• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The GOD Thread~

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
Take a deep breath. It's not worth getting worked up about and getting high blood pressure. If you have solid boundaries and surely you do, then they're no threat to you. :)

How patronizing. That, quite rude of you to disregard my anger over this and insinuate that it isn't valid because your opinion is superior to mine. Let me tell you, it's not.

Also, just because something isn't an objective threat (to you), somehow makes it ok and others shouldn't feel threatened or bothered by it? That isn't how the world works, and you have no right to tell others how they should feel about something when there is no objective right and wrong. Ironically though, it is possible to argue an objective wrong for missionary work and its subsequent prostelyzing.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
To each his own. Love them anyway.

You contradict yourself. For the missionaries, you exult, "To each his own." Yet, the missionaries' very passion, is to convert those into their own ideology. Their passion and very work is to override the very entitlement you afford them, "To each his own."

I intercede for the weak in prayer. People are not the enemy. We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world. (Ephesians 6:12)

That still didn't explain your contradiction above. Please explain.
 

Obsidius

Chumped.
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
318
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Who cares if a missionary approaches you? Or a street preacher? I'm an atheist, but a reasonable one, and an argumentative one when it comes to this stuff, if they want to push themselves on me, they can go ahead. They just bloody well expect a debate about what they believe in, and how it is, if at all, reasonable.
 

LonestarCowgirl

New member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
482
How patronizing. That, quite rude of you to disregard my anger over this and insinuate that it isn't valid because your opinion is superior to mine. Let me tell you, it's not.

Also, just because something isn't an objective threat (to you), somehow makes it ok and others shouldn't feel threatened or bothered by it? That isn't how the world works, and you have no right to tell others how they should feel about something when there is no objective right and wrong. Ironically though, it is possible to argue an objective wrong for missionary work and its subsequent prostelyzing.

Anger is a choice. I was trying to help you, not hurt you.

That still didn't explain your contradiction above. Please explain.

I believe in love. I guess we're coming from a different place.
 

Obsidius

Chumped.
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
318
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
How patronizing. That, quite rude of you to disregard my anger over this and insinuate that it isn't valid because your opinion is superior to mine. Let me tell you, it's not.

Also, just because something isn't an objective threat (to you), somehow makes it ok and others shouldn't feel threatened or bothered by it? That isn't how the world works, and you have no right to tell others how they should feel about something when there is no objective right and wrong. Ironically though, it is possible to argue an objective wrong for missionary work and its subsequent prostelyzing.

Probably best to ignore people like this... They're patronizing for a purpose, best not to let them get a rise out of you, they see it as weakness. But yeah, what Skinny-Love said was stupid. I for one would argue that subjective threats are the only threats :) (Or objective right/wrongs for that matter).
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
Anger is a choice. I was trying to help you, not hurt you.

By joe you did it again! It could easily be argued that emotions aren't fully a choice. So what if it is? It doesn't invalidate it, which you keep trying to do.

Helping? You are doing the exact opposite. Ha!
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
I believe in love. I guess we're coming from a different place.

It doesn't seem like you do.

This answer still does not explain why you say that you afford the missionaries love and allow them to be "to each his own", but you fail to see that the missionaries themselves are not abiding by the "to each his own" principle, because their very work is counter to that sentiment. So, in your support of the missionaries, on the basis of love and "to each his own", you deny that very love and "to each his own" principle to the people the missionaries target.

So, does that mean you do not love nor afford the consideration of "to each his own" to the to-be-converted?
 

LonestarCowgirl

New member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
482
Probably best to ignore people like this... They're patronizing for a purpose, best not to let them get a rise out of you, they see it as weakness. But yeah, what Skinny-Love said was stupid. I for one would argue that subjective threats are the only threats :) (Or objective right/wrongs for that matter).

Y'all are in a fighting mood tonight. *sniffles* I'll be okay. :wink:
 

Obsidius

Chumped.
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
318
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Y'all are in a fighting mood tonight. *sniffles* I'll be okay. :wink:

Always, my friend, always :) If you ever want to argue about something, especially something as vacuous as religion, I'll be there ;)
 

LonestarCowgirl

New member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
482
It doesn't seem like you do.

This answer still does not explain why you say that you afford the missionaries love and allow them to be "to each his own", but you fail to see that the missionaries themselves are not abiding by "to each his own", because their very work is counter to that sentiment. So, in your support of the missionaries, on the basis of love and "to each his own", you deny that very love and "to each his own" principle to the people the missionaries target.


So, does that mean you do not love nor afford the consideration of "to each his own" to the to-be-converted?

I don't believe in judging or harming the missionaries in any way, shape or form regardless of what they do or say to me. As for others, I do what the Holy Spirit leads me to do when it comes to intercession. As I said, I believe we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world. (Ephesians 6:12)
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
I don't believe in judging or harming the missionaries in any way, shape or form regardless of what they do or say to me. As for others, I do what the Holy Spirit leads me to do when it comes to intercession. As I said, I believe we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world. (Ephesians 6:12)

So you don't judge the missionaries but you judge the others? As when it comes to praying for the others, you're judging them to have been in need of prayers/saving, are you not? Why?
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Skinny-Love in not promoting a totalitarian ideology. Skinny-Love is no threat to anyone. Your guns are pointing the wrong way at Skinny-Love. Turn them around and point them at the totalitarian ideology of Islam. Of course there is no risk in attacking Skinny-Love but attacking totalitarian Islam puts your life at risk.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
Is that how it works? Living with contradictions and double standards for believers versus non-believers? I'd call that hate masking as love.

You don't need to call it hate masking as love. It IS hate masking as love.

It's PROFOUNDLY morally inconsistent, intellectually dishonest, unfair, and wrong.

Skinny-Love in not promoting a totalitarian ideology. Skinny-Love is no threat to anyone. Your guns are pointing the wrong way at Skinny-Love. Turn them around and point them at the totalitarian ideology of Islam. Of course there is no risk in attacking Skinny-Love but attacking totalitarian Islam puts your life at risk.

It seems like you're only supporting her because she's "nice". Also, as I pointed out, she isn't a threat, but just because something isn't a thread does not deem something worthy of comment and discussion.
 

LonestarCowgirl

New member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
482
Skinny-Love in not promoting a totalitarian ideology. Skinny-Love is no threat to anyone. Your guns are pointing the wrong way at Skinny-Love. Turn them around and point them at the totalitarian ideology of Islam. Of course there is no risk in attacking Skinny-Love but attacking totalitarian Islam puts your life at risk.
Thank you. Thank you very much!! :nerd::heart::bunnyglee:
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Skinny-Love in not promoting a totalitarian ideology. Skinny-Love is no threat to anyone. Your guns are pointing the wrong way at Skinny-Love. Turn them around and point them at the totalitarian ideology of Islam. Of course there is no risk in attacking Skinny-Love but attacking totalitarian Islam puts your life at risk.
Who needs totalitarian Islam or Sharia when we can have this:

Slaves were not to be oppressed, and were not to be returned to their owners if they escaped. This is obviously a safeguard by God against abusing slaves.

Servants were to serve 6 years and go free in the 7th, laden with good and assets. Unless they wanted to stay in their master's home, and then they could stay indefinitely with their master, once pierced in the ear. They were not to be ruled over with rigor. They did not have rights as far as I know, but their humanity was protected in God's Law.

Jesus came along and preached love and compassion, making slavery obsolete. But it does not necessarily change being a servant, because a poor person needs help and there is nothing wrong with working for your keep. We all must do that. Working 6 days is actually commanded in the 4th commandment! Jesus preaches love and compassion, but that does not mean we have to give everything away, or not expect those among us who are poor to not work to earn their keep.

God's intent regarding slavery is that the foreign people from nations around them, who were not children of God, were living sinful lives ignorant of God's Laws. It would be better to be a slave to a Hebrew God-fearing master than a citizen of a Godless country.

Servants were possibly Hebrews or aliens who became sold by their families for money, or perhaps fell into such dire straits they sold themselves. Servants were commanded to be treated well, lived in the master's home, and had a good life.

There are many laws commanding God's children to help their brethren if they become poor, to redeem their home and land for them, and to treat all, even strangers, as family. Being a servant was inevitable however, because there will always be poor people in every society.

Today we just have a government that takes money from people and doles it out to the poor. The government decides who gets what and how much. Being a servant in the ancient Holy Land meant you lived in a nice house, worked 6 days, rested the 7th, had good food to eat, a family with you, and a decent master. Our poor live in their own little corner of squalor with little resources or help. Hmm. Which sounds better to you?
Either theocratic system at best brings nothing more than a kinder, gentler oppression. "They did not have rights . . . but their humanity was protected" - our founding fathers saw our rights as implicit in our humanity, however imperfect their vision in its time.

=======================================

Really, should the government have say in how many people we choose to live our life with, or share love with? Especially when God's own Law does not forbid it?

Why did we give the government rights over our private lives in this way?
Now you're onto something.

I believe in love. I guess we're coming from a different place.
Oh? And where would you suggest the other people in this discussion are coming from?
 
Top