|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 10, 2018 15:35:25 GMT
Karma. Karma. Karma. Karma.
Karma Chameleon.
What's the big deal here? Why is the word karma supposed to be offensive to Christians. I consider myself a Christian, and it doesn't bother me at all.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 10, 2018 15:46:01 GMT
These... ...are not contradictory. There are some things he is obligated to keep his standards on. However, he can do a million different things it have no connection to his standards which could allow for them. Who is he obligated to? A 4th personality? For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 10, 2018 15:56:35 GMT
These... ...are not contradictory. There are some things he is obligated to keep his standards on. However, he can do a million different things it have no connection to his standards which could allow for them. Who is he obligated to? A 4th personality?
Authority doesn't require an ever escalating chain of command. A sovereign sets the standard and lives by it.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 10, 2018 16:01:18 GMT
tpfkar Who is he obligated to? A 4th personality? For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.Authority doesn't require an ever escalating chain of command. A sovereign sets the standard and lives by it. In what way then is he "obligated to keep his standards on"? Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 10, 2018 16:03:23 GMT
tpfkar Authority doesn't require an ever escalating chain of command. A sovereign sets the standard and lives by it. In what way then is he "obligated to keep his standards on"? Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.I would say he is obligated to himself since that isn't an unusual concept, but if that isn't something you can get, then let's say he isn't obligated and he simply abides by is own standards.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 10, 2018 16:09:17 GMT
tpfkar In what way then is he "obligated to keep his standards on"? Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.I would say he is obligated to himself since that isn't an unusual concept, but if that isn't something you can get, then let's say he isn't obligated and he simply abides by is own standards. Those are two different things. He creates wholesale and then chooses to enforce his own depraved "standards", which really just means what he wants when he wants and how he wants it, of course including flighty curses, wholesale slaughter, great inconsistency & arbitrariness and bloody burlesque. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 10, 2018 16:20:51 GMT
tpfkar I would say he is obligated to himself since that isn't an unusual concept, but if that isn't something you can get, then let's say he isn't obligated and he simply abides by is own standards. Those are two different things. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.I'm ok with them being two seperate things since it doesn't change the fact that he doesn't change from his own standard. The "why" is not a concern for me unless being given a reason for concern.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 10, 2018 16:26:06 GMT
tpfkar Those are two different things. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.I'm ok with them being two seperate things since it doesn't change the fact that he doesn't change from his own standard. The "why" is not a concern for me unless being given a reason for concern. Sure, his "standard" being what he wants, when he wants, and how he wants it, of course including flighty curses, wholesale slaughter, great inconsistency & arbitrariness and bloody burlesque. And I know you guys are ok with and unconcerned about any obscenity as long as it comes from what some guys wrote down as god saying. Strongman boots to lick are compelling things for a lot of people. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 10, 2018 16:28:43 GMT
I'm ok with them being two seperate things since it doesn't change the fact that he doesn't change from his own standard. The "why" is not a concern for me unless being given a reason for concern. Sure, his "standard" being what he wants, when he wants, and how he wants it,
That's not really what keeping a standard entails is it? You haven't actually present an instance where his standards have change so can I assume you have just moved on to your normal insulting banter?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 10, 2018 16:34:16 GMT
tpfkar Sure, his "standard" being what he wants, when he wants, and how he wants it, of course including flighty curses, wholesale slaughter, great inconsistency & arbitrariness and bloody burlesque. And I know you guys are ok with and unconcerned about any obscenity as long as it comes from what some guys wrote down as god saying. Strongman boots to lick are compelling things for a lot of people. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.That's not really what keeping a standard entails is it? You haven't actually present an instance where his standards have change so can I assume you have just moved on to your normal insulting banter? That's the point, of course. Your "keeping a standard" is patently ludicrous when that "standard" is whatever he likes based on whatever flighty whim, including all immoralities and depravities briefly listed above. You haven't presented anything but goofy Arlon definitions, and I can observe as you again collapse back to your patent vacuous nonsensical bluster. The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 11, 2018 0:14:53 GMT
Who is he obligated to? A 4th personality?
Authority doesn't require an ever escalating chain of command. A sovereign sets the standard and lives by it. ... and you claim that God did not set the standards, so who did? Please answer my last post before this one about God's omnipotence and 'Who created God?' if, as you state someone/thing else modified the ultimate 'standards', which you have since goal post changed as options' of the standards because you can't make your argument comply with the logic.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 11, 2018 2:58:32 GMT
Karma. Karma. Karma. Karma. Karma Chameleon. What's the big deal here? Why is the word karma supposed to be offensive to Christians. I consider myself a Christian, and it doesn't bother me at all. Depends on how you're using it. EG, if you take Karma to mean that your work/actions in life determines your fate in the afterlife, then that would be against the Christian doctrine that you only make it to heaven by accepting Jesus as your savior (and not through good deeds). So it may not be "offensive," but under certain senses it would contradict Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 11, 2018 3:30:38 GMT
Karma. Karma. Karma. Karma. Karma Chameleon. What's the big deal here? Why is the word karma supposed to be offensive to Christians. I consider myself a Christian, and it doesn't bother me at all. Depends on how you're using it. EG, if you take Karma to mean that your work/actions in life determines your fate in the afterlife, then that would be against the Christian doctrine that you only make it to heaven by accepting Jesus as your savior (and not through good deeds). So it may not be "offensive," but under certain senses it would contradict Christianity. That deeds have nothing to do with salvation in Christianity is a myth. Martin Luther is the one who started all that crap, if memory serves.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 11, 2018 3:31:34 GMT
Depends on how you're using it. EG, if you take Karma to mean that your work/actions in life determines your fate in the afterlife, then that would be against the Christian doctrine that you only make it to heaven by accepting Jesus as your savior (and not through good deeds). So it may not be "offensive," but under certain senses it would contradict Christianity. That deeds have nothing to do with salvation in Christianity is a myth. Martin Luther is the one who started all that crap, if memory serves. I guess it also depends on what denomination of Christian you are, too.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 11, 2018 6:36:08 GMT
terrapin is implying by the question if not by his opinion that because his standards don't/can't change his options can't change I don't even know what that means. You'd have to try to explain it. Re the question you're repeating, another way to ask it is simply, "Yes or no, could God make the world however He wants to make it?" Either yes He can, or no, He can not. ( "The world" includes His standards by the way. We could simply ask instead, "Yes or no, can God have His standards be whatever He'd like them to be?" (that is, when He's setting them))
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 11, 2018 8:37:04 GMT
A mistake often found with amateur attempts to understand the Bible is to assume that humans are somehow "natuarally" moral and the Bible made them into monsters that slaughter children and small animals.
Such a time line is off. Actually people were slaughtering children and small animals before the Bible or the god of the Bible began working to establish the following in the world we associate with the Bible. Notice the human sacrifice in the New World when Europeans arrived.
It took generations upon generations for the god of the Bible to engender morality in humans. Today we no longer slaughter animals unless it is necessary for sustenance. We do not slaughter the children of our enemies since children are innocent. We do not sacrifice humans. We consider those things absurd and immoral.
Why did it take so long? Why didn't God just snap his fingers? Perhaps there are rules even a god cannot break. For example going backward in time and changing what happens might not be possible even for a god.
Why did God "play along" with the monstrous ancient world? Perhaps there was no other way. There was no other understanding of "debts" except the lives of turtledoves or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 11, 2018 13:25:21 GMT
terrapin is implying by the question if not by his opinion that because his standards don't/can't change his options can't change I don't even know what that means. You'd have to try to explain it. Re the question you're repeating, another way to ask it is simply, "Yes or no, could God make the world however He wants to make it?" Either yes He can, or no, He can not. ( "The world" includes His standards by the way. We could simply ask instead, "Yes or no, can God have His standards be whatever He'd like them to be?" (that is, when He's setting them)) That is not what you;re asking since I already answered that too. The answer is yes, but you will inevitably follow up with something akin to how can he if he has limitations since you've done it so many times before. That is not the same thing as "Can God have His standards be whatever He'd like them to be?"since the world would be a subset of his standards and part of his standards would include freedom of his creation to have independence of thought which means they may not want to live by his standards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2018 13:53:32 GMT
This thread highlights the need to separate the realms of information and motivation. On goz’s post about the Me Too movement, someone linked an editorial by New York Times’ Bari Weiss. The column notoriously cites a hoax twitter account to support Weiss' idea that campus liberals are enemies of free speech. What interests me about the editorial are the voices she fears the left is silencing and, more importantly, her view of their motivations – “Organized religion may be anathema on the political left, but the need for the things religion provides — moral fervor, meaning, a sense of community — are not.” The first aspect of the article that caught my attention was the indignation against students who rejected, among others, Ayaan Hirisi Ali, darling of Dutch nationalists. The quote, however, speaks to work I have done since almost my first posts here – dialogues with Film Flaneur and others about the power of religion for good or evil. I found this cartoon in a recent search, and I thought it perfectly illustrated the right’s bizarre sense of victimization I allude to here and on Page 4 of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 11, 2018 15:42:44 GMT
I don't even know what that means. You'd have to try to explain it. Re the question you're repeating, another way to ask it is simply, "Yes or no, could God make the world however He wants to make it?" Either yes He can, or no, He can not. ( "The world" includes His standards by the way. We could simply ask instead, "Yes or no, can God have His standards be whatever He'd like them to be?" (that is, when He's setting them)) That is not what you;re asking since I already answered that too. The answer is yes, but you will inevitably follow up with something akin to how can he if he has limitations since you've done it so many times before. That is not the same thing as "Can God have His standards be whatever He'd like them to be?"since the world would be a subset of his standards and part of his standards would include freedom of his creation to have independence of thought which means they may not want to live by his standards. That was what I was asking. I thought you had answered "No," but if you answer "Yes," that's fine. And no, I wouldn't at all respond with something like "How can He?" The aim wasn't to fish for a particular answer, and the aim is not to argue with the answer you give. The aim is instead to examine the upshots of the answer, whatever the answer may be. So, if the answer is "Yes," then a response to "If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them" that appeals to a way that the world happens to work (re the "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" etc. comments) is not actually addressing the question. If the world can be set to work however God wants it to work, then the question is why God set the world to work that way rather than in some alternative way wherein He could simply forgive our sins.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 11, 2018 16:22:50 GMT
Terrapin Station That was not what you were asking and to verify that all you have to do is go back and quiote each time you asked the question. Again, you had a two part question that doesn't jibe together. I had already answered the first part of that question and even now you are assuming the 1st part of the question is both parts of it. Hewre are your two questions you are trying to make into one. Pay attention to the answers this time: Yes No Neither of those questions tie into his standards which yu asked here and somehow think are identical to the previous two questions: No The reason? Because he has obligated himself to follow his own standards without exception which is what leads us to the ransom. If the reason seems like it's voluntary, then the answer may be yes but unlikely. In practice, it doesn't matter he still won't deviate from his standard.
|
|