Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Most Evangelicals today are strong Christian Zionists.

No, not really. And even were it so, it does not make me one. You may not find it easy to detect the difference, because you may think that anybody who has even a vaguely positive attitude to Israel's right to exist is automatically a "Zionist." I can't say what your definition will be. But I don't call myself a Zionist.

My position would be this: the political State of Israel is not currently in obedience to Messiah. That's manifest. They reject Him, and they reject His covenant with them. There are Messianic Jews, but they are persecuted and rejected by the Jewish State. And Christians are denied basic rights like the right of return. So long as that is the case, Israel is as opposed to Christians as any state on earth can probably be. And Jews are not less capable than other folks of doing evil, or being wrong, or failing to run a state in the right way.

However, the Jewish people have a right to exist, and a right to a homeland, because it's God who gives people their homelands; and Messiah has plans for them, whether they have plans for Him or not. So Messiah has an interest in Israel, even in its rebellion. But Israel's future, not their present, is the main Christian interest.

[Immanuel Can]

IC tend to cherry pick from one to the other at will to best assert his own personal prejudices.

Funny. I'm the only person who consistently provides the Scriptural warrant for what he says...and still, you call these "personal prejudices"?

It makes me wonder if you're capable of reading at all. The answers are all there. And anybody who says diffently can provide his own evidence.

But they never seem to.

[Harbal]

I see we are on page 666.

[iambiguous]

IC tend to cherry pick from one to the other at will to best assert his own personal prejudices.

Funny. I'm the only person who consistently provides the Scriptural warrant for what he says...and still, you call these "personal prejudices"?

It makes me wonder if you're capable of reading at all. The answers are all there. And anybody who says diffently can provide his own evidence.

But they never seem to.

iambiguous didn't say that.

Indeed, it makes me wonder if you are capable of reading at all.

And, come on, I'm basically on your side with him. Just as you quote the Christian Bible in order to "prove" that the Christian God does exist, he quotes himself in order to prove that his arguments are true.

You're both two sides of the same "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" coin to me. That "my way or the highway" mentality wholly in sync at times with insufferably caustic, declamatory dictums.

It's just that Sculptor shares many of my own existential prejudices...and he's not condemning me to Hell for all of eternity. Although I suspect that if he could, he would.

[Immanuel Can]

IC tend to cherry pick from one to the other at will to best assert his own personal prejudices.

Funny. I'm the only person who consistently provides the Scriptural warrant for what he says...and still, you call these "personal prejudices"?

It makes me wonder if you're capable of reading at all. The answers are all there. And anybody who says diffently can provide his own evidence.

But they never seem to.

iambiguous didn't say that.

Show me where I said he did. Look above...it says "Sculptor."

[attofishpi]

I see we are on page 666.

..my special mob ph number:- xxx 007 666 x
..issued to after the night God\sage had me bashed up with a baseball bat - and the moron stole my mob phone.

...seems I have a license to kill too.

www.andrewseas.com

[Lacewing]

You are no more divine, nor do you represent it more so, than anyone else here.

We'll see, I guess.

I do not need to wait and see.

Evidently you must wait to see.

[iambiguous]

IC tend to cherry pick from one to the other at will to best assert his own personal prejudices.

If only being a fool was a sin!

666 pages later...

[Gary Childress]

Judaism doesn' t have statues, Gary.

Sorry, then murder someone for offending an invisible being.

The Supreme Being and Creator, you mean? Sure. He who gave life has every right to determine when it is given and taken. That is the very difference between murder and capital punishment. The one is an action of selfish passion and malevolence, and the other is a judicial ruling fitting the crime in question.

I disagree. Life in and of itself is sacred and if some being brings life into the world that is capable of experiencing joy and suffering, then that being becomes responsible for the life it created and is bound by certain moral or ethical considerations. If a scientist created an artificial person who can feel all the pain and passions of a real human, then that creator/scientist loses free license to do whatever he wishes at whim with that person. Certain rules of decency apply.

...in exchange for our calling you superstitious and ignorant you call us blasphemers heathens

Point to the place.

This, you will find, I have never done. It's not my style, at all. My only interest in the definition of "blasphemy" was that AJ was defining it incorrectly. I called nobody that.

I don't regard unbelievers as either heathens nor as blasphemers. I regard them merely as conversation partners who presently hold different views. Where they will end up is yet to be decided. And they will decide it.

You don't have to call us those things. The book you devoutly believe in does. The philosophy you embrace does. As nice as you may be (and I agree, you are a very nice person for the most part), we are still what that book of yours labels us, so long as you believe it's the truth.

[Immanuel Can]

The Supreme Being and Creator, you mean? Sure. He who gave life has every right to determine when it is given and taken. That is the very difference between murder and capital punishment. The one is an action of selfish passion and malevolence, and the other is a judicial ruling fitting the crime in question.

I disagree.

How?

Life in and of itself is sacred

Not according to how you believe it came about, allegedly. It came about accidentally. The universe just exploded into existence (somehow), and there you were. No use crying "sacred" after that...you're a cosmic accident, if that's true.

and if some being brings life into the world that is capable of experiencing joy and suffering, then that being becomes responsible for the life it created and is bound by certain moral or ethical considerations.

Well, where do those "moral and ethical considerations" get their grounding? Who says the uncaring universe owes you anything?

Remember, Gary: there's no use being angry at God if He doesn't exist. And if He does, there's no frame of reference you can use to get angry at him, and zero chance of you being vindicated, if you do.

So which way would you like to loose that argument?

...in exchange for our calling you superstitious and ignorant you call us blasphemers heathens

Point to the place.

This, you will find, I have never done. It's not my style, at all. My only interest in the definition of "blasphemy" was that AJ was defining it incorrectly. I called nobody that.

I don't regard unbelievers as either heathens nor as blasphemers. I regard them merely as conversation partners who presently hold different views. Where they will end up is yet to be decided. And they will decide it.

You don't have to call us those things.

That's good. I didn't.

The book you devoutly believe in does.

It does not. Go and look. Sorry, Gary...you're wrong again.

The term "heathen" does not occur in Scripture at all. It's from the proto-Germanic. The Bible does speak of "nations" and of "unbelieving" and of a few other such descriptors; but "heathen" is term of too late an origin to be in any Biblical manuscript. As for "blasphemer," it is from the Greek, and from the originals, and is old enough...but it always refers to somebody who has willfully chosen to speak insultingly against God. It does not speak of the unsaved or unbelieving in general...ever.

As nice as you may be (and I agree, you are a very nice person for the most part)...

Thank you: I respect you too, Gary...as a person who's had a hard life, and as an honest speaker. I have sympathy for some of the stuff you've told us about your background. But, of course, respect entails truth telling. And I'm telling you the truth here. Neither I nor the Bible describes you as a heathen or a blasphemer, unless you perform the actions required to fulfill that definition yourself.

So it's your call...are you "heathen"? Have you "blasphemed"? If you have, you can't blame anybody for the accurate label. If you've not, then what are we talking about?

[Dubious]

I see we are on page 666.

Only for a very short time; then we'll be right back where we were.

[Gary Childress]

The Supreme Being and Creator, you mean? Sure. He who gave life has every right to determine when it is given and taken. That is the very difference between murder and capital punishment. The one is an action of selfish passion and malevolence, and the other is a judicial ruling fitting the crime in question.

I disagree.

How?

Life in and of itself is sacred

Not according to how you believe it came about, allegedly. It came about accidentally. The universe just exploded into existence (somehow), and there you were. No use crying "sacred" after that...you're a cosmic accident, if that's true.

and if some being brings life into the world that is capable of experiencing joy and suffering, then that being becomes responsible for the life it created and is bound by certain moral or ethical considerations.

Well, where do those "moral and ethical considerations" get their grounding? Who says the uncaring universe owes you anything?

Remember, Gary: there's no use being angry at God if He doesn't exist. And if He does, there's no frame of reference you can use to get angry at him, and zero chance of you being vindicated, if you do.

So which way would you like to loose that argument?

Point to the place.

This, you will find, I have never done. It's not my style, at all. My only interest in the definition of "blasphemy" was that AJ was defining it incorrectly. I called nobody that.

I don't regard unbelievers as either heathens nor as blasphemers. I regard them merely as conversation partners who presently hold different views. Where they will end up is yet to be decided. And they will decide it.

You don't have to call us those things.

That's good. I didn't.

The book you devoutly believe in does.

It does not. Go and look. Sorry, Gary...you're wrong again.

The term "heathen" does not occur in Scripture at all. It's from the proto-Germanic. The Bible does speak of "nations" and of "unbelieving" and of a few other such descriptors; but "heathen" is term of too late an origin to be in any Biblical manuscript. As for "blasphemer," it is from the Greek, and from the originals, and is old enough...but it always refers to somebody who has willfully chosen to speak insultingly against God. It does not speak of the unsaved or unbelieving in general...ever.

As nice as you may be (and I agree, you are a very nice person for the most part)...

Thank you: I respect you too, Gary...as a person who's had a hard life, and as an honest speaker. I have sympathy for some of the stuff you've told us about your background. But, of course, respect entails truth telling. And I'm telling you the truth here. Neither I nor the Bible describes you as a heathen or a blasphemer, unless you perform the actions required to fulfill that definition yourself.

So it's your call...are you "heathen"? Have you "blasphemed"? If you have, you can't blame anybody for the accurate label. If you've not, then what are we talking about?

OK. So I"m not a blasphemer or heathen. I was wrong. I guess I can go on my merry way and do what I want so long as I'm not hurting anyone else. I can masturbate when I'm lonely. I can get angry at God for making life such a pointless shit fest. I'm glad we've cleared that up then. I feel much better now.

[Gary Childress]

The Supreme Being and Creator, you mean? Sure. He who gave life has every right to determine when it is given and taken. That is the very difference between murder and capital punishment. The one is an action of selfish passion and malevolence, and the other is a judicial ruling fitting the crime in question.

I disagree.

How?

By disagreeing. How else does one disagree?

[Immanuel Can]

I guess I can go on my merry way and do what I want so long as I'm not hurting anyone else.

If there's no God, that was always the case. In fact, it was still the case even if you hurt everybody else. For there was nothing to stop you, so long as you could get away with anything. No God, no rules.

But the important question is, is there a God?

[Immanuel Can]

I disagree.

How?

By disagreeing. How else does one disagree?

By having a reason or logic behind one's disagreement. In other words, by not disagreeing merely gratuitously. By having some explanation of why one disagrees.