of existence then current policy would leave the government funding some pretty extreme indoctrination in Jewish and islamic schools, which would still no doubt continue to exist.
It could be seen that way. But the invention of the Jesus story by zealous Jews keen for a bit of prophetic fulfillment (that's too obviously the explanation for the New Testament) misses Hitchens's point about the questionable morality of a god that would have allowed human suffering (in whatever sense you like) to carry on for hundreds of thousands to millions of years, followed by the sudden, brilliant idea to intervene in the form of a human sacrifice in the Middle East, an MO sure to cause more trouble than it could solve for humans on the ground at the time.
Stuart
Lot wrote.........This all the point (for me): We need not stand in the way Psalm 1:1
S-word........ And I. who reject the advise of evil men, and do not follow the example of the sinners, or join those like yourself have no use for God. am a happy man.
Lot wrote.........Talking about the weather takes a back seat as far as I'm concerned and I 'think' rightly so. Ecclesiastes 12:1-14.
S-word.........The book of Sirach, which is to be found in the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, coupled together with the book of Job, a number of the Psalms, Parables, Ecclesiastes, and the Wisdom of Solomon, all belong to the Hogmah or Wisdom Literature of the Hebrews, ‘Mashal’ means Similitude, parable, or proverb.----- In the book of Sirach, R, H, Charles translation chapter 47 verse 17, it is written concerning Solomon, “By thy songs, parables, dark speeches, and*SATIRES, thou didst cause astonishment to the peoples etc.”
“Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. I envy those who are dead and gone; they are better off than those who are still alive. But better off than either, are those who have never been born etc.
A man may have a hundred children and live a long time, but no matter how long he lives, if he does not get his share of happiness and does not receive a descent burial, then I say that a baby born dead is better off. Man and animal receive the same ultimate reward, total oblivion, from the dust they came and to the dust they shall return. A wise man is no better off than a fool, the reward for doing good is the same as that for doing evil, so don’t be too good or too wise, Why kill yourself?*
We are all going to our final resting place, and although life is useless, the conclusion of the matter is, if you live a religious life you may at least experience some peace in the short span of consciousness that has been allocated to you in this useless life.
So go ahead and eat, drink and be merry, drink your wine and be cheerful. It’s all right with God. Enjoy your life with the woman you love, as long as you live the useless life that God has given you in this world. Enjoy every useless day of it, because that is all that you’ll get for all your troubles.
Never again will you take part in anything that happens in the world, because there will be no action, no thought, no knowledge, no wisdom in the world of the dead to where the righteous, the wicked, the wise and the fools, animal and man, are all going. For the living know that they are going to die, but the dead know nothing.”*
Solomon’s songs are found in his book, ‘Song of Songs,’ his parables are found in his book of proverbs, his dark speeches are in the ‘Wisdom of Solomon,’ and who can read the negative and even depressing words from the book of ‘Ecclesiastes without realizing that here is the satirical work of Solomon, aimed at those who believed in neither life after death, or the resurrection from the dead.
Isaiah 42: 1-2; Good people die and no one understands or even cares. But when they die, no calamity can hurt them. Those who lead good lives find peace and rest in death.
If those who lead good lives find peace and rest in the bosom of Abraham, what state do you suppose awaits those who like the rich man in the parable of Jesus, do not lead good lives.
Why did Jesus preach the good news to the dead also, if, as you seem to believe, (The dead have no mind or consciousness?)
Lon
Well-known member
Good. So? Fools are just wrong. Happy has nothing to do with anything. Who cares if you are happy about it or not? I don't. I rather care what is true, whether I am happy about it or not. Clearly, I believe Christianity is true. Einstein said atheism was lame. It is hard to figure out why, with no context, but I suspect something along this line: I sneezed and thought, 'how did God design that to happen? I realize there are nerves, and that some of them detect irritants in the nose, and the signals are carried to the brain where a series of events are set off to expel the irritant from the body. "Ingenious" as the whole body works together doesn't quite describe how incredibly we are made. An atheist? He doesn't ask. He assumes, and in doing so becomes more retarded in his thinking, than before coming to the moment of contemplation. I am not against science or evolution, but if 'evolution-did-it' is all you got, Einstein is correct (he is anyway): "Atheism is lame." Who cares if you are 'happy' about it? :idunno: Can someone be truly happy with being or as brain-dead? :idunno:
:think: Either you really like Lot, or you are trying to tell me something....
Great, I have a degree in theology, you aren't telling me, or even reminding me of anything
The Pharisees and the Sadducees had the same discussion: Matthew 22:29-33
An atheist won't be convinced of Jesus' words unless he/she has ears to hear. As you say, the dead cannot hear Him, brain-dead or otherwise. I think, even though Einstein was but a deist, that he did know Atheism was lame. It has to be. There is no other place for such a lack-of-belief to go. Perhaps this was your point. -Lon