There are many reasonable statements in your remarks and the discussion interests me. Is there a point in continuing the conversation and if so, would you like to continue the conversation off line? I like the respectful tone in your disagreement. It indicates a willingness to listen and a willingness to instruct. I can certainly listen.
Regarding anthropomorphism, however, I am unsure if humans are able to avoid it. However, in our case, God has told us via the Bible that we are made in his image. Some might interpret that literally -- that God is man-like physically, and some might interpret it metaphysically -- our spirit only is like unto God. My interpretation falls more in the middle. I believe that God does experience emotions, such as dissapointment, joy, anger, love, sorrow, but most importantly love.
A. Because my source for ethical guidelines says it's wrong outside of marriage. Anecdotal evidence can be found that supports this.
B. Organised religion is a large group. Do you mean Christians? Jews? Catholics? Islam?
C. Aren't you acting a little... youthful? Your statement is tantamount to "I want to have some fun, and it's not fair if I have to face negative consequences as a result of that fun." Admittedly a little "adult" for a child, but childish sounding anyway.
D. Sex is good. I said that. It feels great. Said that. Just stated that it should be inside the bounds of marriage. If it is, then go to town!
E. Stating that the sinful behaviors of teens would be better if they just committed this sinful behavior seems contradictory.
F. Attaching guilt to sex does mess people up. I said that. But having the sex without the guilt can mess people up too. That's why I was saying that there is a third option. Choose to divert your attention. Who do you want to be in charge behind those eyes? You, or the persons who put images and sounds in front of you. I'd rather be in charge, thanks. I choose not to pay attention, and to try to have the images and sounds removed when possible.
G. Immorality, Hell, God, and everything else aside, I am sickened by the constant attitude displayed by your post and demonstrated within current (American? Western? World?) society. If it feels good, then do it. Well, perhaps that is a good mantra. In my case, it feels good to avoid temptation.
What is good? Without RTFB, I think you miss the point. Morality is independent from good or evil. Certainly good or evil as defined by man, even Dr. Grayling. To be moral is to follow God's Laws. Morality for the Jews involving being kosher. I cannot see the consumption of pork as being a good or an evil thing.
There may be good and evil independent from God, but there is no morality that can be defined without God. Being good does not make your moral.
You are correct, of course, in this last sentence. I am a sinner. Do I have the sin of Pride in these postings? Of Arrogance? I hope not, but as I cannot see my post from all points of view, I concede that someone (you and/or others) might see it that way. I regret that. I do not want my actions to reflect negatively on God. He IS perfect, and I am far from perfection.
I do follow a moral code. I do so because I want to and not because I have to. My comments here are designed to show how I took offense to the idea that you espoused in your initial post:
Why is it so hard for some people to acknowledge the simple fact that young people of all ages have sexual feelings that are natural. And to repress those feelings and smother them in guilt is a very very damaging thing to do.
I agreed that it was natural for young people to have sexual feelings. I further agree that repressing those feelings is damaging. To those original thoughts I add:
There is a choice beside repression or action: diversion. This is a valid choice and falls in line with my beliefs.
I might further add that the remaining choice, action, often results in much more serious problems. Relationships can be damaged, lives can be ruined, and minds can be warped.
Repression is obviously fallacious because it implies that we might later not need to repress. Further, it can also have many of the same effects as action.
Yes, I believe in the Bible and in God. I believe that the Bible is correct and I choose to base my moral code and conduct based on what it says rather than on my own feelings. I fall short much of the time, but I keep trying.
Stating this, the obvious conclusion is that I believe that my God is right and that there are no other viable religions short of Judaeism, with whom God has worked out separate arrangements. I am not mindless, not a Borg, nor am I trying to impose my will. I am trying to resist the imposition of someone else's morals onto me. Madison Avenue and Hollywood in the case of the SI, and you in the case of tolerance for religious freedom.
If you truly feel that all religions are equal, then examine these fundamental beliefs of Christians: br>
* All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
* There are no righteous persons on this Earth.
* Jesus says that no one comes to the Father except through Him.
* Jesus says that no one can attain Heaven via his own actions.
* God's nature is such that he cannot/will not tolerate sin/unrighteousness/immorality.
* Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for us so that our sins might be forgiven and we might be made righteous, thereby allowing us heaven.
* Also, you shall have no other gods before Me.
These specific views of Christians are quite contrary to other religions. Regardless of your belief in them or not, these tenants say that those who do not accept Jesus do not attain heaven. This viewpoint is in direct conflict with other religions. Yet you say that respect all religions equally. It seems as if you might be tolerant of all religions, but a little less tolerant of Christians.
Lastly, as to your attacks on my person, I can think for myself. I choose God and forsake all others. It is my choice and I have not made it because it was forced on me. I made it because I realized that a loving God truly wanted me to be with Him and that His love for me is beyond my understanding. My actions as a Christian are reactions to His overwhelming love for me, and are not done as a requirement and not done because I am forced to.
I believe that Christianity is one of the few religions that have no requirement for admittance into heaven/nirvana/afterlife. It may be the only religion to do so, I'm not sure. You simply accept Jesus as the way to God, accept that He died for you to allow you to be with him forever. No pilgramages, no mandatory church, no scourging, no killing others, no converting others, no nothing. Indeed, there is nothing you can do to attain heaven but to only accept the gift. Repressive? "My burden is easy and my yoke is light."
If you are offended by material a store is selling how about not shopping there anymore, if enough people do it the store will go out of business.
I agree with you. I certainly "vote with my feet" and with my wallet. I know others who do the same. However, sometimes a stronger stance can be made. One well placed comment might just accomplish more than 25 people refusing to buy. My angle is to be a bit more activist. Blowing things up is way extreme, and outside of God's law, but careful consideration on how to best present the point of view so as to change action by the store might bear greater results.
Your first sentence did make me laugh a bit. Your last sentence contradicted your entire post. You want me to stop imposing my morality, but aren't you doing the same?
Please note that in the recent rash of my follow ups to this topic that I have not done as you said I would. I cannot save people from Hell. No human can. That's God's work. I can present the message of God, but even then it is the Holy Spirit that works in the heart to accomplish God's work.
Some seed (God's words, or my reflection of His words, or my reflection of Him through my actions) is cast on stony ground and does not bear fruit. But some soil is ready to receive seed. It is ready because it has been already prepared (insert plowing metaphor) to receive the seed. That preparation is prior work done by God, not anything I have done. You cannot be forced to the Cross and thence forced to accept God. God Himself, who loves us more than anything, will not force you to choose him. His plan and offer are clear, but the choice is yours.
No troll. A thousand years ago was kind'a rough though. At that point, the church was so kind as to keep the Bible away from the unwashed masses. It wouldn't do to show them that the Bible is full of choices. That Adam and Eve were made and given the ability to accept or reject God Himself, just as you were. That Joseph could choose to forgive his brothers for selling him to the local trade caravan. That Jesus' own father was free to choose to accept Mary even though it was his complete right, at the time, to allow her to be killed. That Peter could choose to reject Jesus three times in an evening. That God could choose to die brutally on a cross in order that we might be able to choose Him even when we were sinful and living under the cloud of Adam's choice.
Yes, repugnant times back then. No, I'd rather live now.
However, are we free to make our own choices? Was I free to make that decision to avoid temptation? Would you take away my right to be offended by the moral trash displayed there? Or must we refuse Government and Church rules and instead follow those of... Commerce?
I made my choice. I make it each day. I choose God. He gave me that choice in what is surely the supreme example of love. He could have made us like the angels, but he didn't. He gave us choice. I've heard that the angels might be amused by that decision of God's. However, that might be Hollywood playing with my mind.
Is there the remote possibility that this worldview might be correct? Are human abilities great enough to understand fully and then reject this worldview? I am weak and I know my limitations. That is why I will not trust myself, but will leanly solely on the Bible as God's word. I can't always understand it, as I'm not perfect. But I believe because I know myself to be faulty.
Your acidic remarks notwithstanding, I have to take my place in this world. As such, when I see things contrary to the Christian and Bibical worldview as I see it, then I speak up. However, the fallacy in even that simple point of view can be seen clearly with Saul/Paul's actions. He had the same POV. Had. So, I'm in good company in my confusion, but I'll keep trying harder.
I suppose there's not much point in saying that I put my belief system into what God says rather than the Maryland constitution. But there, I said it. However, I'd rather read the North Carolina constitution first, than maybe the US constitution. Maybe I'll get to Maryland's after I finish Louisiana's constitution.
Best Buy does not own me, my thoughts, or my time. Anytime that I feel that their action are damaging to me, I feel as if I should speak out. When they are pushing their morality into my eyes then I take offense.
However, to paraphrase...
I own the remarks, this Slashdot account, the computer on which it was written, the access account with which I connect to the internet. In short, this is my private property. If you don't like it, go away!.
You spoke up about my comments to Best Buy. Why is your decision to do so any better than my decision to speak to Best Buy about what I found objectionable. Even your final line reflects exactly what I said to Best Buy.
Being certain in my faith is what I strive to be. That faith requires me to claim as FACT that which is written in the Bible. That faith requires me to treat as beyond my understanding those things that I cannot demonstrate as being so or not so. My lack of understanding does not make the Bible untrue.
We cannot know with absolute precision. We are fallen and our "toolsets" and "instruments" are damaged as a result. If I did not know the scale on my Geiger counter, than how could I know if the radiation was too high or not?
Science relies on many "beliefs" upon which it builds more truths. These beliefs seem to be irrefutable. But again, our instrumentation is broken. Occam's Razor suggests a course for belief. Much of science utilizes it as part of the toolset. Science denies the unprovable, man's logic demands that faith is infantile. I'm sorry but I'm not buying into man's ideas right now. My worldview does, however, allow for many new things to be discovered. I am excited always about the future. My.sig seems to suggest a contradiction to your third paragraph.
I have accepted as TRUTH what is in the Bible. I believe that the Bible is God Inspired and God's Word. I do not base my definitions of reality, nature, morality, or tolerance on the world's definitions. My definitions are Bibical in every sense that I can. I fall short many times, but I am forgiven, and my response to that forgiveness is to try harder.
Yes, this is a radical concept. That there might be a definition of what is real and what is right that exists in totality in a single place. It would surprise you. I regret that I am scary to you, as I believe that I am a quite congenial person. If you came to know me, I believe that you might think I was not scary.
Morality is based solely on the Bible. Morality is a much greater concept that what is right and what is wrong. I don't need to say what is or what isn't. The answers are contained in the Bible, although we see through a glass darkly, being imperfect and being sinful. It is immoral to have sex outside of marriage. The images that we are bombarded with try to persuade us otherwise. I was and am fed up with being so treated. Therefore, I speak up when I am able to in order to reject any definition that is not Bibical.
Per your last sentence, The Law is to be followed. Not one jot or tittle will pass from the Law until Jesus returns. It is my belief that following the law is impossible. Psalms says that the spirit of the Lord moves on the face of the earth searching for the righteous, and that no one is found who is righteous, not one. If the Law could be followed, then one could attain heaven and be with God on their own. God cannot/will not tolerate sin, even a little bit. Therefore, if we cannot follow the law, it is inferred that we are unrighteous and that we cannot attain heaven. That's where Jesus comes in. He died as a sacrifice for all of us, so that our sins could be forgiven and that we might see heaven after all. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus. It is very clearly written, and even my peril-chromatic sunglasses can allow me to see that truth.
Tolerance? Acceptance? These are not mine to give or take. Will Jesus tolerate or accept all persons? Whether I tolerate or accept another person or their actions will not matter. I am to love them as a brother, but my love will not get them or me into heaven.
Sorry, but if you claim that you do not have those urges, then I claim you are being untruthful, if only in a self-delusional way. All people are subject to the tempations of sin. A former person accused me of pride.
We have the correct urge to have sex. This is an urge given to us by God. There are some Christians that claim that the urge is for procreation only. I think Song of Solomon says otherwise. Sex is great, but only within the confines of marriage. Once you're married, go to town! Have fun! It becomes one of the best gifts that God ever gave us. Outside of marriage, sex is wrong. As in morally wrong. I won't sit in judgement, as I am a sinner like you and all other people. However, the morality of the issue is clear.
Please stop the Ad Hominem attacks. If you have a reasonable arguement or statement to make, then do so. Else, why bother?
Sorry, I've been laid... and continue to be. Not the issue here, but I thought I'd respond. Now, make a reasonable arguement or statement.
Did it make me feel good to see the cashier squirm? No. He didn't squirm. He was quite surprised that someone (a man even) might find the SI material at his station offensive. That was the look that was priceless.
I was not feeling "high and mighty." I was feeling disgusted and repressed at the material. Could I have stayed home? Sure. But, to use a Slashdot mantra, if nothing is said or nothing is done, then one has no right to complain. I complained based on my religious beliefs.
BTW - the material seemed to be left over from a previous customer who chose not to purchase it. It was not a display. The cashier had the clear right to remove it.
Having the feelings is natural. Natural as in God gave them to us as a part of our physical being. There might be debate as to whether they are there for procreation only, which depends on your version of extremism. However, the feelings ARE natural and purposefully put there.
That does NOT mean that they should be acted on. As a fallen creature, we also have the urges to lie, cheat, steal, hurt others, and even hurt ourselves. These tendencies are seen negatively and should be. We do need to edit our responses to our feelings, sexual or not.
Choosing to feel how I want - now that's complete freedom. Unfortunately, we aren't given that freedom. Instead, we choose between right and wrong. A moral choice based on morality which can not be defined independly from God.
[/diatribe]
End product? Surpression is not the only alternative to acting on them. Elimination of temptation is a good way also. Don't watch that National Geographic special on that lost Amazon tribe. Don't buy the Sports Illustrated swim suit edition. (You should have seen the look on the Best Buy cashier's face (a guy), when I demanded that he remove the SI software/magazine display from the counter. It was offensive. He thought I was kidding. I was not. It was a priceless look.)
You can choose to avoid the temptation. Divert your eyes. Divert your thoughts. What are the guidelines? Not mine to say, but it can be done.
john.mull
Best Online Scrabble
on
Word Up
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The best online scrabble can be found at Internet Scrabble Club. Usually several hundred or more players online at any given time from around the world. Multiple dictionaries from several languages and even a UK British dictionary. Very fun, playable from Linux and MacOSX via a Java applet (in the browser?), elsewise a quick download of a java applet for Windows. Many very highly rated national and international players are playing right now.
From the website:
The ISC is the best place on the Internet to play Scrabble in a relaxed friendly environment. You can compete at your own level in English, French, Romanian, Italian, or Dutch while meeting new people and making friends from around the world.
Right now there are 2138 players logged into the ISC and 792 games in progress.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many reasonable statements in your remarks and the discussion interests me. Is there a point in continuing the conversation and if so, would you like to continue the conversation off line? I like the respectful tone in your disagreement. It indicates a willingness to listen and a willingness to instruct. I can certainly listen.
Regarding anthropomorphism, however, I am unsure if humans are able to avoid it. However, in our case, God has told us via the Bible that we are made in his image. Some might interpret that literally -- that God is man-like physically, and some might interpret it metaphysically -- our spirit only is like unto God. My interpretation falls more in the middle. I believe that God does experience emotions, such as dissapointment, joy, anger, love, sorrow, but most importantly love.
If you and I cannot agree on the terms of communications, ie, I say God and you say fairytale, then what point is further communication?
I can admit that there is much deception about God. Can you admit there might be (some) truth in the tale?
Thanks for your wonderful cross-reference to the link on the Kitten review. Priceless.
Answers:
A. Because my source for ethical guidelines says it's wrong outside of marriage. Anecdotal evidence can be found that supports this.
B. Organised religion is a large group. Do you mean Christians? Jews? Catholics? Islam? C. Aren't you acting a little... youthful? Your statement is tantamount to "I want to have some fun, and it's not fair if I have to face negative consequences as a result of that fun." Admittedly a little "adult" for a child, but childish sounding anyway.
D. Sex is good. I said that. It feels great. Said that. Just stated that it should be inside the bounds of marriage. If it is, then go to town!
E. Stating that the sinful behaviors of teens would be better if they just committed this sinful behavior seems contradictory.
F. Attaching guilt to sex does mess people up. I said that. But having the sex without the guilt can mess people up too. That's why I was saying that there is a third option. Choose to divert your attention. Who do you want to be in charge behind those eyes? You, or the persons who put images and sounds in front of you. I'd rather be in charge, thanks. I choose not to pay attention, and to try to have the images and sounds removed when possible. G. Immorality, Hell, God, and everything else aside, I am sickened by the constant attitude displayed by your post and demonstrated within current (American? Western? World?) society. If it feels good, then do it. Well, perhaps that is a good mantra. In my case, it feels good to avoid temptation.
A fair and balanced statement on the whole, I believe. Not that you need my approval, but I thought you might be interested that I agreed.
What is good? Without RTFB, I think you miss the point. Morality is independent from good or evil. Certainly good or evil as defined by man, even Dr. Grayling. To be moral is to follow God's Laws. Morality for the Jews involving being kosher. I cannot see the consumption of pork as being a good or an evil thing.
There may be good and evil independent from God, but there is no morality that can be defined without God. Being good does not make your moral.
I'll gladly be a fool for Christ.
What the fuck is wrong with people in this country. Oh yea, sex is evil & a sin if it's not for procreation. Religion is the root of all evil.
The remarks you made were yours and not mine. Nothing I said was even implied in the quote above.
You are correct, of course, in this last sentence. I am a sinner. Do I have the sin of Pride in these postings? Of Arrogance? I hope not, but as I cannot see my post from all points of view, I concede that someone (you and/or others) might see it that way. I regret that. I do not want my actions to reflect negatively on God. He IS perfect, and I am far from perfection.
I do follow a moral code. I do so because I want to and not because I have to. My comments here are designed to show how I took offense to the idea that you espoused in your initial post:
Why is it so hard for some people to acknowledge the simple fact that young people of all ages have sexual feelings that are natural. And to repress those feelings and smother them in guilt is a very very damaging thing to do.
I agreed that it was natural for young people to have sexual feelings. I further agree that repressing those feelings is damaging. To those original thoughts I add:
There is a choice beside repression or action: diversion. This is a valid choice and falls in line with my beliefs.
I might further add that the remaining choice, action, often results in much more serious problems. Relationships can be damaged, lives can be ruined, and minds can be warped.
Repression is obviously fallacious because it implies that we might later not need to repress. Further, it can also have many of the same effects as action.
Yes, I believe in the Bible and in God. I believe that the Bible is correct and I choose to base my moral code and conduct based on what it says rather than on my own feelings. I fall short much of the time, but I keep trying.
Stating this, the obvious conclusion is that I believe that my God is right and that there are no other viable religions short of Judaeism, with whom God has worked out separate arrangements. I am not mindless, not a Borg, nor am I trying to impose my will. I am trying to resist the imposition of someone else's morals onto me. Madison Avenue and Hollywood in the case of the SI, and you in the case of tolerance for religious freedom.
If you truly feel that all religions are equal, then examine these fundamental beliefs of Christians:
br> * All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
* There are no righteous persons on this Earth.
* Jesus says that no one comes to the Father except through Him.
* Jesus says that no one can attain Heaven via his own actions.
* God's nature is such that he cannot/will not tolerate sin/unrighteousness/immorality.
* Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for us so that our sins might be forgiven and we might be made righteous, thereby allowing us heaven.
* Also, you shall have no other gods before Me.
These specific views of Christians are quite contrary to other religions. Regardless of your belief in them or not, these tenants say that those who do not accept Jesus do not attain heaven. This viewpoint is in direct conflict with other religions. Yet you say that respect all religions equally. It seems as if you might be tolerant of all religions, but a little less tolerant of Christians.
Lastly, as to your attacks on my person, I can think for myself. I choose God and forsake all others. It is my choice and I have not made it because it was forced on me. I made it because I realized that a loving God truly wanted me to be with Him and that His love for me is beyond my understanding. My actions as a Christian are reactions to His overwhelming love for me, and are not done as a requirement and not done because I am forced to.
I believe that Christianity is one of the few religions that have no requirement for admittance into heaven/nirvana/afterlife. It may be the only religion to do so, I'm not sure. You simply accept Jesus as the way to God, accept that He died for you to allow you to be with him forever. No pilgramages, no mandatory church, no scourging, no killing others, no converting others, no nothing. Indeed, there is nothing you can do to attain heaven but to only accept the gift. Repressive? "My burden is easy and my yoke is light."
If you are offended by material a store is selling how about not shopping there anymore, if enough people do it the store will go out of business.
I agree with you. I certainly "vote with my feet" and with my wallet. I know others who do the same. However, sometimes a stronger stance can be made. One well placed comment might just accomplish more than 25 people refusing to buy. My angle is to be a bit more activist. Blowing things up is way extreme, and outside of God's law, but careful consideration on how to best present the point of view so as to change action by the store might bear greater results.
Your first sentence did make me laugh a bit. Your last sentence contradicted your entire post. You want me to stop imposing my morality, but aren't you doing the same?
Please note that in the recent rash of my follow ups to this topic that I have not done as you said I would. I cannot save people from Hell. No human can. That's God's work. I can present the message of God, but even then it is the Holy Spirit that works in the heart to accomplish God's work.
Some seed (God's words, or my reflection of His words, or my reflection of Him through my actions) is cast on stony ground and does not bear fruit. But some soil is ready to receive seed. It is ready because it has been already prepared (insert plowing metaphor) to receive the seed. That preparation is prior work done by God, not anything I have done. You cannot be forced to the Cross and thence forced to accept God. God Himself, who loves us more than anything, will not force you to choose him. His plan and offer are clear, but the choice is yours.
No troll. A thousand years ago was kind'a rough though. At that point, the church was so kind as to keep the Bible away from the unwashed masses. It wouldn't do to show them that the Bible is full of choices. That Adam and Eve were made and given the ability to accept or reject God Himself, just as you were. That Joseph could choose to forgive his brothers for selling him to the local trade caravan. That Jesus' own father was free to choose to accept Mary even though it was his complete right, at the time, to allow her to be killed. That Peter could choose to reject Jesus three times in an evening. That God could choose to die brutally on a cross in order that we might be able to choose Him even when we were sinful and living under the cloud of Adam's choice.
... Commerce?
Yes, repugnant times back then. No, I'd rather live now.
However, are we free to make our own choices? Was I free to make that decision to avoid temptation? Would you take away my right to be offended by the moral trash displayed there? Or must we refuse Government and Church rules and instead follow those of
I made my choice. I make it each day. I choose God. He gave me that choice in what is surely the supreme example of love. He could have made us like the angels, but he didn't. He gave us choice. I've heard that the angels might be amused by that decision of God's. However, that might be Hollywood playing with my mind.
Is there the remote possibility that this worldview might be correct? Are human abilities great enough to understand fully and then reject this worldview? I am weak and I know my limitations. That is why I will not trust myself, but will leanly solely on the Bible as God's word. I can't always understand it, as I'm not perfect. But I believe because I know myself to be faulty.
Your acidic remarks notwithstanding, I have to take my place in this world. As such, when I see things contrary to the Christian and Bibical worldview as I see it, then I speak up. However, the fallacy in even that simple point of view can be seen clearly with Saul/Paul's actions. He had the same POV. Had. So, I'm in good company in my confusion, but I'll keep trying harder.
I suppose there's not much point in saying that I put my belief system into what God says rather than the Maryland constitution. But there, I said it. However, I'd rather read the North Carolina constitution first, than maybe the US constitution. Maybe I'll get to Maryland's after I finish Louisiana's constitution.
Best Buy does not own me, my thoughts, or my time. Anytime that I feel that their action are damaging to me, I feel as if I should speak out. When they are pushing their morality into my eyes then I take offense.
However, to paraphrase...
I own the remarks, this Slashdot account, the computer on which it was written, the access account with which I connect to the internet. In short, this is my private property. If you don't like it, go away!.
You spoke up about my comments to Best Buy. Why is your decision to do so any better than my decision to speak to Best Buy about what I found objectionable. Even your final line reflects exactly what I said to Best Buy.
It would be interesting to see those teachings written down. Thanks for laugh though. You made me smile today. :)
Being certain in my faith is what I strive to be. That faith requires me to claim as FACT that which is written in the Bible. That faith requires me to treat as beyond my understanding those things that I cannot demonstrate as being so or not so. My lack of understanding does not make the Bible untrue.
.sig seems to suggest a contradiction to your third paragraph.
We cannot know with absolute precision. We are fallen and our "toolsets" and "instruments" are damaged as a result. If I did not know the scale on my Geiger counter, than how could I know if the radiation was too high or not?
Science relies on many "beliefs" upon which it builds more truths. These beliefs seem to be irrefutable. But again, our instrumentation is broken. Occam's Razor suggests a course for belief. Much of science utilizes it as part of the toolset. Science denies the unprovable, man's logic demands that faith is infantile. I'm sorry but I'm not buying into man's ideas right now. My worldview does, however, allow for many new things to be discovered. I am excited always about the future. My
I have accepted as TRUTH what is in the Bible. I believe that the Bible is God Inspired and God's Word. I do not base my definitions of reality, nature, morality, or tolerance on the world's definitions. My definitions are Bibical in every sense that I can. I fall short many times, but I am forgiven, and my response to that forgiveness is to try harder.
Yes, this is a radical concept. That there might be a definition of what is real and what is right that exists in totality in a single place. It would surprise you. I regret that I am scary to you, as I believe that I am a quite congenial person. If you came to know me, I believe that you might think I was not scary.
Morality is based solely on the Bible. Morality is a much greater concept that what is right and what is wrong. I don't need to say what is or what isn't. The answers are contained in the Bible, although we see through a glass darkly, being imperfect and being sinful. It is immoral to have sex outside of marriage. The images that we are bombarded with try to persuade us otherwise. I was and am fed up with being so treated. Therefore, I speak up when I am able to in order to reject any definition that is not Bibical.
Per your last sentence, The Law is to be followed. Not one jot or tittle will pass from the Law until Jesus returns. It is my belief that following the law is impossible. Psalms says that the spirit of the Lord moves on the face of the earth searching for the righteous, and that no one is found who is righteous, not one. If the Law could be followed, then one could attain heaven and be with God on their own. God cannot/will not tolerate sin, even a little bit. Therefore, if we cannot follow the law, it is inferred that we are unrighteous and that we cannot attain heaven. That's where Jesus comes in. He died as a sacrifice for all of us, so that our sins could be forgiven and that we might see heaven after all. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus. It is very clearly written, and even my peril-chromatic sunglasses can allow me to see that truth.
Tolerance? Acceptance? These are not mine to give or take. Will Jesus tolerate or accept all persons? Whether I tolerate or accept another person or their actions will not matter. I am to love them as a brother, but my love will not get them or me into heaven.
ROFL. I'd have complained about it if it was on the counter, even if I was at Sears instead of Best Buy.
Farcical. And kinda funny. But color leads to temptation how...? Calm minds are mentioned where in the Bible?
Please stop the Ad Hominem attacks. If you have a reasonable arguement or statement to make, then do so. Else, why bother?
Sorry, but if you claim that you do not have those urges, then I claim you are being untruthful, if only in a self-delusional way. All people are subject to the tempations of sin. A former person accused me of pride.
We have the correct urge to have sex. This is an urge given to us by God. There are some Christians that claim that the urge is for procreation only. I think Song of Solomon says otherwise. Sex is great, but only within the confines of marriage. Once you're married, go to town! Have fun! It becomes one of the best gifts that God ever gave us. Outside of marriage, sex is wrong. As in morally wrong. I won't sit in judgement, as I am a sinner like you and all other people. However, the morality of the issue is clear.
Please stop the Ad Hominem attacks. If you have a reasonable arguement or statement to make, then do so. Else, why bother?
Sorry, I've been laid... and continue to be. Not the issue here, but I thought I'd respond. Now, make a reasonable arguement or statement.
Did it make me feel good to see the cashier squirm? No. He didn't squirm. He was quite surprised that someone (a man even) might find the SI material at his station offensive. That was the look that was priceless.
I was not feeling "high and mighty." I was feeling disgusted and repressed at the material. Could I have stayed home? Sure. But, to use a Slashdot mantra, if nothing is said or nothing is done, then one has no right to complain. I complained based on my religious beliefs.
BTW - the material seemed to be left over from a previous customer who chose not to purchase it. It was not a display. The cashier had the clear right to remove it.
[diatribe]
Having the feelings is natural. Natural as in God gave them to us as a part of our physical being. There might be debate as to whether they are there for procreation only, which depends on your version of extremism. However, the feelings ARE natural and purposefully put there.
That does NOT mean that they should be acted on. As a fallen creature, we also have the urges to lie, cheat, steal, hurt others, and even hurt ourselves. These tendencies are seen negatively and should be. We do need to edit our responses to our feelings, sexual or not.
Choosing to feel how I want - now that's complete freedom. Unfortunately, we aren't given that freedom. Instead, we choose between right and wrong. A moral choice based on morality which can not be defined independly from God.
[/diatribe]
End product? Surpression is not the only alternative to acting on them. Elimination of temptation is a good way also. Don't watch that National Geographic special on that lost Amazon tribe. Don't buy the Sports Illustrated swim suit edition. (You should have seen the look on the Best Buy cashier's face (a guy), when I demanded that he remove the SI software/magazine display from the counter. It was offensive. He thought I was kidding. I was not. It was a priceless look.)
You can choose to avoid the temptation. Divert your eyes. Divert your thoughts. What are the guidelines? Not mine to say, but it can be done.
john.mull
The best online scrabble can be found at Internet Scrabble Club. Usually several hundred or more players online at any given time from around the world. Multiple dictionaries from several languages and even a UK British dictionary. Very fun, playable from Linux and MacOSX via a Java applet (in the browser?), elsewise a quick download of a java applet for Windows. Many very highly rated national and international players are playing right now.
From the website:
The ISC is the best place on the Internet to play Scrabble in a relaxed friendly environment. You can compete at your own level in English, French, Romanian, Italian, or Dutch while meeting new people and making friends from around the world.
Right now there are 2138 players logged into the ISC and 792 games in progress.
Would that be an African or a European horse?