Two grown men encouraged to play pretend game in public

nikolai_42

Well-known member
Easy. Stop serving god and serve humanity in all its wonderful variety.

The two are not mutually exclusive. But by forsaking God, one is not really serving humanity properly. Denying the Creator cannot be good for the creation.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Romans 1:24-26
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
The two are not mutually exclusive. But by forsaking God, one is not really serving humanity properly. Denying the Creator cannot be good for the creation.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Romans 1:24-26

Forsaking segments of humanity by divine decree, is likewise "not really serving humanity properly". A loving, compassionate god would find this basic calculus quite simple.
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
Forsaking segments of humanity by divine decree, is likewise "not really serving humanity properly". A loving, compassionate god would find this basic calculus quite simple.

Rejection of sinful behavior is not "forsaking" humanity. Rather, the humanity persisting in such behavior is forsaking God. Pick your side...
 

shagster01

New member
For starters, the spiritual lives of everyone connected with that church is in jeopardy...

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities

Revelation 18:4-5

The point there is that there are two distinct people : the people of God and those identified with Babylon. Even though distinct, the people of God in Babylon are to separate from the influence lest they approve what God calls wicked and get caught up in the judgment due the unrepentant Babylonian.

Maybe a little more direct :

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

2 Corinthians 6:14-18

The one who approves what God calls sin is not a believer. To take that into a church and foist that on others is to raise an idol in the church. It's bad enough when it happens at all, but when it is going on in a church in direct violation of the teaching of the scriptures (which are supposed to be the foundation of the teaching of the church), it's confusion (which is what "Babylon" means). The point being that anyone who identifies with someone who is a rebellious, unrepentant sinner (like someone wanting to justify homosexuality and have others approve of it - much less under the banner of Christianity!) is not someone God approves of. It is clear that they put themselves in great spiritual danger. Even more, the one who pastors the church in that direction :

My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.
James 3:1

The bottom line is if one is serving God, one will not approve of what He disapproves. Just that basic point of worship alone (regardless of the religion) should be clear. If one violates the principles upon which the faith is based, one violates the faith and at leasts mocks it. And if one believes God is the author of that faith, one has God to answer to.

What does any of that have to do with you or me?

If you believe 1+1=3 it is not my concern. I might tell you that you are wrong, but if you willfully continue to believe it, it's really no concern of mine. As long as you aren't affecting MY life you can believe in the wrong answer for all I care.
 

Caledvwlch

New member
Now I remember why I come to TOL. So you nice folks can remind me why leaving the faith was the best decision I ever made. And I'm including the decision to order the peanut butter pie last weekend at dinner with my girlfriend.
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
What does any of that have to do with you or me?

If you believe 1+1=3 it is not my concern. I might tell you that you are wrong, but if you willfully continue to believe it, it's really no concern of mine. As long as you aren't affecting MY life you can believe in the wrong answer for all I care.

Remember my first response? You were only concerned about how it affected you. Your definition of right and wrong (which you seem to agree exists) is based on you and you alone. What if it goes beyond that? If it does, then there are far reaching ramifications of calling good evil and evil good that immediately reach beyond what you can see and that eventually work their way back to your doorstep.
 

bybee

New member
Remember my first response? You were only concerned about how it affected you. Your definition of right and wrong (which you seem to agree exists) is based on you and you alone. What if it goes beyond that? If it does, then there are far reaching ramifications of calling good evil and evil good that immediately reach beyond what you can see and that eventually work their way back to your doorstep.

Agreed!
 

bybee

New member
Now I remember why I come to TOL. So you nice folks can remind me why leaving the faith was the best decision I ever made. And I'm including the decision to order the peanut butter pie last weekend at dinner with my girlfriend.

There is a larger picture....
 

bybee

New member
One which you guys deny in the face of reality.

So you get the old tar bucket out and starting painting everyone in sight....
In what way, in terms of logistics, do you fancy yourself to be different from the "guys" you so detest?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
So you get the old tar bucket out and starting painting everyone in sight....
In what way, in terms of logistics, do you fancy yourself to be different from the "guys" you so detest?

Well I'm not a Christian, for one, nor do I consider legal marriages "playing pretend."
 

shagster01

New member
Remember my first response? You were only concerned about how it affected you. Your definition of right and wrong (which you seem to agree exists) is based on you and you alone. What if it goes beyond that? If it does, then there are far reaching ramifications of calling good evil and evil good that immediately reach beyond what you can see and that eventually work their way back to your doorstep.

Where this goes bad is when you interchange good and evil with right and wrong. You switch between those two groups like they are synonyms. They are not. Bad things can also be right.
 
Last edited:

nikolai_42

Well-known member
Where is goes bad is when you interchange good and evil with right and wrong. You switch between those two groups like they are synonyms. They are not. Bad things can also be right.

The way I read that is that value judgments ("what I think is good") are what you are calling right and wrong where good and evil are absolute moral assessments.

Is that correct?
 

shagster01

New member
The way I read that is that value judgments ("what I think is good") are what you are calling right and wrong where good and evil are absolute moral assessments.

Is that correct?

Sure. Minus the fact that I do not believe in absolute good and evil. I believe in situational evaluation. I'm not, for example, going to make the "moral" decision if it will cause more harm than help just because the Bible or other dogma tells me to. Making the best situational decision, to me, is the moral choice.
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
Sure. Minus the fact that I do not believe in absolute good and evil. I believe in situational evaluation. I'm not, for example, going to make the "moral" decision if it will cause more harm than help just because the Bible or other dogma tells me to. Making the best situational decision, to me, is the moral choice.

So you're simply saying that what's right in your eyes may not always be considered good or right in the bible. Is that correct?
 
Top