Advice and Support from Thousands of Users Just Like You

Christian Singles This is a Discussion Group for Christian Singles Feel Free to Post any Threads that are Related to Christian Dating. Note: Seekers welcome.

Reply
Page 7 of 11 « First 5 6 7 8 9 Last »
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
ming_on_mongo ming_on_mongo is offline
ming_on_mongo's Avatar

ming_on_mongo -Seattle transplant to NorCal... hmmm, sun good!

Veteran

Join Date: Jul 2008

Posts: 1,222

See profile

notyet wrote :
if you have read any of my posts- and i know you have- you would have to concede that my faith is not blind and has solid reasoning behind it.

you may not agree with my conclusions, but you must admit my faith is thought out.
Actually, I think you're more the exception there, than the "rule", Notyet. And I do respect your arguments.
- November 19th, 2009, 02:11 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#61   Reply With Quote
notyet notyet is offline
notyet's Avatar

notyet *****

Virtuoso

Join Date: Nov 2008

Posts: 3,833

See profile

ming_on_mongo wrote :
...And by any standard, the occasional atheist/agnostic/humanist rant certainly pales in comparison to the relentless evangelizing by the "saved" ("This is a Christian Nation!", "Honk if you love Jesus!", "Caution, this car will be unmanned during the Rapture!", blah-blah-blah...). So a little "turn-about" now and then is only fair play.
i would agree were it not for the a-theistic stance taken by the educational system and the efforts of the state to indoctrinate my children from an early age into "scientific-agnosticism" for lack of a better term.
- November 19th, 2009, 03:11 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#62   Reply With Quote
Rand_011 Rand_011 is offline
Rand_011's Avatar

Enthusiast

Join Date: Jan 2008

Posts: 807

See profile

notyet wrote :
i would agree were it not for the a-theistic stance taken by the educational system and the efforts of the state to indoctrinate my children from an early age into "scientific-agnosticism" for lack of a better term.
Well said notyet ... Couldn't have said it better myself ...

Reminds me of a discussion my sister in high school had with her teacher in class ... The subject of myths came up ... And the teacher used the Bible as an example for it ... Trouble with his definition of myth is that Napolean's existence would also be a myth ... As would George Washington ... Sister called him out on it ... He proceded to splutter and change the subject.
- November 19th, 2009, 03:30 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#63   Reply With Quote
ming_on_mongo ming_on_mongo is offline
ming_on_mongo's Avatar

ming_on_mongo -Seattle transplant to NorCal... hmmm, sun good!

Veteran

Join Date: Jul 2008

Posts: 1,222

See profile

notyet wrote :
i would agree were it not for the a-theistic stance taken by the educational system and the efforts of the state to indoctrinate my children from an early age into "scientific-agnosticism" for lack of a better term.
Putting aside for the moment that this is a "secular" nation, what sort of "stance" would you prefer? And you also realize of course, that once you go down that road, it's still never going to be enough for some folks?!
- November 19th, 2009, 08:25 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#64   Reply With Quote
notyet notyet is offline
notyet's Avatar

notyet *****

Virtuoso

Join Date: Nov 2008

Posts: 3,833

See profile

ming_on_mongo wrote :
Putting aside for the moment that this is a "secular" nation, what sort of "stance" would you prefer? And you also realize of course, that once you go down that road, it's still never going to be enough for some folks?!
but this really wasn't founded to be a secular nation. "on the 18th of april in '75..." at least eight colonies had established state sanctioned churches.

from the declaration of independence...

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

...We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."

from the articles of confederation...

"And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union."

the above are not the words of a secular nation.

from the constitution of the united states of america...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

and yet the rights of the religious in this country are encroached upon ceaselessly.

i understand the line needs to be somewhere- but it has been pushed too far to the "a-theistic" side. the government is not neutral. it is actively hostile to the public practice of christianity. practice/flaunt whatever else you like in public, whether religious or secular- but do not dare display your christian faith in public or you will be quickly slapped down.
Last edited by notyet; November 19th, 2009 at 09:59 pm. Reason: typo- bound to be one or two in a post this long...
- November 19th, 2009, 09:01 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#65   Reply With Quote

ADVERTISEMENT

ming_on_mongo ming_on_mongo is offline
ming_on_mongo's Avatar

ming_on_mongo -Seattle transplant to NorCal... hmmm, sun good!

Veteran

Join Date: Jul 2008

Posts: 1,222

See profile

notyet wrote :
but this really wasn't founded to be a secular nation. "on the 18th of april in '75..." at least eight colonies had established state sanctioned churches......

.......the above are not the words of a secular nation.

from the constitution of the united states of america...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

and yet the rights of the religious in this country are encroached upon ceaselessly.

i understand the line needs to be somewhere- but it has been pushed too far to the "a-theistic" side. the government is not neutral. it is actively hostile to the public practice of christianity. practice/flaunt whatever else you like in public, whether religious or secular- but do not dare display your christian faith in public or you will be quickly slapped down.
Oh boy, I was afraid you were going to resort to that old argument! And I'm not sure it's an "atheistic" side, as much as it's simply "secular" (i.e. "Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body."). Although unless they've started going door-to-door in the 'burbs, and ripping out all the private manger scenes, your last statement still seems just a bit excessive re: any perceived "repression".

But just for the sake of argument, let's say we changed all the stuff that currently gives you heartburn.... then what would that look like, exactly (and still not violate the first amendment)?
- November 19th, 2009, 11:12 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#66   Reply With Quote
rix rix is offline
rix's Avatar

rix has been rather "captivated" lately. *smile*

Enthusiast

Join Date: Mar 2008

Posts: 985

See profile

blessedinNC wrote :
We aren't "responsible" for the current generation of souls...
As for the "problematic" question - No, it is not problematic that God created such a place. It is mercy and grace and unfathomable love that He created a way that we do not have to end up there.
Then, you are obviously not familiar with your own scriptures. Evangelical author Dallas Willard refers to this as "The Great Omission."

As for the second part; it is highly problematic that you do not find it problematic! Imagine if someone in a position of power created a horrible concentration camp with unimaginable suffering, but told them they could avoid it by certain acts; would they not still be responsible for conceiving of such a place?

C.S. Lewis reminds us that the traditional doctrine of hell "is one of the chief grounds on which Christianity is attacked as barbarous and the goodness of God impugned."

Revivalist Jonathan Edwards described it this way: "The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much in the same way as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath towards you burns like fire... Consider this, you that yet remain in an unregenerate state. That God will execute the fierceness of his anger, implies, that he will inflict wrath without pity... you shall be tormented in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb...There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery... So that your punishment will indeed be infinite."

Therefore, in light of this "revelation," philosopher Hans Kung asks: "What would we think of a human being who satisfied his thirst for revenge so implacably and insatiably?"

Clark Pinnock further adds: "the idea that a fully conscious creature would undergo physical and mental torture through endless time is plainly sadistic and therefore incompatible with (the idea of ) a God who loves humanity... In terms of justice, the traditional view of hell is simply unacceptable. It is a punishment in excess of anything that sinners deserve... Besides, no purpose is served by the unending torture of the wicked except vengeance...

Pinnock continues: "Is it not plain that sins committed in time and space cannot deserve limitless divine retribution? Hell is the ultimate big stick to threaten people with... What human crimes could possibly deserve everlasting conscious torment? Surely the idea of everlasting conscious torment raises the problem of evil to impossible heights...Any doctrine of hell needs to pass the moral test."

The problem is further compounded by the belief that hell was "created for the devil and the fallen angels." However, the popular conception as highlighted by John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim's Progress (second only to the Bible as a Christian book) notes: "The Devils are the Almighty's agents and just executioner of his deserved vengeance against sinners" (Visions of Heaven and Hell). Therefore, the belief is that hell was "created for the devil and the fallen angels." Yet, "unredeemed humans" are the recipients of the worst form of everlasting conscious torment by demons who are both jailers and tormentors carrying out the Almighty's bidding. And you do not find any of this problematic?
Last edited by rix; November 20th, 2009 at 06:20 am.
- November 20th, 2009, 06:15 am
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#67   Reply With Quote
rix rix is offline
rix's Avatar

rix has been rather "captivated" lately. *smile*

Enthusiast

Join Date: Mar 2008

Posts: 985

See profile

Anyways, forgive me for interrupting the current flow of energy and exchange. I do not want to disrupt the current feng shui flow of the thread, but the previous response was crying out for a reply.

And, as for the current discussion, and everybody appealing to the founding fathers to support their position, it is significant to note that the founding fathers were hardly "evangelical Christians." True, they appealed to "nature's God," but they viewed this "God" as "the watchmaker"- who basically set the created order in motion, but who does not intervene in anyway once the whole "clock" was set in motion. Hardly, the God of Judeo-Christendom who directly intervenes in the affairs of this world. They were products of their time. They were men of the Enlightenment. They were known as deists (simply the Roman word for God, so they would not be confused with "theists"). And, in a world where kings governed by "divine right" and "the grace of God," what the founders of the colonies put forth was radical and revolutionary for it's time. Of course, the ideas of the Enlightenment were taken to the next level culminating with the French Revolution.

However, the founding fathers of this land were hardly the "men of God" that evangelicals conceive them to be. Thomas Paine who wrote the pamphlet Common Sense that sowed the seeds for the American Revolution, also wrote about the nature of "Christian mythology" in The Age of Reason. Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the miracles and supernaturalism found in the Bible. Therefore, he edited his own Bible, reducing it to basically the Sermon on the Mount and the moral sayings of Jesus, devoid of all supernaturalism. And, Benjamin Franklin, was not even ranked among his deist peers- Washington, Jefferson, Paine, and others, he was actually more of a skeptic. The Tripoli accords would later sum up the spirit of the times by noting that "The United States was not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion." The structure is basically Greco-Roman mixed with elements of freemasonry and Iroquois notions of democracy. That is why we have a senate instead of a sanhedrin!

Yet, it is a mystery as to why the "rational religion" of deism did not really survive and thrive beyond the period of the Enlightenment. It seemed to have all but died with end of the "Age of Reason." Very few wear the mantle of deist today. One notable deist is former Czech playwright and dissident turned president of the new Czech Republic- Vaclav Havel.
Last edited by rix; November 20th, 2009 at 07:08 am.
- November 20th, 2009, 06:59 am
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#68   Reply With Quote
ming_on_mongo ming_on_mongo is offline
ming_on_mongo's Avatar

ming_on_mongo -Seattle transplant to NorCal... hmmm, sun good!

Veteran

Join Date: Jul 2008

Posts: 1,222

See profile

Thanks, Rix, and I wasn't aware of that quote from the Treaty of Tripoli (Article 11), which BTW, was signed by no less than that revered icon of Conservatism, then President John Adams!

- November 20th, 2009, 11:20 am
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#69   Reply With Quote
notyet notyet is offline
notyet's Avatar

notyet *****

Virtuoso

Join Date: Nov 2008

Posts: 3,833

See profile

rix wrote :
...Pinnock continues: "Is it not plain that sins committed in time and space cannot deserve limitless divine retribution? Hell is the ultimate big stick to threaten people with... What human crimes could possibly deserve everlasting conscious torment? Surely the idea of everlasting conscious torment raises the problem of evil to impossible heights...Any doctrine of hell needs to pass the moral test."...
i am unfamiliar with pinnock. but he needs to read his bible. and perhaps this thread... (god is good because...)
- November 21st, 2009, 11:31 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#70   Reply With Quote

ADVERTISEMENT

Reply
Page 7 of 11 « First 5 6 7 8 9 Last »

Bookmarks

« How are you obedience to God in your dating, and how has that produced abundant life? | Array | Zero replies from my matches »
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“It could just be playful. Some people are awkward in online communication but not over the phone or in person. It could be creepy too though. It can't hurt to give the phone call a try and see ... ” – suzyblueeyes

Join the “He asks me if I'm allowed to call boys??? What??” discussion

“Agree with the others - take him at his word. Usually means a guy is looking for sex. I've also had friends in this situation who find out the guy is married... Why would you be on a dating website ... ” – trixie1868

Join the “When a guy says he's not looking for a relationship...” discussion

“Regardless, there is definitely an ANSWER! The answer is: run..... hide..... get away! People like that end up being the type that just sit around doing nothing, making you do all the work, then ... ” – misswright

Join the “Doesn't want to work, doesn't want sex, drinks” discussion

“I don't believe in love at first sight. I think love takes time to develop. However, I do believe in the twinkle. This was the term my late husband and I used to use to describe how we met. I ... ” – suzyblueeyes

Join the “Is love at first sight real?” discussion

“I totally agree with the full body shot for women. If you don't post at least one, then guys assume you're hiding something. Also, if all of your photos include you drinking in a limo, or in Vegas, ... ” – BigP

Join the “Using eHarmony: Online Profile Photo Tips for Guys” discussion

“Okay... to me.... it really doesn't matter if HE thinks it's acceptable vs rude to say "stop talking" while interrupting you. What SHOULD matter is that TO YOU IT IS RUDE! After all (as I put it ... ” – richey

Join the “Stop Talking” discussion

“I already know all people are imperfect and am prepared to enter into a relationship with an imperfect person. I don't need to live with someone to figure that out. In fact I usually figure that ... ” – D_Lion

Join the “co-habiting with no engagement... smart or not?” discussion

“Sexual bias plays no role in confidence and dating post divorce. It really depends on the circumstances surrounding the divorce in how they will be. Some of the factors are length of marriage ... ” – ami1uwant

Join the “how do men feel after divorce” discussion



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:05 pm.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0