Thread: Christmas poll

Originally Posted by Sailor

If you gentlemen here are going to name something as a 'sin' here, please push your efforts a little further and explain it with your own logic; not just because it says in some old book. Sure you are capable of thinking?

We cannot name something as "sin". The word sin means "to miss the mark, to fall short", in our case it means falling short of God's standard.That's why Romans 3:23 says "for all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God." We are sinners saved by Grace We will always be sinners but by the help of the Holy Spirit we strive to be more like Him who died for us. If you find a "Christian" who says they do not sin Gods word says they are self-deceived. As for "your own logic" that what gets us in trouble in the first place, Thinking we know more than "the Creator of everything". Just as a child rebels against their parents instruction so we do the same to our heavenly Father. The Good news is while we were sinners Christ Died for Us.

Originally Posted by JMS

You might try looking up the word "Sin" in a Spanish dictionary which, by the way, has its roots in Latin. I suspect you already know this though.

Sin means "to miss the mark".

[QUOTE=ZMKA;507549]
Flavius Josephus wasn't born by the time Jesus died, so his very few (and contreversial) mentionings of Jesus are very, very suspect. The same is true of Pliny the Younger - not born until long after Jesus was gone. Written commentary by a person who had first person contact with Jesus does not exist outside of the Bible.

Like others, I haven't read the entire collection of posts so this may already have been said. Don't ignore the fact that the Bible is written documentation. It is not one book witten by a church, it is a compilation of writings by Jesus' contemporaries. Yes, they saw him, met him, followed him and saw him die (one did, anyway). They were writing from personal experience. As for his life going unnoticed, sorry but there was no TV, no radio, no texting back then. And as has been said, very few could read or write. On another point, unlike Arthur, Robin Hood or Heracles, I've never known of an historian who doubted his existence.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

did anyone tell you NOT to mix alcohol and religion in the same debate??
it sometimes leaves you debating with ones self

What's the difference?

Originally Posted by gugi

No way, there is also joseph smith, the treasure and the seer stones....
You see, you tell me to read the Bible, the muslims tell me to read the Quran, the Mormons tell me to read the book of Moroni...
At least the mormons sent cute young girls to my place. Any way I look it they've got an advantage right there. May be you'll best them.... with a trio of strippers, for example You know, just sayin'...

why do you want to turn the spreading of the word by any religious sect into something dirty and blasphemous? that, in and of itself shows how decadent some have become. i would not want to say that about ANY religion, it is an insult to all religions and a sorry state of affairs that one would want to use sex to sell the religion(i know it has been done by a few idiots out there and most have not lasted for long)

Originally Posted by Sailor

I think we are going circles here, but Westboro Babtist Church comes to mind; as well as few cruelties done in the names of the Christ in history.
These wackos read their Bibles too. What is your argument against them? The Bible says it is wrong? Or is it just a way you want to read it?

Just because someone wants to use the name of Christ does not make them Christian. ie the Mormons (the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints). They do not believe Jesus is God (1/3 of the Triune Godhead) They believe Him to be the spirit brother of Lucifer (aka Satan). They will hand you a KJV bible and book of Mormon knowing that a large majority will NEVER read it. I've read both they are not compatible.

Jesus made it simple (for those who accept His Lordship) Summoning the crowd along with His disciples, He said to them, “If anyone wants to be My follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life because of Me and the gospel will save it. Mark 8:34&35


Also Paul in Ephesians Said: For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.

Our battle is spiritual not physical. There is no where in following Christ that we are commanded to do harm to others and when some do they are not following their Lord but taking matters into their own hands. We are commanded to go and teach not go and conquer. Notice / Stand your ground- Not attack- and when everything is over to stand- not destroy or mame or kill. You show me where the Bible calls for us to be any more than this.

What you call "wacko's" are self-righteous & self-seeking. They are sinners just like the rest of us but they have twisted the Gospel for some other purpose than Glorifing God. There is a name for them Self-Decieved and the Bible says it will be worse for them than anyone at judgement.

Read the Bible for what it is not what you think it should be. If actions do not match up to the true Word it is not from God and if it is not from Him then its from man or the Devil himself.

Originally Posted by ENUF2

What you call "wacko's" are self-righteous & self-seeking. They are sinners just like the rest of us but they have twisted the Gospel for some other purpose than Glorifing God. There is a name for them Self-Decieved and the Bible says it will be worse for them than anyone at judgement.

Read the Bible for what it is not what you think it should be. If actions do not match up to the true Word it is not from God and if it is not from Him then its from man or the Devil himself.

I agree with your point. Also i have no any reason to question your beliefs or your capability to read the word. My point is that the Bible (as well as Qaran) are books that make possible to read so many different ways, be it twisted mind or not. I will surely think that your way of choosing the moralistic parts from the Bible is compassionate and human, but that doesn't negate the fact that there are people in the world that read it from the different parts. As an agnostic it is really not my thing to find out what is the only one right way to read the Bible. Just saying that even those, everyone, who claim to tell you what God wants might show up to be wrong, or right, but who's to tell.
It is hard to get an unbiased or neutral opinion.

I truly respect that we are capable of having discussion about such personal things as religion without throwing sh.t in each others eyes. Personally i enjoy these conversations, which i see more like changing of opinions than trying to make you believe just the way i want.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

why do you want to turn the spreading of the word by any religious sect into something dirty and blasphemous? that, in and of itself shows how decadent some have become. i would not want to say that about ANY religion, it is an insult to all religions and a sorry state of affairs that one would want to use sex to sell the religion(i know it has been done by a few idiots out there and most have not lasted for long)

dirty and blasphemous? i'm not the one who makes the marketing decisions, i'm the side that is the target. i'm just noting that historical and sociological data are pretty unambiguous about what sells, i'm sure you've noticed it too, unless you've been living under a rock or something.

may be you're the one who is dishing out insults and not to just ideas (like a religion) but to human beings. i'm just thinking that many nude dancers may not appreciate being arbitrarily labeled prostitutes.
you surely must believe that your god created humans without any clothes, as that's the biblical story. why is then admiring god's creation in its original form so dirty and bad?

since you seem to have some issues with sex, do you happen to be one of the three members of the shakers' sect? somehow they seem to have had great difficulty in persuading to many people to join them in their beliefs.

Originally Posted by gugi

dirty and blasphemous? i'm not the one who makes the marketing decisions, i'm the side that is the target. i'm just noting that historical and sociological data are pretty unambiguous about what sells, i'm sure you've noticed it too, unless you've been living under a rock or something.

may be you're the one who is dishing out insults and not to just ideas (like a religion) but to human beings. i'm just thinking that many nude dancers may not appreciate being arbitrarily labeled prostitutes.
you surely must believe that your god created humans without any clothes, as that's the biblical story. why is then admiring god's creation in its original form so dirty and bad?

since you seem to have some issues with sex, do you happen to be one of the three members of the shakers' sect? somehow they seem to have had great difficulty in persuading to many people to join them in their beliefs.

gugi, why is it you always read too much into what someone is trying to say. you brought up "stripper" and the "morman girls" i made a statement about sex selling religion was blasphemy in my opinion, by selling something that is pure with sex..
i did not say anything about nude dancers being prostitutes, you did.
but if you knew anything about the "trade" it is well known a large share are "hookers" "crackheads" and basically drug addicts of some type(some even being sex addicts) they are not, shall we say the "cream of the crop"
why are you slandering the shakers sect? do they not have a "right" to practice their religion also?
furthermore you do not know me and whether i have an issue with sex. again you make assumptions about someone or group of people ad hominem. you may be the one with closet sexual tendencies.
it would behoove you as a moderator to not make judgment on someone or groups of people without finding out the facts first.
you have a tendency to slam people which is not a very gentlemanlike behavior to most peoples thinking.

huh?
you were the one to bring 'sex' into this, the only thing I noted is that the mormon girls who wanted to talk to me about their religion, being cute went long way in actually making me willing to listen to them.
see, i'm rather open minded, i'd read the bible, mine kampf, das kapital, the quran, and any other 'holy' book, the problem is there are so many of them that something else is gotta determine how i prioritize them.
i suggested, just like many philosophers and christian theologians in the past have, that admiring the god's creation could be a way to god himself and you jumped on me for making proselytism dirty.

my exact quote is 'you seem to have some issues with sex' this is based on your own post and nothing else, not sure how did you come up with 'slam'. i didn't say i know, i said i suspect it, which is based on your reading into my statement about 'cute girls' and 'strippers' that (1) there has to be sex involved (2) there is something dirty.

i think it would benefit you greatly if you learn the meaning of some words, 'slander' would be a good one.

as much as i dislike to quote wikipedia, here see for yourself Shakers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia there's a reference to go with the number 3.