quote: You will never hear me ask my husband, "Do I look fat in this" because I would never put him in the position to answer that. There's no right way to answer that.
Actually, there's nothing wrong with that question if you really want to know the answer. Some outfits are more flattering than others, and if you want his opinion about how flattering an outfit is, there's nothing wrong with it.
But I have to say that I really respect it when people know themselves enough so that they don't ask questions that they don't want to know the answer to.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, my opinion on that is that charity isn't just for the giver. If you believe that charity only benefits the one giving, then there's no point to forced charity. But there are people out there who need a little help, regardless of whether or not you want to give it.
Of course, I don't really put welfare in the class of charity, but rather society taking care of its own.
This doesn't even scratch the surface of my welfare opinion, though. While I'm not against welfare, I'm against living off of it, and I think it needs to be vastly improved.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I am comfortable asking my husband "Which of these looks best on me" which leaves him the option of being honest without being insulting. I respect his opinion enough that if he thinks something looks trashy, it probably does, and it's not something I want to be wearing. If he thinks that they both look trashy, that won't insult me either.
But as far as my butt goes, it doesn't actually benefit me in any way to know if it looks wide or not, except to fluff or crush my ego. That's why I don't ask. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the subject of honesty, I recently watched a husband and wife act dishonestly with each other on a what many would consider a "flippant" issue (whether or not one was trying to "get rid of" the other's treasured possesion). I was saddened. This kind of dishonesty is quite often considered "acceptable". Porter and I try to be honest with each other about everything so that there is never the need to wonder. That doesn't mean we tell each other everything or every thought that comes into our minds--only that when we do speak we are honest. If Porter doesn't like a dinner I cooked, he will tell me. Edit: But only if I ask or he feels there is good reason to mention it. I may be sad that he didn't like the dinner, but I rejoice that I have a husband who's words I can trust.
As for the secular world and sacrifice, I think as Americans we don't like the concept of sacrifice because it smacks of bondage and Communism. We value our independance to a fault sometimes. "See, I'm free to do stupid things! Just watch me!"
The secular world does teach us to try and work through things--inasmuch as we benefit in some way. Religion is the only institution that teaches us to sacrifice even if we see no benefit to ourselves, with the understanding that it will benefit us in the long run.
See, Squicky, I agree with you that sacrifice for the greater good does turn benefit back to us. Call it karma if you will, but I think it is the nature of reality. I think religion only teaches us to do what is good and right anyway because that is how things really work. I don't buy that we only see benefit to our sacrifice in the afterlife. We see it in *this* life. Then of course it also benefits us in the next--if you are someone who believes in that.
But how do you teach that without religion? The secular try, they really do. Because they recognize the good and the benefit. But they just don't do as good a job, IMO. Maybe they will find a way to get better? I don't know. I haven't seen much evidence of it.
posted
Then I misread your post PSI - I was under the impression you were growling about people uttering things like, "I hope you can keep that positive attitude" while belittling or making incorrect assumptions about your experience.
I make no assumptions about what trials of fire you may or may not have faced.
As to the "no safe answer," - it really depends on the audience.
posted
Bev, the old golden rule has always worked for me Seriously, I'm not trying to brag on my kiddos, but they have been raised without religion. They are both caring, sincere individuals who go out of their way to help others. I live my own life without a religious faith, but I still live a very moral life that involves helping others. I volunteer on a regular basis and have for most of my adulthood.
I've never looked at what benefit helping others gives me, in this life or any others I could have. To be honest, that's a minor problem I have with some religions. The focus on helping others isn't there because it's your responsibility as a human, it's there so you can score some goody points.
Anyway, I guess I'm just saying that the secular and religious worlds are neither all good nor all bad. There are positives and negatives to both. Maybe I'm just being overly-sensitive, but I get tired of people assuming that I don't have a sense of commitment or responsibility because I don't have a religion. (general rant - not at you)
quote: The focus on helping others isn't there because it's your responsibility as a human, it's there so you can score some goody points.
In defense, I would say that most Christians I know are aware of the "rewards in Heaven", but they help people because they are trying to love their neighbor. I think we try not to make the rewards be our primary focus, unless we are having a serious personal struggle. Then, sometimes, we let ourselves think, "Just remember, get through this without breaking and there will be rewards in Heaven." Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev, Again, I disagree with your assessment of how good religion does. One of the fundamental teaching of mainstream christianity that I take major issue with is the idea that goodness comes through someone else's blood and efforts and not through your own. I think that this is a horrible lesson to teach and is contradicted strongly by my understanding of the Bible.
Religion has held sway over society throughout history and they never really done that good a job. In the development of western civilization, advancement has often come through anti-religious or at least extra-religious movements, such as the Enlightenment. What has the secular world done? How about established the principles of individual rights and democracy? These are achievements of systems and groups of people (most of them secular) who were fighting against the prevailing religions of their time.
I also don't agree with the idea that people need to or should be tricked into doing the right thing. One of the things that we've consistently found is that external reward/punishment system don't work in American society. They decrease both the quality and duration of the targetted behavior. Imposed external morality severely hampers the development of internal morality.
The secular world's systematic attempts at bettering the human condition are still developing. My own field of humanistic psychology is little more than 50 years old and yet it's made great strides in developing a more complete and complimentary model of the human being and of, in limited cases, applying this model to the world leading to betterments such as improved working environments. Examples of this are chronicled in Maslow on Management, if you care to check out what I'm saying.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trevor: I think my point was that I get annoyed at being considered "idealistic and immature". It's true to a degree. But it would be easy for me to look back at myself and think that because I had premarital sex, then all those dumb teens out there that are trying to live chastely are fooling themselves. I'd rather consider it my own failure, and continue to have faith in humanity, rather than assume everyone is going to screw up like I did.
Here's what I'm trying to say: I try to assume that others will do better than I did, but it seems like older people are always assuming that everyone will screw up just because they did.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Part of the reason it is "always interpreted this way" is because the right wing has chosen this position as their rally cry against homosexual unions. The term "defense of marriage" didn't exist in public forums except in terms of defending it against percieved homosexual threats. Because no real threat against marriage from homosexuals can actually be indentified and named, it becomes clear to the gay community that "defending this" is code for "restrict gay access to greater participation and acceptance in society". So, though I agree that it is sad that defense of such an important institution is so often interpreted as bashing gays, it is the right-wing bastardization of the phrase rather than any over-sensitivity on the part of gays that has brought this about.
KarlEd, I must disagree that "defense of marriage" is a concept brought about by the gay marriage debate. I think the structure and definition of marriage have been questioned before, and that's what I am saying is being defended. Heck, I belong to a church that adopted polygamy for a time and caused the rest of the country to come to the "defense of marriage." The idea of polygamy just didn't mesh with a society that thrived on "traditional" marriages. Some feminists question the use of marriage at all, and again marriage is defended.
Based on my beliefs, I put quite a bit of stake in the strength and integrity of marriage between a man and a woman. Most other of life's endeavors pale in comparison to how important this institution is to me and what can be attained through it. Although I would take a loving, committed marriage of a homosexual couple over an unhappy or broken marriage between a man and a woman any day, I would take a loving, committed marriage between a man and a woman over anything else. I wouldn't rank any other union equal to that. Opening up the definition of marriage, as is now being debated, would to me signify a general rejection of belief that there are benefits of marriage between a man and a woman that can be gotten no other way. My own defense of marriage doesn't center on homosexuals, although so many have (rather selfishly) pulled that assumption over themselves like a cloak. My defense really is against anything that would diminish the benefits and blessings marriage can bring.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that this is a horrible lesson to teach and is contradicted strongly by my understanding of the Bible.
-MrS
quote: 4But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
-TIT 3: 4-6
quote: 8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
-EPH 2:8-10
Here are a couple of verses. Should I look for more?
posted
Space Opera, as I said, religion doesn't hold the corner on truth. Anyone who applies principles of goodness in their lives will benefit. Many who are disillusioned with religion are disillusioned not with religion but with hypocracy and double standards. They are trying their best to be good people, and I respect that.
Though as an aside, I must say that I have a hard time understanding throwing out organized religion because some of the followers are hypocrites. I mean, how can there not be hypocrites without removing free will? People are free to make bad or stupid choices--choices that will hurt them and others. If someone is upset with religion, shouldn't their beef be with the actual teachings and doctrine? Just throwin' that out there.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anytime a group says that you should try to be better than you are, you will end up with hypocrites (using the common usage). People are flawed, and some of them will always fail to live up to what they think they should do.
That doesn't seem like a reason to stop trying to do better, though.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, keep in mind I do not side with "mainstream Christianity" in many respects.
# D&C 84: 46
46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.
Now, while this is scripture unique to LDS, I imagine most Christians would agree that God has put a spark of "goodness" into all mankind, despite our "fallen natures". It is up to us what we follow and embrace.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
a for r, fair enough, but the overwhelming majority of current usage for that phrase is as I have described. I'm not saying the concept that marriage is under attack is particularly new or that the concept is always in relation to some gay rights issue, but when Acts of Congress are titled "Defense of Marriage" and really have no other purpose than to restrict gays' access to marriage, you can't expect the phrase not to carry that connotation beyond the law itself. And since it does carry that connotation in contemporary discourse, it should be reasonably expected that people will react accordingly.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, Do you really want to get into a Bible bashing session with me? Your (hardly unopposed) quotes speak to the issue of salvation, not morality. These are two separate issues.
The concept of the "fallen" human nature isn't in the Bible. There are two quotes from Paul that sort of kind of, if you squint at them, might support the doctrine of original sin, but it's absent from the Bible itself. It was codified by Augstine and was opposed by a contemporary of Augustine called Pelagius, who, because of this was labeled a heretic.
Taken logically, the concept of the "falleness" inherent in original sin either claims that people who do not accept God's grace cannot be good or violates free will, as those people who are good but deny God's grace must have it forced on them.
Here's a couple of quotes about sin from the Bible:
quote:And one of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' "The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (NAS, Mark 12:28-31)
quote:Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who has loved his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:8-10)
For me, the idea that the only thing you have to do to live correctly is to wave around a "Yay Jesus" pennant is an obviously perversion of the Bible.
posted
I certainly want my marriage and family protected. When all 5 of us get married, I don't want anyone encroaching on that or desecrating it. Marriage laws need to be modified to allow consenting adults to marry in whatever combinations or permutations they choose.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote: My defense really is against anything that would diminish the benefits and blessings marriage can bring.
If you don't mind me asking, what is your definition of "diminish?" Also, what "benefits and blessings" are you speaking about? Since it is secular law that is being invoked, how does the US Government become responsible for any of your 'blessings' as I am (maybe wrongly) defining blessings in a spiritual bent. As for benefits, how are those effected by someone elses marriage, be it happy, between homosexuals, be it dysfunctional, be it willing, be it polygamous? Would it mean...honestly, I can't think of what it would mean.
I have yet to see any real "damages" to current or future heterosexual marriages because of a public, legal definition. I have no idea what those damages would look like. Maybe if I have an idea of what those "blessings and benefits" are, I could understand this better.
quote: The concept of the "fallen" human nature isn't in the Bible.
It is *overtly* obvious in The Book of Mormon. As is the concept of the "light of Christ" given to all men to guide them: basically, their conscience.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter, The issue that I keep running into in these debates is that, yes, people aren't going to constantly live up to systems, but that doesn't mean that different systems don't have different, measurable effects on people. When you dismiss all criticism of a belief system based on the actions of the people who are members of that system with a blanket statement, you're being intellectually dishonest.
Beliefs and systems of beliefs do have effects and these effects, being part of the observable world, can be in ways measured. Honestly, from my perspective, given the bad track record that Christians have displayed, I'd figure that this would be something that most Christians would be extremely interested in. I believe in a lot of Christ's message and I'm very interested in why very few Christians live up to this message. I'd figure the same would be true of people who are inside the religion as well.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: When you dismiss all criticism of a belief system based on the actions of the people who are members of that system with a blanket statement, you're being intellectually dishonest.
You are correct, but I wasn't aware that I was doing that. Please show me where I did this so that I can avoid it in the future.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another quote that I love, this one from Peter referring to the apostle Paul:
quote: His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
quote: When you dismiss all criticism of a belief system based on the actions of the people who are members of that system with a blanket statement, you're being intellectually dishonest.
Do you feel that the members of particular religions in general tend to be worse off than those not of that group? Better? The same? Do you take into account how much they consider themselves to be followers of that particular religion? Are you qualified to make that kind of judgement?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter, I was taking the whole, people are going to be hypocrites line to feed into this type of idea, which has been trotted out regularly in pretty much the context that said it was. As always, I try to characterize what I see in people's posts and reflect it back to them. Often I get it wrong. If that's the case here I freely admit that I wasn't actually talking about you, even if I thought I was and I appologize for misrepresenting your position.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev, I don't have information about how members of particular religions stack up against others. That's not really where my interest lies to be honest. If there were one religion that far outshone all the rest, I'm pretty darn sure that I, along with the rest of the world, would know about it.
To be fair, I'm reasonably sure the same relationship with dedication to religion and behavior/maturity plays out in non-religious belief systems to. That is, I think that there is a sort of dedication to truth motivation that underlies both religious and secular contexts.
In many other countries besides America, religious belief doesn't predict things like prejudiced behavior.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one of the most imporatnt things we can do to encourage lasting healthy marriages is to strongly encourage pre-marital counseling. I think many marriages end up unhappy/ in divorce because the partners were incompatible.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, Bible bashing is throwing Biblical quotes and interpretations back and forth at each other. In this case, we'd be replicating the faith-only Protestant versus the Catholics and other groups who hold works+faith interpretations of salvation and would still be missing the point that I didn't talk about salvation (although, honestly I think it's important) but about goodness, which, in the faith only view is a separate issue.
I can easily replicate this argument. I've studied Christianity extensively back when I was struggling with my Catholic faith. I'll tell you that there will be no net result.
And that's leaving aside all the stuff I can talk about with Paul and his drastic push of evangelicalism to get as many people to be Christians before the end of the world leading to him to craft his message to best convert other people and then this crafting being taken out of the context that it's in and made to serve a completely different purpose. Or the fact that I think that what has been included in the canonical Bible was in large part the result of people with an certain view, which I don't agree with nor do I think the Bible supports, aggressing towards the people who were truer to the Christ's pacifistic message.
I read the Bible differently than you. Based on my reading, what I talked about doesn't at all fit with it. If you actually want to talk about my different view, I'm willing to do that. But what's the point in supporting an argument that's going to be as long as it is pointless?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't mind me asking, what is your definition of "diminish?" Also, what "benefits and blessings" are you speaking about? Since it is secular law that is being invoked, how does the US Government become responsible for any of your 'blessings' as I am (maybe wrongly) defining blessings in a spiritual bent. As for benefits, how are those effected by someone elses marriage, be it happy, between homosexuals, be it dysfunctional, be it willing, be it polygamous? Would it mean...honestly, I can't think of what it would mean.
I have yet to see any real "damages" to current or future heterosexual marriages because of a public, legal definition. I have no idea what those damages would look like. Maybe if I have an idea of what those "blessings and benefits" are, I could understand this better.
Well, fil, I'm not going to win you or anyone else over here. I'm sure at least some of this has been explained before on Hatrack. "Diminish" would be something along the lines of bringing the expected benefits and blessings down to a lower common denominator. I see marriage as more than a legal union with its attendant benefits; more still than even a committed, loving, stable, lifelong relationship. Wonderful benefits, but I also believe that marriage between a man and a woman, performed with the proper authority, is a component of exaltation, or becoming like God--and I believe that this exaltation is something that everyone has a right to.
No, having the government redefine marriage to include any type of union would not damage my own marriage or the benefits I hope for in it. And my country isn't responsible for furnishing those particular blessings. However, such a redefinition would open up the way for people to enjoy some of the benefits of marriage, but to have chosen a path that cannot lead to all the benefits they might someday enjoy.
That's it, in a nutshell. My concern for the long-term welfare of the people. Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrS: I felt like my second quote did address goodness, as well as salvation.
As far as Paul is concerned, that really will be a brick wall for me when it comes to debating. I'm perfectly willing to admit that the men who wrote the Bible were human and imperfect. But once a person starts looking for motives for an author of scripture to lie, or be deceitful, or misrepresent, or any of those things, then they might as well throw the whole Bible out.
And it's not like Paul doesn't make it clear, in his writing, that there are things that are just his opinion in there.
But to use as a defense against the Bible that Paul was, essentially, lying, then you won't have any conversations with people who believe the Bible is true. That just makes sense.
I mean, you could even say, "I don't believe the Bible, but let's talk about what it says" and I'd be up for that. But if you preface by saying, "Let's talk about the parts of the Bible that I believe, and Paul isn't one of them" then I would have to ask, "So which parts of the Bible DO you believe?"
So, we've ruled out Paul. Are there any parts of the Bible you believe or trust?
----
OH, and by the way, since I just saw this:
quote: For me, the idea that the only thing you have to do to live correctly is to wave around a "Yay Jesus" pennant is an obviously perversion of the Bible.
I didn't say this. I don't think this. All I did was quote TWO verses of the Bible. If you derived that sentence from the two verses I posted, than you are reading way too much into the Bible.
You also have no clue about how I feel regarding faith verses works. Or maybe you do, from past threads, but I don't see any quotes from any of them so I'll have to assume you're just guessing at what I think. Once again, for me to quote two verses and have to assume that I think works are pointless, that's a whole lot of assumption, and I find it annoying.
ALL I even meant is that I believe good comes, ultimately, from the Lord. That's ALL I was referring to, and all I was even thinking about. I didn't even give a hint as to how I feel about salvation in this thread.
You also assumed, and let's remember that all I did was quote two verses, that I don't know/haven't read/don't care about Jesus' commandment to love God and others.
posted
PSI, It's not that I don't believe in Paul. We had a thread awhile back where I was totally defending Paul, taken in context. My problem is people reading Paul without understanding the context he was writing in. Not suprisingly, this is an accepted way of looking at him, otherwise women wouldn't be allowed to speak in church. One of my biggest complaints about Paul isn't what people think he said, but all the things that he did say that they conveniently ignore. He's honestly my favorite figure in the first couple of hundred years of Christian history (cepting Jesus).
Oh, as for what I don't believe in. Most of the Old Testament fits the bill. Although I find the Talmud very interesting, the bits of it I've read.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, I didn't assume or state anything about your beliefs. I talked about a specific set of beliefs that I see as very prominent in mainstream Christianity. You may have read into it that I was assigning these beliefs to you, but that was not my intent.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, I feel like I have seen that attitude in mainstream Christianity too. But that may be a "lowest common denominator" thing and I don't imagine anyone on Hatrack buying into it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In this case, we'd be replicating the faith-only Protestant versus the Catholics and other groups who hold works+faith interpretations of salvation and would still be missing the point that I didn't talk about salvation (although, honestly I think it's important) but about goodness, which, in the faith only view is a separate issue.
So which side of this did you see me on? Or did I misread the point of this?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, Paul was very very heavy into inclusiveness and community. For his time, he was a very compassionate and liberal thinker. He worked so very hard for the Gentiles at a time where most of the central figures, including nearly all of the Apostles, were claiming that Christ came only for the Jews. His writings are the first available place that I know of that advocate socialism. One of the things I really love is his statement that if you take another person to court, you're admitting that either he isn't a Christian or you aren't, because laws and courts are not how Christians resolve disagreements. Instead, if they really can't work it out between themselves, they take it to the community.
I also really like his statement from Romans that I referenced above, that boils down to saying that if you truely love your neighbor, it is impossible for you to sin. It's fantastic.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, I saw you as taking a side in the salvation by faith versus by works of believing in works. Many people on that side have, in my opinion, bought into the Yay Jesus! crowd, but that doesn't mean that believing in salvation by faith only means you are in this crowd.
THis path started off with me talking about perversions of what I saw as Christ's message. I was further elaborating this perversion, but I wasn't trying to attribute it to you. As you said, I don't have anywhere near enough evidence to make a statement like that, and I really do try to limit myself to statements I can support.
---
edit: Err...I don't understand what that last post meant. Are you talking to me and where did I say totally ignore?
quote:I also really like his statement from Romans that I referenced above, that boils down to saying that if you truely love your neighbor, it is impossible for you to sin. It's fantastic.
I interpret it as "If you truly love your neighbor, don't sin, because by sinning you are doing wrong to your neighbor." In other words, don't say that you aren't harming anyone by your actions, because you damn well are. I think that's the essence of the ideal Christian community.
[ September 07, 2004, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for clarification, I'll give my position, as far as I can. I'm always open to revision by learning more.
I am a faith-only person. However, I firmly believe that "faith without works is dead" and that "you shall be known by your fruits". However, rather than saying that if you don't work you won't be saved, I take the position that if you aren't working, you may not be saved. Work comes in all forms, though, and a lot of things people do are not going to be on a billboard for our viewing pleasure.
I also don't necessarily believe that if you say you believe in Jesus, you're going to Heaven, no buts about it. There are many verses that say things like:
quote: "Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
which, to me, says that there will be people who consider themselves Christians, but because they were living like Hell, they will be going there. (I mean, who's going to be calling Jesus "Lord, Lord" aside from people who consider themselves Christians?)
Anyway, I wanted to say thanks for being respectful of me in this thread, probably moreso than I deserved.
---
edit: Oh, excuse me, you said "conveniently ignore" regarding the writings of Paul.
posted
PSI, Or the passage where Jesus is talking about people dying and coming before him and him saying "When I was hungry, you gave me to eat, when I was thirsty...etc. Now enter into the home of my Father." And then to the other group, you didn't feed me, clothe me, shelter me, or comfort me, so depart from this place. And, then, to their questions, when did we see you? He answers, whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me. (The hymn was totally going through my head as I wrote that).
Like I said, the faith only salvation argument is hardly unnopposed.
Also, contrary to what you might think, especially based on that other thread, I endevour to be as respectful to people here as possible. The people I don't respect, I just don't talk to, or I limit myself to providing opposing views when I think that they are needed.
edit: That's a way of doing things I really wish was more common around here, but what are you going to do?
posted
afr, I always took that, when combined with Jesus' statements about the greatest commandment to set up a tautology being love-doing the right on one side and hating-sinning on the other. This was jazzy to me because of it's essentially progressive nature (i.e. doing the right comes down to how you do things, not necessarily what you do - although many things you can't really do if you do love) and became the basis for my incredibly heretical view of Christianity as a progressive rather than absolutist religion and of Jesus's death as an example and not a sacrifice.
But I could see you way too. I just prefer mine.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that Marriage and The Family are not things that need protecting. But I think they are parts of a well constructed life, and if we don't take shelter in them we personally and as a group will expose ourselves to harm. I don't mean from VD and all that, I mean in having confidence at the end of our lives that we did all we could to help our children grown up to be charitable, contributing members of society.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Seriously, I'm not trying to brag on my kiddos, but they have been raised without religion. They are both caring, sincere individuals who go out of their way to help others. I live my own life without a religious faith, but I still live a very moral life that involves helping others. I volunteer on a regular basis and have for most of my adulthood. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
(general rant - not at you)
