Oh, and that Charles Finney you quoted so extensively? At least he’s a little later than Jonathan Edwards. But Finney himself has been dead for almost 130 years. Got anybody from contemporary times to quote, Svt?
“The God that hates you dangles you over the fire like a spider or some other loathesome insect…”
I’m just quoting from memory here; I may have gotten it wrong. You want to talk about the wrathfulness of God from the Bible, go right ahead. Jonathan Edwards can get bent, however. I haven’t come across a fan of his in quite some time.
Extensively? Does that negate what he said though? But yes, I often use Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron who are both still alive. http://www.livingwaters.com/
It was through Ray Comfort that I first heard Hell’s Best Kept Secret (listen on-line [url=http://www.livingwaters.com/listenwatch.shtml]here ) as well as coined the phrase Law to the proud, Grace to the humble.
And again, I’m sorry for saying we met with the homosexual church, as that seems to be used to say I was lying about my postion. I never went to the church, and I see that I could have worded it better. Call it what you will, but I never meant it to say I went to the Church. Maybe my classification of the group we met there was wrong, and I’m sorry for that.
“that seems to be used to say I was lying about my position”
Hoo-boy. You’d make a GREAT American politician. I thought it had been pretty well established by those of us who have functioning brains in this thread (particularly Homebrew, without whose presence here we’d never have known what you were actually doing … because you sure as shit ain’t gonna give us the whole truth on anything) that you’ve been consistently dodging questions, giving dodgy answers, wholesale not responding to entire posts (and really, if I’d known you were going to ignore my rebuttals of your “dueling Bible” posts, I wouldn’t have given you nearly as much respect as I tried to), changing your story as folks caught up with you (if Svt4him had designed the game Clue, nobody would ever win. The killer would just keep changing the “facts” of the case any time anyone got one right), etc.
It’s interesting. In the beginning of this thread we were wondering about the meaning of “Svt” in this character’s SN. All the time we were looking at the wrong bit. It’s the same “Him” H4e serves, and which Siege pointed out not long ago.
Kirk Cameron?! Growing Pains Kirk Cameron? Second-rate actor Kirk Cameron? Whose last starring role was in the unbelievably lame and fundie-pornish Left Behind?
This is the caliber of hermeneutics you’re touting?
Ok, give me a break. I’ve been accused of many things here, take a read if you don’t see it. I’ve asked for clarification, for instance saying I’ve lied about LDS teachings, and received none. But I’m suppose to be the one who defends everything? Apply that same standard to all who say things. iampunha, I am sorry if I missed any direct questions. FYI, I am fairly busy right now, having just completed my entrance exam for my designation. Granted that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t reply, but some times I don’t have time to read everything, and since everything I say is questioned, and very little is answered when I ask, it gets a bit frustrating. For instance, I was accused of being a jackass for leaving for the weekend. Is this normal? If you don’t reply in two days, it means you’ve left for good? Not only that, but if you wouldn’t mind, you can inundated me with questions that prove nothing, but if there is a specific question I’d certainly try and answer it. Send me a whole dissertation, chances are, honestly, I won’t read the whole thing. And if you start by attacking my character, I’ll read even less. Not because I don’t think it’s important, but I know my character, I know my flaws, I know my strengths, and I know my failures. But once character is attacked, issues get lost, as they have in some of the posts. Then, no matter how logical my point is, it’s a character issue, so it’s irrelevant. You can also use my misuse of the term Homosexual Church as a “Straw Man” but I think I’ve been consistant with my story, although again, wrong classification of the group we’d meet. So if you wouldn’t mind, show me a lie. Obviously if they’re so apparent to all, it won’t be hard to find many.
Let me also post from http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/CTAC/fallacy.htm
Attacking the person (Ad Hominem)-
This fallacy feeds off of the same psychological emotions that the appeal to authority does, but in this case the argument consists of an attack on the person instead of the ideas or position they are defending. Unlike a Straw Man, this does not even bother to attack a weak form of the opposition argument. Such an attack will be relevant only if the attack establishes (a) a lack of reasonableness or judgement of the opponent- in which case we may want to take a closer look at the position they are defending. This fallacy often works because we tend to see an argument as a contest to be won instead of a search for truth. If one side can align itself with the majority and characterize the opposition as a common enemy, then they will have gained some psychological support. This may be desirable as persons, but as philosophers it will not get us closer to the truth.
This fallacy can take one of three forms-
-
Abusive- name calling: in this form the person attacks the character of the person - Jesse Helms calling Mapelthorpe a `jerk".
-
Circumstantial- guilt by association: this one surfaces in political circles often- usually the opposition argument is characterized as
liberal' orsocialistic’, etc. -
Two wrongs make a right- or Tu Quoque (you too): in this instance the charge of wrongdoing is answered by a rationalization that the opposition should not cast a stone if they have sinned. While this may work for Religion, it does not work as an answer. Indeed, sometimes it is those who have made the mistake already who can best see when someone else is about to make it. What is truly in question is whether or not the second evil is needed to counteract the first, i.e. if the first justifies the second. (like in killing for self defense- the evil of killing the attacker is justified, since it is done to protect a greater evil- our own death)
The day I need lessons on proper debate methods from someone who can’t keep his own story straight is the day I cut off my penis with the original jawbone of Jesus Christ.
My suggestion to you, Svt4him, is that you come back some time when you have time to reap what you sow.
So again, what issue do you have a problem with? So far I haven’t seen anything that I can address. But again, I’m sorry if I said something to offend you, it wasn’t my intent.
:smack: Sorry, I should have known that because you don’t like his acting, what he says is then irrelevant. But he actually did another Left Behind 2 movie, which I think is a bit better. Most of what I use is more from Ray Comfort’s materials, but since Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron now are working together, I’ll give credit to them both. But even in Left Behind 2, Ray Comfort’s teaching called Hell’s Best Kept Secret was used almost word for word in some parts.
I have an idea. Back when Johann Tetzel went to Germany with his indulgences, he debated Martin Luther. Back when Douglas and Lincoln were vying for office, they had debates.
I think it’s time for Svt to put up or shut up. So why not have a debate? One of us can debate Svt. A third party will propose the topic statement and act as moderator. Either Svt or one of us can go first. The second speaker gets to make a statement and a rebuttal, followed by the first person again, and a final statement by the second. A B A B. After that’s over the rest of the “watching crowd” can be the jury and decide on whose statements were the most coherent and logical.
The point will not be to change minds, although that’s always a possibility. The point will be to see who’s statements are the clearest and who does, or doesn’t shy away from the other speaker’s point of view.
Whoever steps up to the plate should agree to play nice. No name calling. No waffling or saying “I won’t play anymore because everyone is against me.”
Perhaps the “debate” should be in GD as well, to ensure civilized conduct. Any takers? Are you game Svt? I’ll volunteer to be either moderator or debater, unless the rest of you might think someone else is better suited.
BTW, I will be back in three hours. I have to go help teach Vacation Bible School this evening. I’ll check the thread when I get home and see if anyone’s interested, or if I’ve been hooted down.
-
God hates sinners.
-
Everyone is a sinner.
-
God loves everyone.
Really, what in the world are you talking about?
Baker, I’ll debate against this individual. I don’t much care the topic, although I reserve the right to object to the premises (i.e. not the “location” meaning of premises but the “we assume for purposes of debate that this is true” meaning). I’m not sure it’d be strictly enforceable to say “nobody but pun and Svt4him post here” in GD, though.
Svt4him, go back and look at my response(s) to the posts of yours wherein you heavily cite the Bible. Re: what issues I have, you’ll find them there (for the 5th time, in some cases).
And re: Kirk Cameron, citing someone as a religious figure who is known not for his religious stance but for his role in a Sitcom is like citing Pete Maravich as a religious figure; he ain’t known for that, he’s known for being a fantastic basketball player.
Do it, matt! That was hysterical!
You know, Jesus is really cool, but some of his followers…yech.
Then maybe I’ll try and explain. When someone says love the sinner hate the sin, or when someone says God does the same, they are usually done in an attempt to appease or not offend someone. But God demonstrated that He loves sinners in that while we were sinners, Jesus died for us. So maybe I’m not being clear, but I think, and it really is my opinion, but when people say love the sinner, hate the sin, they are glossing over the fact that the sinner will be judged, not their sin.
And “citing someone as a religious figure who is known not for his religious stance but for his role in a Sitcom is like citing Pete Maravich as a religious figure; he ain’t known for that, he’s known for being a fantastic basketball player.” that may be true in a court of law, maybe he doesn’t have the weight of someone who’s a doctor in theology. But here is his site, which I’ve used. Didn’t say it was a deep religious exegesus of scripture, I just like their stories.
As for the debate, what are you thinking of debating? Honestly though, I think you need to find people who respect each other, and I’ve already offended enough that I think I need some time to let people get to know me as I get to know some others.
And impunha, you really have to forgive my short posts, or my lack of reading them all. I come from a forum where anything longer than a paragraph is ignored, so to make the change is taking me a bit to get use to. Also I’ve always been able to modify a post right after I’ve posted it, and find that it takes a bit to get use to having to explain something, as opposed to just mod it after I realize it’s unclear. But I shall go back to where I heavily cite the Bible.
Kirk Cameron is a moron-the Left Behind series is hideously anti-Catholic.
Having been raised a Catholic, I can say that his beliefs are bullshit.
That’s the first time I’ve heard that Guinastasia, so could you please explain it a bit?
Wow, I can’t believe I missed this, so I will try my best. But first I shall do it on Word. Ok:
Did you post this story in this thread because you feel it has relevance re: gay christians vs. straight christians, or for some other reason? I asked this once and I’m asking it again - I felt it had relevance as a comment was made regarding how I was there preaching against homosexuality. I was not.
Now then. If the “Let me start by the one you just mentioned about sex…” is my comment about there being no proscription dealing with extramarital (excluding adulterous) intercourse, no verse other than those I quoted apply, I think, since they (non-Exodus 3-18) aren’t the Ten Commandments. Unless you’d like to make a case that The Ten are also found in Galatians - I believe the whole Bible is relevant.
I am unable to place this comment of yours in the context of what has been said so far. Are you able to? It was in regards to the fact that I thought I had read, and possible not from you, that we think we know stuff, but there is no definite truth. I disagree with that.
I don’t know about you, but to me there’s a difference between pre-marital sex, having sex with someone who’s married to someone else (and without that someone else’s permission), being paid to have sex and “various forms of unchastity”, which could be nothing more than masturbation. That’s an awfully big brush to paint with, dude. I wouldn’t go trying to paint flies with that thing the way I think you’re trying to.- sorry, was only giving the definition. Have you ever looked up the word ‘word’ in the dictionary? The one I saw had 9 different variation, and all are correct. The problem is they are all accurate definitions.
1 John you bring up. This is the first time I’ve seen this particular passage, and it rather disturbs me:
quote:
9 No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God. 10 By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother.
Um. Now I may be reading this wrong (hope to Hell-er, Heaven I am), but someone who sins is the child of the devil? - That, as an unclear passage, needs to be looked at as a whole. I believe, and this is a quick belief, so I won’t be willing to die for this belief, that anyone who lives in continual sin is.
You cite 1 John 2, which I believe can be adequately summed up (feel free to disagree ) thusly:
quote:
He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
His commandments being: Love God as much as you can, and love your neighbor as you love yourself (IE do unto others etc).- no, this is a summary of the commandments, and if it could be done, it would fulfill all other commandments.
Now. If I ask you not to, say, punch me in the face, and I punch YOU in the face, I am not living my neighbor as myself. Conversely, while you may not object to being punched in the face and so not mind me doing so, you must think to yourself what my wishes are.- I don’t follow what you’re saying here, sorry.
This is one reason why I believe that those who believe they are doing God’s work in telling homosexuals (among other things and other groups) “You’re going to Hell” or who try to tell them what they’re doing (which, unless they’ve been using periscopes to look into the bedrooms involved, they don’t know) is going against God’s word. He says lots of things about counseling your neighbor against sin, but he also says to love your brother as yourself. And the way to reach someone, to show them God’s love, is not to do what they don’t want but to show them God’s love. Because ultimately He’s the one who’s going to show them what they’re doing is wrong (or not, or whatever). We are all, at our best, fallible. That is why my belief is that those whose ministries try more to counsel against sin than for developing a deeper relationship with Christ/God (which, IMO, will lead to an understanding of sin that entails not being a busybody) are erring.- faith comes by hearing, and hearing from the word of God. What you are also addressing is motive, I think. First the preaching part: 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship. 18 What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel. Notice he says preach the gospel, not live it, although both are important. I think the problem lies in the fact that many people have preached without really caring, and that is sad. But it’s the word that has power, as Paul said there are people who preach out of selfish ambition, but the word of God is going out.
quote:
Truth is truth, no matter how much I agree or disagree with it.
John 18:38: “…“What is truth?”…” One of my favorite quotes in the entire work, and although badly taken out of context here I still think its meaning is valid. The issue, as I see it, is not how much you disagree with it but how it can be proven that it is, in fact, truth. -16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Let me make this argument to you: I have a book in my hand. I assert that it is the Truth because I believe it. I believe it with all my heart. Lots of other people believe it.
Do those beliefs render the necessary conclusion that it is Truth? I hold that it does not, and this is why I think that arguing from the Bible as though it were Truth is faulty. Too, consider the fact that we’re discussing this in a language that is vastly different from the one it was written in, and that the verse markings weren’t there, and the punctuation wasn’t there, and etc. The margin of error with the Bible is simply too much for me to place importance in it above that of the life of a friend. If my refusal to treat the Bible as the Truth you hold it to be means that we are at an impasse, so be it. – yes, but to say that it is in a language that is different doesn’t mean that a. we can’t go look at the context in the original language b. use programs that do this for us c. use a variety of translations d. see the texts. All translations we have were from the original language. Granted there is then some translation errors, but we can still go to the original or different translations to get the full meaning. As a side note, a book on Hebrew idioms was terrible helpful.
quote:
They can not claim to be Bible believing religions if they do things that the Bible says not to do.
And who is saying what the Bible says not to do? You have already said that you are no more an authority on the Bible than anyone else. Who among any of us (in the world) is qualified to say for sure what the Bible says not to do? Let that being come here and clarify all this for us. Until then it is not ours to judge who is not a Christian if they say they are. If you believe they aren’t, live your life such that others will know how to live as Christ and God intended, to the best of your abilities - This I disagree with, and we have more than enough resources at our figures to figure out what something says. If I say I’m a murdering rapist who hates his brother, and I’m a Christian, you’d tell me you wouldn’t be able to judge? You can’t condemn, but you can show that I am wrong. The story of the log in the eye says first take the log out of your eye, then take the stick out of your brothers.
I’ve yet to see one translated correctly. YMMV - Look at the originals. Again, computer programs have allowed us to do this, and, since there are many different translations, I suggest looking at various translations.
quote:
If so, then according to the Bible they believe (KJV) they are false prophets.
Not even going to expound on this at any length. I’ve covered my disagreement with this before. Unless you’d care to try to answer my argument, I see no reason to dignify comments like “The Bible says” and “according to the Bible” because they imply something I do not accept.- fair enough, which goes back to the beginning quote about the text of a comment I made.
quote:
Christians throughout the centuries have pointed to Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation.
These days entirely too many tend to be pointing toward belief in the Bible as required for salvation (at them, not you). I don’t think you’ve quite presented a Bibliolatrist POV.- The Bible is the measuring stick to make sure we stay true to God. But there are people who may never have a Bible who can know Jesus. There are also many who do have Bibles but have no relationship with Jesus. But the Bible is still the guideline, that all our beliefs must be measured by. If we went by feelings, we’d all be ok, because we all have them.
This is sloppy if you believe that God is present on Earth. Do you?- If that’s for me, then yes and no. That’s like asking if God is everywhere, and yes He is. So maybe I should say that you will never be able to work yourself into an eternal presence with God, in heaven. Any four spiritual laws track explains that ok.
To you. I stand by my previous assessment re: complete knowledge and the Truth of the Bible.- the Bible was written for men, so to say we can’t know the truth behind it unless we have some sort of degree isn’t accurate.
quote:
Any individual, group, or church claiming that salvation can be found only within their little circle must be viewed with suspicion.
And this is the main disagreement I have with every singly religious organization that claims this, including the vast majority of Christian ones. They claim to have some Perfect Knowledge of ANYTHING religious, such as how you know you’re going to Heaven (particularly amusing are those who claim you can know you’re saved, or that someone isn’t, or is going to Hell).- Did I write that quote above? Anyway, do you believe John the Baptist was right in calling the Pharisees Son’s of Snakes?
You think it’s amazing, I think it’s them being honest (as they see honesty). Hell, I’d rather have someone tell me upfront what they think than lead me through a song and dance, quoting bits and pieces of scripture as it fits their beliefs, and push God as The Judger rather than The Lover. Again, YMMV. I’ve become a bit fed up with the image of God as The Judger inasmuch as so many who profess to follow Him think He has given them mini gavels.- I think to focus just on the Love of God is just as bad as focusing on the judgement of God. And LDS don’t say they’re the only ones…well, at least to your face. And I can give you ref, but that’ll have to wait, as this is page five already.
And this is so different from Christianity/religion in general? Can you name, for me, a sufficiently large denomination of any religion that does not believe salvation comes from professing faith in its beliefs? Salvation is the whole fucking thing that keeps the Church going! It sells salvation! It says “Hey, come with us if you want to live! Here! Give us money! We’ll help you! See this book we have? It says to give us money, and it’s true because God says it is! How do we know that? Because it says so!”- Where does it say that, why just quote large churches, and any church that says salvation is through them is incorrect. Paul was quite clear about that.
Sorry, dude. Circular logic ain’t where it’s at for me.- same here.
And who has Christ? You guys have Christ! So by agreeing with your beliefs, I have faith in Christ! ::insert circular logic:: - I don’t understand what you’re saying here.
Gee, that’s so unlike what you just described. Change the name and it’s, in fact, EXACTLY the same:
No salvation without Smith
No salvation without Christ
I’m not seein’ a marked difference here.- Really? What did Joseph Smith do to atone for my sins, because this becomes an issuer of sin. Was Joseph Smith a perfect sacrifice for me?
Your further citations referring to salvation being found in Smith fall under, IMO, the analogy I use above in re: names.- so IYO, Joseph Smith and Jesus are the same?
This, IIRC, is one of the arguments used to support the idea that salvation lies not in faith alone but in works. IMO it is not an untenable position especially given some of the actions of those who profess a belief in God but do not live a life I would necessarily say has anything to do with His will. However, again, it ain’t my place to say for sure. Just MHO.- There is another thread about works that talks about this.
I appreciate the legwork you’ve done here, which appears to be the work of a good bit of research on your part. I know it must frustrate you to some amount that I disagree with your premises, though in all fairness I told you that well before you posted above as you did. Nevertheless I do feel some guilt that you have wasted your time, at least with respect to my disagreement with you.- it really isn’t a waste of time. You don’t know me, and I don’t know you, so we question each others motives, right or wrong. Being new here, I will ask for a bit of grace though, as I am really not use to replying so much.
Oh shoot, sorry about the format, or lack thereof.
Well, I’m back early. I see Svt has declined to debate. Too bad. I thought that s/he might have remembered that Elijah won when he contested with the priests of Baal.
iampunha, if Svtever changes their mind and grows a backbone I would be honored to have you be the debater for the other side. I could act as the moderator and propose the debate premise. And you are right about the GD thing, it would probably be better to keep it here.
Stated: God hates sin but still loves the sinner. Agree or disagree, with cites That might come close to a good debate premise, considering what has already been going on in this thread.
Citing Kirk Cameron(I am assuming because of the Left Behind movies) is sad.