PDA

View Full Version : Tolerance vs Godliness



Nineveh
November 3rd, 2004, 12:56 PM
A druidic "women's eucharist" and a "divorce rite," both posted on the Episcopal Church's official Web site, have outraged Episcopal conservatives.

The "eucharist," subtitled "A Celebration of the Divine Feminine," was posted Oct. 8 on the denomination's Office of Women's Ministries page at dfms.org. It invoked "Mother God" and used a lighted candle, a vase of flowers, a chalice of sweet red wine, a cup of milk and money and a plate of raisin cakes to invoke images of sexuality, fertility and birth.

The rite was attributed to the Rev. Glyn Lorraine Ruppe Melnyk, the pastor of St. Francis in the Fields Episcopal Church in Malvern, Pa.

She and her husband, Bill Melnyk, rector of St. James Episcopal Church in Downingtown, Pa., posted several ceremonies, which invoked pagan gods and goddesses, on tuathadebrighid. org.

One, an "erotic ritual" for the spring festival of Beltane, used Christian phrases for the rite, including an opening "litany" and an "invocation" of the "Earth Mother." The ceremony, which culminates with the lead couple engaging in sex in front of the other participants, ends with a "chant of Communion and Praise" to the tune of the Irish hymn "St. Patrick's Breastplate." The Babylonian god "Bel" honored in the rite has been linked to the Canaanite god Baal, whose worship was condemned in the Old Testament.

A "Eucharist to our Mother Goddess" ritual on the site — which since has been removed — is the same "women's eucharist" that was posted on the Episcopal Church's Web site. Starting last Tuesday, this and the "divorce rite," which includes a Lord's Prayer that refers to God as "You who are Mother and Father to us all," were denounced on several Episcopalian Web sites.

Christianity Today declared that the Episcopal Church is "promoting pagan rites to pagan deities."

"And not just any new pagan deities," wrote Ted Olsen, the magazines' online managing editor. "The Episcopal Church ... is actually promoting the worship of idols specifically condemned in Scripture."

The Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania on Friday released a statement promising to investigate "extremely serious" charges that Mr. and Mrs. Melnyk are practicing Druids and have violated their ordination vows.

But Bishop Charles Bennison Jr. said the two priests have "contributed positively" to the diocese for four years, adding, "I will not allow this situation to turn into a witch hunt of any sort."

The "eucharist" was one of nine resources listed on the women's ministries page as part of a "Women's Liturgy Project" touted Oct. 25 by Episcopal News Service as a way of "honoring a woman's life passages and experiences" including "menstruation, menopause, conception, pregnancy, any form of pregnancy loss, childbirth, forms of leave taking, and many others."

The release invited Episcopalians to download the "worship resources" for use either on Sunday mornings or "any other appropriate setting where the honoring of a woman's life passages and experiences beckons a liturgical response."

However, the divorce and eucharist rites were removed from the church's Web site after church headquarters began receiving complaints.

The Rev. Margaret Rose, director of the denomination's Women's Ministries office, issued a statement on Thursday saying divorce and women's eucharist rites were not approved Episcopal liturgies, but were listed only "to spark dialogue, study and conversation and ponderings around women and our liturgical tradition."

The "women's eucharist," she said in an interview was written by Mrs. Melnyk for a parish study group of women.

"It was written in response to their alienation," she said. "It was not claiming to be a Christian eucharist, but it was a way to look at their own religious traditions and explore them. We don't desire to replace the Sunday liturgy in any way. They wrote it to see what it would feel like to have specifically feminine images."

Mrs. Melnyk also is known on Druid Web sites as "Glispa" or "Raven." Mr. Melnyk, who goes by several druidic names, including "Oakwyse" and "Druis," had posted messages and rituals at druidnetwork.org, druidry.org and other sites. cite (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041101-122457-1902r.htm)

As if Episcopalians don't have enough on their plate...


"honoring a woman's life passages and experiences" including "menstruation, menopause, conception, pregnancy, any form of pregnancy loss, childbirth, forms of leave taking, and many others."

How is this part of Godly worship? What is outright blatent is this part, "any form of pregnancy loss". They want to "honor" abortion?

"But Bishop Charles Bennison Jr. said the two priests have "contributed positively" to the diocese for four years, adding, "I will not allow this situation to turn into a witch hunt of any sort.""

Mr. Bennison thinks as long as these folks are "positive" they are just fine. Even if they are bringing outright paganism into the Episcopal church. No, he doesn't want a "witch hunt" even when the witches are staring him in the face and preaching from Episcopal pulpits. Sitting ducks don't make for much of a hunt.

Gerald
November 3rd, 2004, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh
No, he doesn't want a "witch hunt" even when the witches are staring him in the face and preaching from Episcopal pulpits. Sitting ducks don't make for much of a hunt. Cool! We haven't had a good burning at the stake in a couple centuries!

Now, where'd I leave my Zippo™...? :chuckle:

Nineveh
November 3rd, 2004, 01:02 PM
I seriously doubt there will be a burnin'. The way things seem to be going for the Episcopalians they might get promoted.

PureX
November 3rd, 2004, 01:09 PM
It's sad that tolerance is now being seen as antithetical to Godliness. Especially so, when we realize that tolerance is an essential component of human freedom. To view God as intolerant is to view God as being antithetical to human freedom. This is the fermenting of an idea that can only lead to terrible oppression and mysery. But Christians seem to be dead-set these days on such a violent and destructive course.

Gerald
November 3rd, 2004, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh
I seriously doubt there will be a burnin'. The way things seem to be going for the Episcopalians they might get promoted. But you'd enjoy seeing one...wouldn't you?:chuckle:

On Fire
November 3rd, 2004, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

But you'd enjoy seeing one...wouldn't you?:chuckle:

Do you run on batteries?

Zakath
November 3rd, 2004, 01:12 PM
Nineveh,

Why does it bother you what the "Whiskeypalians" are doing? Aren't you fundamentally against their entire structure and most of their doctrine anyway?

(The reference to "Mr. Bennison" instead of Bishop Bennison was a dead giveaway.)

:think:

Nineveh
November 3rd, 2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by PureX

It's sad that tolerance is now being seen as antithetical to Godliness. Especially so, when we realize that tolerance is an essential component of human freedom. To view God as intolerant is to view God as being antithetical to human freedom. This is the fermenting of an idea that can only lead to terrible oppression and mysery. But Christians seem to be dead-set these days on such a violent and destructive course.

impurex, are you even on this thread or was that a cut and paste from another of you ignorant diatribes?

Nineveh
November 3rd, 2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

But you'd enjoy seeing one...wouldn't you?:chuckle:

um..

No.

The smell of burning hair makes me sick.

One Eyed Jack
November 3rd, 2004, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by PureX

It's sad that tolerance is now being seen as antithetical to Godliness. Especially so, when we realize that tolerance is an essential component of human freedom. To view God as intolerant is to view God as being antithetical to human freedom. This is the fermenting of an idea that can only lead to terrible oppression and mysery. But Christians seem to be dead-set these days on such a violent and destructive course.

Ok, Chicken Little -- I think it's time to come back to reality now.

Nineveh
November 3rd, 2004, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Nineveh,

Why does it bother you what the "Whiskeypalians" are doing? Aren't you fundamentally against their entire structure and most of their doctrine anyway?

(The reference to "Mr. Bennison" instead of Bishop Bennison was a dead giveaway.)

:think:

LOL don't read too much into my laziness, doc :)

Anyway, I would have to say, in answer to your question, I'm for any step in the right direction regardless of denom. Like the African Episcopals for example.

Edit: Oops that was African Anglicans (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=618128#post618128).

One Eyed Jack
November 3rd, 2004, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

Do you run on batteries?

Like the energizer bunny, he is. Or maybe more like Frank from Donnie Darko...

Gerald
November 3rd, 2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by On Fire
Do you run on batteries? Nope, a plutonium-powered RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator, for those playing along at home), guaranteed for 500 years or 500 million miles, whichever comes first.

:chuckle:

Gerald
November 3rd, 2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Like the energizer bunny, he is. Or maybe more like Frank from Donnie Darko... A lot of Christians seem to really like that movie.

I can't for the life of me figure out why.

Must be the end-of-the-world thing...

Zakath
November 3rd, 2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Like the energizer bunny, he is. Or maybe more like Frank from Donnie Darko... Or possibly "Chuckie" from those silly horror movies... :shocked:

Chileice
November 3rd, 2004, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by PureX

It's sad that tolerance is now being seen as antithetical to Godliness. Especially so, when we realize that tolerance is an essential component of human freedom. To view God as intolerant is to view God as being antithetical to human freedom. This is the fermenting of an idea that can only lead to terrible oppression and mysery. But Christians seem to be dead-set these days on such a violent and destructive course.

Trying to move this thread to where I hoped it would be going...
What is the correlation between love and tolerance? It certainly exists but love is greater than tolerance. Many times the loving thing to do is to NOT tolerate the behaviour of the other person. Although I am a generally strong supporter of tolerance, tolerance has its limits: in a family, in the workplace or in a church for that matter. Purex, those who want to perform Druid rites certainly have a right to do so. But to usurp the long-standing traditions of a church to do so do seem extreme. Why can't those people go off and start their own group instead of trying to force their minority view on a group of people gathered for the worship of the Lord as they see fit?

You are right about Nineveh. She certainly doesn't care about the Anglican tradition. But those who have been a part of the Episcolpalian/Anglican/Church of England tradition do. It always seems to be a few who are the tail that wags the dog. True "christian" harmony and good manners would take their beliefs somewhere else.

Gerald
November 3rd, 2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
Or possibly "Chuckie" from those silly horror movies... :shocked: Oh, please!

Nothing but Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney for me, thanks.

Nineveh
November 3rd, 2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Chileice

Trying to move this thread to where I hoped it would be going...
What is the correlation between love and tolerance? It certainly exists but love is greater than tolerance. Many times the loving thing to do is to NOT tolerate the behaviour of the other person.

You mean, judge when tolerance ends in the name of love?


Although I am a generally strong supporter of tolerance, tolerance has its limits: in a family, in the workplace or in a church for that matter.

What about God's limits? I hope we agree the Episcopal church is a house of God. Shouldn't what God says have bearing on what is and is not tolerated in His house (or rather a house dedicated to Him)?


Purex, those who want to perform Druid rites certainly have a right to do so.

Would you share the Gospel with them? If so, please tell me what you would say.


But to usurp the long-standing traditions of a church to do so do seem extreme.

Is tradition the standard by which you make your judgement as to when tolerance should end in the name of love?


Why can't those people go off and start their own group instead of trying to force their minority view on a group of people gathered for the worship of the Lord as they see fit?

Do you really want that answered?


You are right about Nineveh. She certainly doesn't care about the Anglican tradition.

By what do you judge I do not care about Anglicans?


But those who have been a part of the Episcolpalian/Anglican/Church of England tradition do.

Do you see it as a good or a bad thing the Episcolpalian/Anglican church threatens a split over sodomy? Do you agree or disagree with Bishop Bennison.


It always seems to be a few who are the tail that wags the dog. True "christian" harmony and good manners would take their beliefs somewhere else.

Which is more important to you? Harmony or Truth?

(by the way, why not just address me instead of refer to me second hand? lol)

Nineveh
November 3rd, 2004, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

Oh, please!

Nothing but Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney for me, thanks.

I was thinking May.

Gerald
November 3rd, 2004, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh
I was thinking May. :confused:

the Sibbie
November 3rd, 2004, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh
Which is more important to you? Harmony or Truth? That's a great question, Nineveh!

I wonder which Jesus thinks is more important? :think:

firechyld
November 3rd, 2004, 07:59 PM
How is this part of Godly worship? What is outright blatent is this part, "any form of pregnancy loss". They want to "honor" abortion?


I got the impression it was more about honouring in the sense of honouring a loss, not honouring in the sense of a celebration.

*shrug* There's nothing new or overly radical about these beliefs, and there's certainly nothing new about the actual rituals. I'm just a little surprised to see them in this context...

Lighthouse
November 4th, 2004, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by PureX

It's sad that tolerance is now being seen as antithetical to Godliness. Especially so, when we realize that tolerance is an essential component of human freedom. To view God as intolerant is to view God as being antithetical to human freedom. This is the fermenting of an idea that can only lead to terrible oppression and mysery. But Christians seem to be dead-set these days on such a violent and destructive course.

One Eyed Jack
November 4th, 2004, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

A lot of Christians seem to really like that movie.

I can't for the life of me figure out why.

Must be the end-of-the-world thing...

I thought it was kinda weird, but it was okay.

I think I'm gonna have to go with Zakath's suggestion though. You do remind me more of Chuckie. I just had to come up with a creepy rabbit reference, and I didn't think too many people would remember General Woundwort from Watership Down.

Chileice
November 4th, 2004, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

You mean, judge when tolerance ends in the name of love?



What about God's limits? I hope we agree the Episcopal church is a house of God. Shouldn't what God says have bearing on what is and is not tolerated in His house (or rather a house dedicated to Him)?



Would you share the Gospel with them? If so, please tell me what you would say.



Is tradition the standard by which you make your judgement as to when tolerance should end in the name of love?



Do you really want that answered?



By what do you judge I do not care about Anglicans?



Do you see it as a good or a bad thing the Episcolpalian/Anglican church threatens a split over sodomy? Do you agree or disagree with Bishop Bennison.



Which is more important to you? Harmony or Truth?

(by the way, why not just address me instead of refer to me second hand? lol)

Nineveh,
I was trying to support your notion that the Anglican church was no place for Druids. But you saw my name and decided everything I said must be false, so you just undermined your own arguement. That has got to be one of the stranger things I have seen at TOL!

PureX
November 4th, 2004, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Chileice Trying to move this thread to where I hoped it would be going...
What is the correlation between love and tolerance?First I think we need to recognize that love is about finding joy in the happiness and well being of the beloved, rather than seeking our own happiness through the capitulation of the beloved. This is a difference that a lot of people don't see, and don't want to see. Once we understand that the focus of love is on the happiness of the object, rather then on the self, we will soon realize that there is often a challenge involved in this, as the beloved will likely seek their happines in ways that we would not choose for them, and that may leave us out of the picture all together. Anyone who has truly loved, has likely experienced the self-sacrifice involved.

Yet if we do truly love, then we will want the beloved to be free to seek their own happiness rather then forcing them to capitulate to what would make us happiest, and this requires that we sacrifice some of our own selfishness, often in the form of tolerance. Even when we're convinced that what we desire for them is better for them than what they desire for themselves, if we truly love them we'll want them to have the freedom to make their own decisions (even wrong decisions, in our eyes) and to live their lives for themselves. The alternative is that we place ourselves and our desires (regardless of how well intentioned) before theirs, and seek their capitulation to our desires. This is in fact to seek their annihilation - to wish to destroy who they are and to replace them with who we want them to be. This is not love. This is selfishness masquerading as love.

So without sacrifice, often in the form of tolerance, there is no freedom for the beloved, and without that desire that they be free, we are not loving them as we claim we are.

Originally posted by Chileice It certainly exists but love is greater than tolerance. Many times the loving thing to do is to NOT tolerate the behaviour of the other person.Yes, 'tough love' and all that. But people very often misrepresent and misunderstand 'tough love'.

As someone who has some experience with this, I can say that the 'tough love' that works is not judging and condemning the beloved for their beliefs or behaviors. 'Tough love' is not preaching at them or lording our imagined moral superiority over them. 'Tough love' is not "correcting" them in any way, because that isn't love at all. That's selfishness pretending to be love.

All 'tough love' really is, is refusing to condon or participate in behaviors that someone we love chooses to engage in, but that we cannot. That's it. We're not judging them as people, we're not trying to change them or correct them, all we're doing is refusing to condon or participate in behaviors that we believe are wrong for us to engage in with them.

As an example, if I have a friend who is married, and she wanted to engage in some form of intimacy with me, my love for her as a friend would dictate that I refuse to condon or participate in such behavior. That doesn't mean that I judge her or condemn her for wanting to do so, or for engaging in such behavior with others. But it does mean that as her friend I cannot in any way abet such behavior because I believe it's wrong for me to do so both for myself and as her friend.

Another example: if I have a frind who is an alcoholic, and as alcoholics always do, he wants me to go out drinking with him (and I know that in his case to go out drinking means to get drunk) then tough love would dictate that I refuse. I may go out drinking with a non-alcoholic friend, but I won't go with the alcoholic. The point here is that even though the behavior involved may not be something that I disagree with in general, knowing that it will do harm specifically to this friend, I would still refuse to engage in it. (In my own case I don't drink alcohol at all, so this would be an irrelevant scenario, but I was just using it as an example.)

Tough love is really about the lover standing his own ground regarding ideas and behavior choices - it's not about judging, condemning or changing the beloved to suit our idea of who they should be. We aren't being intolerant of who the other person is, we are being intolerant of specific behaviors that we ourselves can't condon or participate in with them.

Originally posted by Chileice Purex, those who want to perform Druid rites certainly have a right to do so. But to usurp the long-standing traditions of a church to do so do seem extreme. Why can't those people go off and start their own group instead of trying to force their minority view on a group of people gathered for the worship of the Lord as they see fit?Why, indeed? I suspect the reason is that they want to force their church community into conforming to their own will and desire, which is not love, and certainly is not freedom or tolerance. Neither would it be for the church community to try and force the others NOT to seek their own joy in Druid cerimonies or whatever else they desire. If the church disagrees, they should refuse to participate. But they need not judge and condemn those who do, and if they do judge and condemn them, it's not out of love - it'll be out of selfishness, and even hate.

Hate is what we feel when those we claim we love defy our desire that they be who we want them to be (which was never love to begin with). True love does not turn to hatred. Only selfishness that has been masquarading as love will turn to hatred when the "beloved" will not capitulate to our will, and they refuse to be who we want them to be ... for us.

Nineveh
November 4th, 2004, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

I got the impression it was more about honouring in the sense of honouring a loss, not honouring in the sense of a celebration.

*shrug* There's nothing new or overly radical about these beliefs, and there's certainly nothing new about the actual rituals. I'm just a little surprised to see them in this context...

Seems the Episcopals though they were "radical" ideas. A house of God is supposed to honor God.

Nineveh
November 4th, 2004, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Chileice

Nineveh,
I was trying to support your notion that the Anglican church was no place for Druids. But you saw my name and decided everything I said must be false, so you just undermined your own arguement. That has got to be one of the stranger things I have seen at TOL!

Actually I was asking you questions to understand your points. I would especially like to know on what you base a judgement for when tolerance ends in the name of love and how you judge I do not care about Anglicans.

Nineveh
November 4th, 2004, 07:46 AM
impurex,
For someone who can never really know anything you use quite a few words to say what you can never know.

Would you mind explaining "moral rape" yet?

PureX
November 4th, 2004, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh For someone who can never really know anything you use quite a few words to say what you can never know.I am an intelligent and articulate man. I share my ideas and experiences with others, if they're interested.

Originally posted by Nineveh Would you mind explaining "moral rape" yet? As I have no idea what you're posting about, I don't see how I could explain it to you. I'm certain that I've never mentioned such a thing as a "moral rape", and I can't hardly explain something that exist only in your own mind. So I'm afraid you're out of luck. Perhaps a good psychologist could help you with this.

Nineveh
November 4th, 2004, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by impureX

I am an intelligent and articulate man. I share my ideas and experiences with others, if they're interested.

But you can never really know if what you are saying is true or not.


As I have no idea what you're posting about, I don't see how I could explain it to you. I'm certain that I've never mentioned such a thing as a "moral rape", and I can't hardly explain something that exist only in your own mind. So I'm afraid you're out of luck. Perhaps a good psychologist could help you with this.

OEJ said: I believe it's absolutely wrong to rape another person.

You said: Could someone please explain how we know when something is "absolute".

So I asked: impurex,
To help me more fully understand you, would you please give me an example of yourself in the moral rapist's role? And if you would be so kind, would you share with me your thoughts on being the "victim" of a moral rape, using yourself as an example?

And you didn't reply. If you would so kindly care to do so now the post is here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=618024#post618024).

PureX
November 4th, 2004, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh But you can never really know if what you are saying is true or not.No one can. So what?

Originally posted by Nineveh OEJ said: I believe it's absolutely wrong to rape another person.

You said: Could someone please explain how we know when something is "absolute".You will note that this comment is about the idea of an absolute, and is not about rape at all.

Originally posted by Nineveh So I asked: impurex,
To help me more fully understand you, would you please give me an example of yourself in the moral rapist's role? And if you would be so kind, would you share with me your thoughts on being the "victim" of a moral rape, using yourself as an example?

And you didn't reply.I didn't reply because I had no idea what you were talking about, and I could see that you had no idea what I was talking about, either. My comment was about the concept of absolutes, and had nothing at all to do with rape. So I had no idea why you were trying to connect the two, and I also could see by your questions that you were desperately trying to pidgion-hole me as someone who condone's or defends rape. And that was just too absurd for a ligitimate response.

the Sibbie
November 4th, 2004, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by PureX

No one can. So what?
You will note that this comment is about the idea of an absolute, and is not about rape at all. Can't an absolute be demonstrated by a certain scenario?



I didn't reply because I had no idea what you were talking about, and I could see that you had no idea what I was talking about, either. My comment was about the concept of absolutes, and had nothing at all to do with rape. So I had no idea why you were trying to connect the two, and I also could see by your questions that you were desperately trying to pidgion-hole me as someone who condone's or defends rape. And that was just too absurd for a ligitimate response. If it was too absurd, then we should be able to assume that you believe rape to be wrong in every case (i.e. "absolutely wrong" ). It's alright for you to humbly admit that there may be such a thing as absolutes.

PureX
November 4th, 2004, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by the Sibbie Can't an absolute be demonstrated by a certain scenario? I can't think of any. The problem is that we are finite and relative beings, and as such we don't have any way of testing a supposed absolute to see if it really is.

Originally posted by the Sibbie If it was too absurd, then we should be able to assume that you believe rape to be wrong in every case (i.e. "absolutely wrong" ).I don't see why you should be assuming anything. If you want to know what I think, all you have to do is ask politely. I'm happy to share.

Originally posted by the Sibbie It's alright for you to humbly admit that there may be such a thing as absolutes. I've never claimed that there is or is not such a state as the absolute. There's no way I can tell if there is or not, and no way I can think of that you can tell, either.

the Sibbie
November 4th, 2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by PureX

I can't think of any. The problem is that we are finite and relative beings, and as such we don't have any way of testing a supposed absolute to see if it really is. How about we just consider the frame of a person's lifetime on earth. Would it be absolutely wrong to rape someone, or can you think of a scenario where it would be ok?

Do you consider 2+2=4 to be absolutely correct, 100% of the time?



I don't see why you should be assuming anything. If you want to know what I think, all you have to do is ask politely. I'm happy to share. Well you can't seem to answer any of Nineveh's questions.



I've never claimed that there is or is not such a state as the absolute. There's no way I can tell if there is or not,...Within our realm of reality, I'm absolutely sure there is such a thing as the state of absolute, not for everything but for some things.
...and no way I can think of that you can tell, either. Are you sure that you are not sure that I cannot be sure if there is a state of the absolute?

PureX
November 4th, 2004, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by the Sibbie How about we just consider the frame of a person's lifetime on earth.But this would not be an absolute scenario, then. You are talking about a scenario that is relative to the span of human existence. Do you understand what the word "absolute" means? The condition called "absolute" means intrinsic, integral, not dependant on external conditions or circumstances. It's not a condition subject to time.

Originally posted by the Sibbie Would it be absolutely wrong to rape someone, or can you think of a scenario where it would be ok?You don't seem to understand that the fact that you or I can't think of a circumstance under which what we call "rape" is not what we call "wrong" has no bearing whatever on determining if something is absolute. The state of absoluteness is not established relative to what scenarios you or I can or can't think up.

Do you think that because I won't accept the assertion that morality is absolute that I must then support rape? This is both irrational and untrue. You need to understand that even if every human being that has ever lived agrees that rape is "bad" that still won't make the badness of rape "absolute". Not even close.

Originally posted by the Sibbie Do you consider 2+2=4 to be absolutely correct, 100% of the time?The equasion 2+2=4 is an abstract concept that exists only in our minds. It's only "correct" as long as we think it is. Therefor it is not absolute - as it's very existence as a concept is relative to the human mind that conceives of it, and to our criteria of what we will consider "equality".

Originally posted by the Sibbie Well you can't seem to answer any of Nineveh's questions. I will answer any sensible question that is asked politely.

Originally posted by the Sibbie Within our realm of reality, I'm absolutely sure there is such a thing as the state of absolute, not for everything but for some things. Are you sure that you are not sure that I cannot be sure if there is a state of the absolute? What you are "absolutely" sure of has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of an absolute state. You could be "absolutely" certain that you are a bunny rabbit. So what?

the Sibbie
November 4th, 2004, 02:39 PM
:doh: Ugh, I'm soooooo wasting my time.



Originally posted by PureX
The equasion 2+2=4 is an abstract concept that exists only in our minds. I sure hope you aren't a public school teacher.


Purex---> :liberals: and :dunce:

Turbo
November 4th, 2004, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by the Sibbie

Purex---> :liberals: and :dunce: Don't forget the new guy! :blabla:

Nineveh
November 4th, 2004, 03:10 PM
Well... after all that I am absolutely sure impurex has rendered himself irrelevant.

PastorZ77
November 4th, 2004, 03:14 PM
There's no way I can tell if there is or not, and no way I can think of that you can tell, either.

Is that an absolute?

PureX
November 4th, 2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by PastorZ77 Is that an absolute? Wouldn't the fact that you have to ask sort of prove my point? *smile*

PureX
November 4th, 2004, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Chileice Trying to move this thread to where I hoped it would be going...
What is the correlation between love and tolerance? It certainly exists but love is greater than tolerance. Many times the loving thing to do is to NOT tolerate the behaviour of the other person. Although I am a generally strong supporter of tolerance, tolerance has its limits: in a family, in the workplace or in a church for that matter. Purex, those who want to perform Druid rites certainly have a right to do so. But to usurp the long-standing traditions of a church to do so do seem extreme. Why can't those people go off and start their own group instead of trying to force their minority view on a group of people gathered for the worship of the Lord as they see fit?

You are right about Nineveh. She certainly doesn't care about the Anglican tradition. But those who have been a part of the Episcolpalian/Anglican/Church of England tradition do. It always seems to be a few who are the tail that wags the dog. True "christian" harmony and good manners would take their beliefs somewhere else. Yes. Let's return to the original idea of the thread, please.

Nineveh
November 4th, 2004, 04:07 PM
impurex,
Who really cares about the thoughts of someone who really isn't sure about anything?

PureX
November 4th, 2004, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh Who really cares about the thoughts of someone who really isn't sure about anything? Who cares about the thoughts of people who are so sure they're right that they can't listen, can't learn, and don't care about what anyone else thinks?

It's up to you what you choose to care about. If you don't care about what I think, then don't ask.

Nineveh
November 4th, 2004, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by PureX

Who cares about the thoughts of people who are so sure they're right that they can't listen, can't learn, and don't care about what anyone else thinks?

I'd be more inclined to listen to someone who actually *thought* they knew instead of someone who was "absolutely" sure he could never know anything.


It's up to you what you choose to care about. If you don't care about what I think, then quit pestering me with insulting questions.

LOL

I asked you to clarify understanding for me and you find it "insulting"? Maybe you see it that way because you are such a moral vacuum and any attempt to clarify only makes you look worse.

Chileice
November 4th, 2004, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Well... after all that I am absolutely sure impurex has rendered himself irrelevant.

Purex asks penetrating questions formulated in a way that people can absorb them, consider them and respond to them. He is only irrelevant if you make him so. His questions and comments are every bit as relevant as yours because they come from his own experience and learning.

Purex and I often have contrasting beliefs (not so much on this topic. I quite agree with almost all of his great post on page 2) but I still find him engaging, even when I think he is out to lunch. But the difference between you and me is that I not only talk... I listen. I am willing to have my ideas interacted with. That is a necessary part of tolerance that leads to love and understanding. I MUST admit that I could be wrong if I am ever going to have any meaningful exchange with anyone.

Obviously, I don't think I am wrong or I would have changed my mind. But I have sometimes been convinced I was wrong and have had my thinking reshaped by others and by my further reflexion on God, His Word, the words of others and the experience of life. The more you try to build an impenetrable wall around your beliefs, the greater will be the destruction if someone pierces your armor. Your whole wall will fall. Whereas if you maintain an open mind you will be able to reshape portions of the wall in a way that better fits reality as you come to know it. Learning to listen will make you uncomfortable... but you will like yourself better for doing it.:)

Nineveh
November 4th, 2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Chileice

Purex asks penetrating questions formulated in a way that people can absorb them, consider them and respond to them.

And then what? Not know?


He is only irrelevant if you make him so. His questions and comments are every bit as relevant as yours because they come from his own experience and learning.

And to what end? Not knowing?

Instead of wading through the next two paragraphs defending impurex, why not inform me of your views. You ingore my attempt to understand where you are coming from in favor of explaining what someone else will never ever know. I don't care what impurex doesn't know, he doesn't know so why should I waste my time? It would be much more fruitful to understand what you do know. Would you please be as so kind?

Chileice
November 4th, 2004, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

And then what? Not know?



And to what end? Not knowing?

Instead of wading through the next two paragraphs defending impurex, why not inform me of your views. You ingore my attempt to understand where you are coming from in favor of explaining what someone else will never ever know. I don't care what impurex doesn't know, he doesn't know so why should I waste my time? It would be much more fruitful to understand what you do know. Would you please be as so kind?

I do not subscribe to Purex's idea that all things are unknowable. I trust myself enough to believe they are knowable. Yet, I have to admit that a thinking person could beg to differ. It is possible to doubt everything. However I feel such an existence limits man's ability to move forward as well as his ability to experience to the fullest the experience he senses.

If you are asking whether I can PROVE to Purex that everything I know is true... I cannot. By the very nature of doubt and to the very nature of the truly relativistic mind it is impossible to prove anything unless the person trusts his/her first hand experience. I cannot prove that man has been to the moon to him nor can I prove that Jesus went to the cross for him unless he is willing to suspend doubt enough to trust the evidence he sees, feels or hears about.

However, for you to say that Purex is invalid or irrelevant makes you as much a doubter as he. You cannot believe that he believes what he says any more than he believes what you say. Therefore you both must suspend doubt enough to believe the other doubter may have something valid to say. That is the beginning of tolerance, which is the beginning of understanding which could actually lead to love between you and Purez or you and others in this world with whom you now feel yourself at odds. You do not have to ACCEPT his philosophical stand in order to try to understand it. Maybe you never will. Maybe I never will. But we have to at least admit that his perception of the world is indeed his perception of the world and that we must take that as a given if we are going to try to influene that perception, even so slightly.

Do you hear what I am saying? I am neither against you nor against him. I am just trying to show how I think tolerance interacts with love in a positive way without being the sum total of love itself.:thumb:

PureX
November 4th, 2004, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh I asked you to clarify understanding for me and you find it "insulting"? Maybe you see it that way because you are such a moral vacuum and any attempt to clarify only makes you look worse. You'll note that I changed my response in that post - as it occurred to me that you may not have intended to be insulting. Sometimes with just words to go on, it's not so easy to recognize someone's intent.

Nineveh
November 4th, 2004, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Chileice

I do not subscribe to Purex's idea that all things are unknowable.

I didn't think you did. That's why I asked you the questions I did, to understand your views better.


If you are asking whether I can PROVE to Purex that everything I know is true... I cannot.

No, I was refering to post # 18 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=620445#post620445)


However, for you to say that Purex is invalid or irrelevant makes you as much a doubter as he.

Look, if you think advice ar anything else from someone who proclaims he doesn't know anything for sure is helpful, have at it.

Nineveh
November 4th, 2004, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by PureX

It's up to you what you choose to care about. If you don't care about what I think, then don't ask.

Thanks for the heads up on the reply change.

I won't anymore. It's useless for me to understand better a person who understands nothing for sure.

PureX
November 4th, 2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Chileice I do not subscribe to Purex's idea that all things are unknowable.Not to quibble, but I don't subscribe to this, either. We can know all kinds of things, be we can only know them in a relative way. Which means that we can only prove them in a relative way. I've never said that we can't know anything, only that we can't be certain that what we think we know is actually true. We can establish the truthfulness of some fact or assertion relative to some momentary standard, but we can't establish truthfulness absolutely. This was always my only assertion - not that we "can't know anything".

Originally posted by Chileice If you are asking whether I can PROVE to Purex that everything I know is true... I cannot. By the very nature of doubt and to the very nature of the truly relativistic mind it is impossible to prove anything unless the person trusts his/her first hand experience.Even then, all we can prove is momentary truthfulness, relative to our capacity for experience.

Chileice
November 4th, 2004, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by PureX

Not to quibble, but I don't subscribe to this, either. We can know all kinds of things, be we can only know them in a relative way. Which means that we can only prove them in a relative way. I've never said that we can't know anything, only that we can't be certain that what we think we know is actually true. We can establish the truthfulness of some fact or assertion relative to some momentary standard, but we can't establish truthfulness absolutely. This was always my only assertion - not that we "can't know anything".
Even then, all we can prove is momentary truthfulness, relative to our capacity for experience.

First, you are right. Excuse me for mis-stating your position. Although, defacto, for a black/white thinker like Nineveh, the net result is the same. The two of you are about as polar opposite as two people can be in your world-views and your understanding of truth and the perception of it. Frankly, I wouldn't want to live in eaither one of your world's of perception. First I evjoy the shades of gray I see in this world and Two, I lkie knowing what I believe even if that knowledge is imperfect and growing. It's kind of fun being in between (even though you risk being runover from both sides!)

Nineveh
November 4th, 2004, 07:59 PM
...and thanks so much for explaining your views to me a little better. Please, from hence forth Chileice don't ever say I don't try to understand your view point or that I have a "closed mind" about your views.

firechyld
November 4th, 2004, 10:59 PM
Seems the Episcopals though they were "radical" ideas. A house of God is supposed to honor God.

As I said, I'm surprised to see them in this context... that being an Episcopalian church. In that context, they certainly are radical ideas. But there's nothing new or radical in the ideas themselves. The individuals in question are aiming for the syncretism of two quite old belief structures, not technically inventing anything purely "new".

aikido7
November 5th, 2004, 01:09 AM
Be careful how you interpret the world. It is that.

Nineveh
November 5th, 2004, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by firechyld
But there's nothing new or radical in the ideas themselves. The individuals in question are aiming for the syncretism of two quite old belief structures, not technically inventing anything purely "new".

No one said anything about paganism being "new". I find it hard to see even the idea of paganism creeping into the church buildings as "new". Although this might be a first openly blatant attempt in a while.

Paganism + Christianity = Paganism
There is no way around that, not blatently or incrementally.

servent101
November 5th, 2004, 09:06 AM
The only thing that is not Christian is the literalist dogma that declares that all other structures of belief systems are invalid - God did reveal Himself to the Abraham's offspring as a jealous God - for them to have no other God's - but the meaning, the similarity in the more weightier matters of the law - mercy, compassion, charity, kindness - these are all so similar in pagan religion that one is left to surmise that the source is the same ONE GOD. The culture changes and the message stays the same in all Truth - there are slight variations - but the message is the same, and Pagans that know the truth - if they can get passed the literalist dogma of people like Nineveh - accept Jesus as Lord, and improve their lives with the Revelation of God in the culture Jesus lived in - and strive to live a life worthy of the calling of the Lord. There is no separation - just advancement to purity and true knowledge of God.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

the Sibbie
November 5th, 2004, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by servent101

The only thing that is not Christian is the literalist dogma that declares that all other structures of belief systems are invalid - God did reveal Himself to the Abraham's offspring as a jealous God - for them to have no other God's - but the meaning, the similarity in the more weightier matters of the law - mercy, compassion, charity, kindness - these are all so similar in pagan religion that one is left to surmise that the source is the same ONE GOD. The culture changes and the message stays the same in all Truth - there are slight variations - but the message is the same, and Pagans that know the truth - if they can get passed the literalist dogma of people like Nineveh - accept Jesus as Lord, and improve their lives with the Revelation of God in the culture Jesus lived in - and strive to live a life worthy of the calling of the Lord. There is no separation - just advancement to purity and true knowledge of God.

With Christ's Love

Servent101 How many other "structures of belief systems" declare "Jesus as Lord" ? Would you mind naming a few?

Lighthouse
November 5th, 2004, 09:18 AM
I think serpent101/!!!!Last missed some of the information that stated that the names of goddesses were used in these rituals, in what is supposed to be a Christian house of worship.

Nineveh
November 5th, 2004, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by servent101

The only thing that is not Christian is the literalist dogma that declares that all other structures of belief systems are invalid

Like.... the 1st Commandment? Israel repeatedly getting into trouble for idol worship? Those sort of things?

servent101
November 5th, 2004, 09:39 AM
Sibbie -
How many other "structures of belief systems" declare "Jesus as Lord" ? Would you mind naming a few?

As you know - most belief systems are closed - and are held captive by clergy - clergy like you, who want to limit the field of knowledge so they can declare that they alone have the inspired voice of God - even in light of the fact that there are two thousand different christian denominations speaking on behalf of the ONE GOD - all saying something different - yet they all claim it is not their understanding that is in question - no they and you all claim that you are only saying what God has already said - you leave out the part where God said what He said to a peculiar people, obstinate and very much uneducated - and for the most part illiterate - and assume that the people who do not have exactly the same doctrine from other parts of the world where they were in isolation - yet the same people reading the same book claiming they are speaking God's Words with no interpretation or understanding of their own thrown in - well reality free rhetoric strikes again.

Of course their recorded faith does not declare Jesus as Lord - but those honest truth seekers if they can get past your literalist hogwash do accept Jesus as Lord - they just do not have the literalist attitude you have - your adrenalin addicted literalist fire and brimstone hell letter perfect nothing but the Bible attitude.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Lighthouse
November 5th, 2004, 09:41 AM
Serpent-
I hope you enjoy being comfortable now, because you certainly won't be, in the afterlife.:nono:

Nineveh
November 5th, 2004, 09:44 AM
Sybel101,
Do you believe the Bible will burn your fingers if you actually pick it up to read it?

Who is the "Christ" in your signature?

servent101
November 5th, 2004, 09:44 AM
Nineveh
Like.... the 1st Commandment? Israel repeatedly getting into trouble for idol worship? Those sort of things?

And of course the people in one isolated geographical location with a pecular culture and development would be instructed in the same way a culture with a different culture and development.

God can choose to instruct different cultures in different ways - it is not up to you to decide that since God did instruct the children of Abraham not to worship Idols - that this is God's instructions in all cultures.

I gather you worship a God who simply ignored all of his creation outside of the small area you are familiar with.

I know you do - but you never thought of your thinking being wrong - assuming you can still think.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

servent101
November 5th, 2004, 09:47 AM
Lighthouse - you are already in hell, as well as Nineveh, Sibbie and all who are worshiping this diabolical monster you believe is somehow related to the Lord Jesus Christ.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Nineveh
November 5th, 2004, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by servent101

Nineveh

And of course the people in one isolated geographical location with a pecular culture and development would be instructed in the same way a culture with a different culture and development.

God can choose to instruct different cultures in different ways - it is not up to you to decide that since God did instruct the children of Abraham not to worship Idols - that this is God's instructions in all cultures.

Um... do you understand molech, ashteroth and baal were from different cultures?


I gather you worship a God who simply ignored all of his creation outside of the small area you are familiar with.

Like I've asked before, have you ever bothered to actually read the Bible or are you too fearful it might burn your fingers?


I know you do - but you never thought of your thinking being wrong - assuming you can still think.

Look, if a fool like you calls me foolish, I'm happy :)

Lighthouse
November 5th, 2004, 09:55 AM
Not only does the serpent spew venom, he spews vomit!:Servent::vomit:

servent101
November 5th, 2004, 10:01 AM
Nineveh
Um... do you understand molech, ashteroth and baal were from different cultures?

They were in the same isolated geographical location - and they were obviously not of God - they made child sacrifice, they had temple prostitution, their leaders were wicked and cruel.

You paint all religions in the same way as these that were in the same vicinity of the Nation of Israel - a shame and a travesty. \\
Part of the reason God made sure the Israelis had no Idols was to separate them from their ungodly neighbors - following the obvious false precepts of evil men.

If you actually get out of your conditioning and your adrenalin addiction you might see that Buddhism, Hinduism. Islam - all have a lot in common with the "real" message of the Lord Jesus Christ - and as well see that the differences are only in the literalist interpretation that does not allow for cultural differences. You do not even consider to seek counsel of God on this matter – it is never even been considered by you.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Nineveh
November 5th, 2004, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by servent101
They were in the same isolated geographical location - and they were obviously not of God - they made child sacrifice, they had temple prostitution, their leaders were wicked and cruel.

Not all were practicing child sacrifice. So by what do you judge which pagan idol is really God in desguise?

Lessee... you aren't going to be able to name any Egyptian, Roman or Greek dieties. Nor witchcraft or sorcery oriented religions. you aren't left with a whole lot.


You paint all religions in the same way as these that were in the same vicinity of the Nation of Israel - a shame and a travesty. \\
Part of the reason God made sure the Israelis had no Idols was to separate them from their ungodly neighbors - following the obvious false precepts of evil men.

Name one idol that doesn't fall into the catagory of "false precept of men".


If you actually get out of your conditioning and your adrenalin addiction you might see that Buddhism, Hinduism. Islam - all have a lot in common with the "real" message of the Lord Jesus Christ - and as well see that the differences are only in the literalist interpretation that does not allow for cultural differences. You do not even consider to seek counsel of God on this matter – it is never even been considered by you.

Get your head out of false precepts of men and realize the Creator God does not banish people to nothingness, nor does He lable Christ a mere prophet, nor does He allow for the worship of animals. And above all He does not instruct His followers to murder Jews.

No, I don't seek your idea of a god.

Nineveh
November 5th, 2004, 10:10 AM
and btw sybel....

Who is that "Christ" you sign your posts with?

servent101
November 5th, 2004, 10:14 AM
Sibbie - who cares about the thoughts of a person who worships the diabolical moster you do - well actually I do, and so does the Lord, and a lot of other people - we feel sorry for you and hope some day that you will come to your senses, and we are willing to help you.

I guess all I can do is leave the matter in God's hands - and pray for you, and try to share from time to time.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Nineveh
November 5th, 2004, 10:16 AM
Sybel,
Who is "Lord"? Who is "God"? Who is "Christ"?

In your own words please :)

the Sibbie
November 5th, 2004, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by servent101

Sibbie - who cares about the thoughts of a person who worships the diabolical moster you do - well actually I do, and so does the Lord, and a lot of other people - we feel sorry for you and hope some day that you will come to your senses, and we are willing to help you.

I guess all I can do is leave the matter in God's hands - and pray for you, and try to share from time to time.

With Christ's Love

Servent101



Originally posted by servent101

Sibbie -

As you know - most belief systems are closed - and are held captive by clergy - clergy like you, who want to limit the field of knowledge so they can declare that they alone have the inspired voice of God - even in light of the fact that there are two thousand different christian denominations speaking on behalf of the ONE GOD - all saying something different - yet they all claim it is not their understanding that is in question - no they and you all claim that you are only saying what God has already said - you leave out the part where God said what He said to a peculiar people, obstinate and very much uneducated - and for the most part illiterate - and assume that the people who do not have exactly the same doctrine from other parts of the world where they were in isolation - yet the same people reading the same book claiming they are speaking God's Words with no interpretation or understanding of their own thrown in - well reality free rhetoric strikes again.

Of course their recorded faith does not declare Jesus as Lord - but those honest truth seekers if they can get past your literalist hogwash do accept Jesus as Lord - they just do not have the literalist attitude you have - your adrenalin addicted literalist fire and brimstone hell letter perfect nothing but the Bible attitude.

With Christ's Love

Servent101 Oh sure, try to be nice after spewing your hate everywhere! You're making yourself look worse...everybody's gonna feel sorry for you...I mean I do!


Please just pick one and stick with it. What's it gonna be? NICE or not-NICE?

Zakath
November 5th, 2004, 01:25 PM
Sibbie and Nineveh,

I think if your deity really cared as much about what those clergypersons you mentioned in the first post were doing as you do, he'd step in and do something about it...

... that is if he's really there to do anything about anything...

Should I take the fact that the church is still standing and so are those clergy that he's not particularly interested in the issue?

And on the other line of discussion in this thread...

I've noticed a common theme in all you Enyartians' discussions about absolutes... Is there anything absolute for you people that does not involve sexual deviance?

Nineveh
November 5th, 2004, 03:16 PM
um....
You absolutely vaporized during a debate with him?

Zakath
November 5th, 2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

um....
You absolutely vaporized during a debate with him? Him who? Your deity? :chuckle:

As I explained to Knight, and several times publicly on the board since, I ended up in the hospital during the final rounds of the debate. I had other things on my mind than debating some two-bit shock jock about his twisted theological views.

How about you try answering the questions instead of playing presuppositionalist word games... :rolleyes:

That's, of course, assuming you can do anything but ape your master, Enyart... :chuckle:

Nineveh
November 5th, 2004, 03:35 PM
No, that would be Mr. Enyart during the 8th round. I must say... timing is everything :)

If I bothered to say those who are Godly in the Episcopal church have already removed the paganism on their website, thus doing the Lord's work, would you care?

Zakath
November 5th, 2004, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

No, that would be Mr. Enyart during the 8th round. I must say... timing is everything :)Not really. I always thought that love of your deity was "everything" to you people, not playing word games... perhaps I have been mistaken. :rolleyes:


If I bothered to say those who are Godly in the Episcopal church have already removed the paganism on their website, thus doing the Lord's work, would you care? First, I haven't the faintest idea of what you mean and secondly, I couldn't care less what some group of religionists does to their website... :yawn:

Nineveh
November 5th, 2004, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

First, I haven't the faintest idea of what you mean and secondly, I couldn't care less what some group of religionists does to their website... :yawn:

So the answer is "No, I reallly wouldn't care what you replied in answer to my meaningless question."

PastorZ77
November 5th, 2004, 04:31 PM
Not really. I always thought that love of your deity was "everything" to you people, not playing word games... perhaps I have been mistaken.


What was it to you when you were one of "you people"?

Aimiel
November 5th, 2004, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by servent101

You do not even consider to seek counsel of God on this matter – it is never even been considered by you.Actually, we do; and that is how we know that your false gods aren't The One and Only Way to The Father, The Only Truth about God or The One and Only Eternal Life. :doh::duh:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


:thumb:

Lighthouse
November 5th, 2004, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Sibbie and Nineveh,

I think if your deity really cared as much about what those clergypersons you mentioned in the first post were doing as you do, he'd step in and do something about it...

... that is if he's really there to do anything about anything...

Should I take the fact that the church is still standing and so are those clergy that he's not particularly interested in the issue?

And on the other line of discussion in this thread...

I've noticed a common theme in all you Enyartians' discussions about absolutes... Is there anything absolute for you people that does not involve sexual deviance?
Nutjob.:rolleyes:

servent101
November 6th, 2004, 01:59 PM
Sibbie -
Oh sure, try to be nice after spewing your hate everywhere!

No hate in the post - sorry, if the truth hurts - well you were warned here on TOL - the TRUTH HURTS - ever hear of Truth Smack -

You are the one clamoring hate in the attitudes of your posts - you, nineveh and lighthouse - but there is not one mention of your behavior in the Bible, so I guess the fact it was written two thousand years ago, simply means nothing - that since the Bible does not mention the attitude you have your attitude is in no way of being articulated, understood, nor the harm you people do in any way can be categorized - reality free rhetoric.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Art Deco
November 6th, 2004, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by PureX

It's sad that tolerance is now being seen as antithetical to Godliness. Especially so, when we realize that tolerance is an essential component of human freedom. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS WERE NOT THE TEN SUGGESTIONS



To view God as intolerant is to view God as being antithetical to human freedom. This is the fermenting of an idea that can only lead to terrible oppression and mysery. But Christians seem to be dead-set these days on such a violent and destructive course. NEWS FLASH: GOD IS INTOLERANT! Live with it. Millions of American Christians do.


TOLERANCE KILLS CULTURES

PureX
November 6th, 2004, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco GOD IS INTOLERANT! Live with it. Millions of American Christians do. And yet he tolerates everything we do.

Delmar
November 6th, 2004, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by PureX

And yet he tolerates everything we do. Not forever!

PureX
November 6th, 2004, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by deardelmar Not forever! That's just wishful thinking on your part. The fact is, there is no evidence at all that God is intolerant. And there is all the evidence in the world that God tolerates everything we do.

Art Deco
November 6th, 2004, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by PureX

And yet he tolerates everything we do. Ah, but for how long...? God has a history of violent outbursts. He is long suffering yes, but God will get even and pour out his wrath on those who mock Him and despise his Holy name.

Art Deco
November 6th, 2004, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by PureX

That's just wishful thinking on your part. The fact is, there is no evidence at all that God is intolerant. And there is all the evidence in the world that God tolerates everything we do. Your whistling in the grave-yard.:chuckle:

aikido7
November 6th, 2004, 08:58 PM
but God will get even and pour out his wrath on those who mock Him and despise his Holy name.

No "turning the other cheek" for THIS deity!

Art Deco
November 7th, 2004, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by aikido7

No "turning the other cheek" for THIS deity! You have blundered into an area where even angels fear to tread...mocking God. :shocked:

PureX
November 7th, 2004, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco Ah, but for how long...? God has a history of violent outbursts. He is long suffering yes, but God will get even and pour out his wrath on those who mock Him and despise his Holy name. And won't you be basking in the self-righteousness on that day, huh?

I think this is the fantasy of lots of very petty people who really want to think they're so much better than everyone else, but that everyone else ignores. So in their resentment they fantasize about how God is gonna avenge their bruised egos by crushing all those who didn't bow down to their imagined moral and spiritual superiority. The fantasy is that God's gonna do to those they hate what they can't do themselves, but wish they could.

Zakath
November 7th, 2004, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by PastorZ77

What was it to you when you were one of "you people"? A consuming passion. :)

Zakath
November 7th, 2004, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Nutjob.:rolleyes: Another profound, well reasoned response from the resident dim bulb of TOL. :rolleyes:

One Eyed Jack
November 7th, 2004, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by PureX

And won't you be basking in the self-righteousness on that day, huh?

I don't think you need to concern yourself with what anybody else is doing on that day.


I think this is the fantasy of lots of very petty people who really want to think they're so much better than everyone else, but that everyone else ignores. So in their resentment they fantasize about how God is gonna avenge their bruised egos by crushing all those who didn't bow down to their imagined moral and spiritual superiority. The fantasy is that God's gonna do to those they hate what they can't do themselves, but wish they could.

It's not a fantasy, and it has nothing to do with our egos. It's a warning, and you can ignore it all you want. But if you do ignore it, then when that day comes, you'll remember you were warned, and you'll wish you would have listened.

Art Deco
November 7th, 2004, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by PureX

And won't you be basking in the self-righteousness on that day, huh? Your self-righteous condemnation of the self-righteous, borders on the psychotic. Secular Humanists seem predisposed to fits of psychosis, especially over matters of morality.

Why is that? :confused:

Art Deco
November 7th, 2004, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Nutjob.:rolleyes: Sometimes one word says it all...let's hear it for brevity... :BRAVO:

Free-Agent Smith
November 7th, 2004, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by aikido7

No "turning the other cheek" for THIS deity! God turned His cheek when Cain killed his brother and warned that no-one should touch him.
God was tolerant with Nineveh when they repented.
God was tolerant with Peter.
God sent Moses to free the Israelites and was tolerant untill the Pharaoh refused.
I did read in Leviticus 18 that God isn't tolerant with immorality such as incest(Lev 18:1-18 or homosexuality(Lev 18:22), beastiality(lev 18:23) . The rest of this chapter of Leviticus explains that God doesn't want us to defile ourselves with such things. Why does God do this? Because He loves us and wants us to be good people, not defiled by things that He calls abominations.

firechyld
November 7th, 2004, 09:15 PM
No one said anything about paganism being "new". I find it hard to see even the idea of paganism creeping into the church buildings as "new". Although this might be a first openly blatant attempt in a while.

Paganism + Christianity = Paganism
There is no way around that, not blatently or incrementally.

Such is the nature of syncretism. You end up with something that cannot really be categorised as either of the original belief structures.

*grin* You realise that I'm not arguing with you, right?

Lighthouse
November 8th, 2004, 12:00 AM
Anyone else agree with Zakath? That I'm dim?








I didn't think so.

Frank Ernest
November 8th, 2004, 05:49 AM
"Anyone else agree with Zakath? That I'm dim?"

LOL Zak resorted to what looks like the "ad hominem" attack?!?!?
You must have depleted his ammo bag. :chuckle:

Frank Ernest
November 8th, 2004, 05:59 AM
"Your self-righteous condemnation of the self-righteous, borders on the psychotic. Secular Humanists seem predisposed to fits of psychosis, especially over matters of morality. "

Hard to understand, especially since SHs don't have a moral code. (Note to SHs: Situational ethics is not a moral code.)

The psychotic part comes in 1) when they accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they are doing (and trying to hide it), and 2) when they use "moral" absolutes to deny that there are moral absolutes.

Chileice
November 8th, 2004, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

You have blundered into an area where even angles fear to tread...mocking God. :shocked:

Would those be right angles, acute angles or obtuse angles? I was actually unaware that angles were able to walk. Quite an interesting change to geometry as I learned it.

Chileice
November 8th, 2004, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Anyone else agree with Zakath? That I'm dim?








I didn't think so.

Lighthouse,
You have an inflated view of your own ideas. You rarely look beyond the surface of the issue, you often resort to ad homenims and you comment on absolutely everything which makes most of your comments virtually meaningless. If you listened better, spoke less and didn't take yourself so seriously... others would. So maybe not dim as in stupid, but dim as in unwise.

Chileice
November 8th, 2004, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

God turned His cheek when Cain killed his brother and warned that no-one should touch him.
God was tolerant with Nineveh when they repented.
God was tolerant with Peter.
God sent Moses to free the Israelites and was tolerant untill the Pharaoh refused.
I did read in Leviticus 18 that God isn't tolerant with immorality such as incest(Lev 18:1-18 or homosexuality(Lev 18:22), beastiality(lev 18:23) . The rest of this chapter of Leviticus explains that God doesn't want us to defile ourselves with such things. Why does God do this? Because He loves us and wants us to be good people, not defiled by things that He calls abominations.

For those who love the OT so much and try to show how vengeant we should be... what about these passages, o violent ones?

Originally posted by Nehemiah
Nehemiah 9:
16"But they and our fathers acted proudly,
Hardened their necks,
And did not heed Your commandments.
17 They refused to obey,
And they were not mindful of Your wonders
That You did among them.
But they hardened their necks,
And in their rebellion
They appointed a leader
To return to their bondage.
But You are God,
Ready to pardon,
Gracious and merciful,
Slow to anger,
Abundant in kindness,
And did not forsake them.

God didn't destroy them. What do you know. He kept waiting for them to come back. Maybe we should show some of that same lovingkindness and patience.


Originally posted by David
Psalm 103
7 He made known His ways to Moses,
His acts to the children of Israel.
8T he LORD is merciful and gracious,
Slow to anger, and abounding in mercy.
9 He will not always strive with us,
Nor will He keep His anger forever.


Originally posted by Joel
Joel 2
A Call to Repentance
12 "Now, therefore," says the LORD,
"Turn to Me with all your heart,
With fasting, with weeping, and with mourning."
13So rend your heart, and not your garments;
Return to the LORD your God,
For He is gracious and merciful,
Slow to anger, and of great kindness;
And He relents from doing harm.


A little hard to repent when you have a bullet in your head. Maybe that's why we should warn people in a loving way, in a tolerant way, in a Christ-like way. He who could have destroyed his destroyers, but he asked for their forgiveness. Quite an amazing example to follow, I would say.
:thumb: :thumb:

Art Deco
November 8th, 2004, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

Such is the nature of syncretism. You end up with something that cannot really be categorised as either of the original belief structures. Christianity + Paganism = Apostasy and Heresy

Art Deco
November 8th, 2004, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest Hard to understand, especially since SHs don't have a moral code. (Note to SHs: Situational ethics is not a moral code.)Frank, Secular Humanists do have a moral code. From the Humanist Manifesto II Under "Ethics":
Ethics are autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanctions. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life...




Posted by Frank:
The psychotic part comes in 1) when they accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they are doing (and trying to hide it), and 2) when they use "moral" absolutes to deny that there are moral absolutes. Agreed. :thumb:

Art Deco
November 8th, 2004, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by Chileice

Would those be right angles, acute angles or obtuse angles? I was actually unaware that angles were able to walk. Quite an interesting change to geometry as I learned it. My public school training failed me again... I am to take a clean sheet of paper from my desk and write A_N_G_E_L one hundred times...:o

Gerald
November 8th, 2004, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco
You have blundered into an area where even angels fear to tread...mocking God. :shocked: I've been doing that, and all I've managed to do is get his followers riled up.

He never shows up himself. :chuckle:

servent101
November 8th, 2004, 09:48 AM
Chileice
A little hard to repent when you have a bullet in your head. Maybe that's why we should warn people in a loving way, in a tolerant way, in a Christ-like way. He who could have destroyed his destroyers, but he asked for their forgiveness. Quite an amazing example to follow, I would say.
A long time ago – people condemned Jesus for being easy on the sinner - they – people of the like here on TOL – they would say like the Pharisees – This Man is friends with thieves, prostitutes and all kinds of sinners.

For some reason through this “attitude” of humility that the Lord has towards others – the Lord would convert the sinner to sainthood. Seems a lot of people here miss this – the attitude difference between the sinner and the scribes and Pharisees.

As for the scribes and Pharisees – those who stood in judgment of the sinner – Jesus had a lot of hard words for them.

Somehow there are a few Christians left today – possibly a lot, that think the Words of our Lord towards the Scribes and Pharisees are the example we are to take in attitude towards the sinners – the thieves, sexually immoral etc..

Go figure?

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

Nineveh
November 8th, 2004, 11:37 AM
sybel,
Have you ever bothered to read the Bible?

Free-Agent Smith
November 8th, 2004, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Chileice

A little hard to repent when you have a bullet in your head. Maybe that's why we should warn people in a loving way, in a tolerant way, in a Christ-like way. He who could have destroyed his destroyers, but he asked for their forgiveness. Quite an amazing example to follow, I would say.
:thumb: :thumb:

How many repeat offenders are already out there? How many repeat offenders have already been given multiple chances? How many first time offenders, in comparison, die on their first offence? How many victims of those offenders are given a loving warning by the offenders?

Crimminals have had their chances in more than enough cases across this country. They know the difference between right and wrong, regardless of circumstance. And if a crimminal can't differentiate, maybe they didn't need to be walking around free anyway.

Zakath
November 8th, 2004, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

"Anyone else agree with Zakath? That I'm dim?"

LOL Zak resorted to what looks like the "ad hominem" attack?!?!?
You must have depleted his ammo bag. :chuckle: Not at all, you do realize that giving lighthouse payback in kind is a bit different from an ad hominem dropped into the middle of a rational discussion, don't you? ;)

One Eyed Jack
November 8th, 2004, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by servent101

Chileice
A long time ago – people condemned Jesus for being easy on the sinner - they – people of the like here on TOL – they would say like the Pharisees – This Man is friends with thieves, prostitutes and all kinds of sinners.

It's like Jesus said -- people who are well don't need a doctor. He came to save the lost. He didn't join them in their sin, nor did He encourage them to continue in it. He simply preached to them, and He had to be around them to do that.

Chileice
November 8th, 2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

It's like Jesus said -- people who are well don't need a doctor. He came to save the lost. He didn't join them in their sin, nor did He encourage them to continue in it. He simply preached to them, and He had to be around them to do that.

You are right on OEJ. He had to be with them rather then condemn them from some distant ivory tower. There is a judgement, but he came to rub shoulders with us so that we could see we are loved and so that we would repent.

Chileice
November 8th, 2004, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

How many repeat offenders are already out there?
How many repeat offenders have already been given multiple chances?
You and me for starters. Biblically I bet both of us could have been condemned. But we are off scot-free. I'm not saying those offenders don't need correction and punishment, just that death is neither correction nor punishment but capricious, non-revocable vengeance. And vengeance should belong to God alone not me or you.


Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith
How many first time offenders, in comparison, die on their first offence? How many victims of those offenders are given a loving warning by the offenders?

Some do die on their first offence. Some who committed crimes at 17 or 18 have been put to death... most of them black or hispanic. Justice makes mistakes. Death can't be corrected. Justice is not blind either.



Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith
Crimminals have had their chances in more than enough cases across this country. They know the difference between right and wrong, regardless of circumstance. And if a crimminal can't differentiate, maybe they didn't need to be walking around free anyway.

I agree. They shouldn't be walking around free if they are a menace to society. But they shouldn't be six feet under. That's my point.

Free-Agent Smith
November 9th, 2004, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by Chileice

You and me for starters. Biblically I bet both of us could have been condemned. But we are off scot-free. I'm not saying those offenders don't need correction and punishment, just that death is neither correction nor punishment but capricious, non-revocable vengeance. And vengeance should belong to God alone not me or you. I have never claimed to be innocent. I have been punished for my crimes. What makes you think that vengence and justice are the same thing?




Some do die on their first offence. Some who committed crimes at 17 or 18 have been put to death... most of them black or hispanic. Justice makes mistakes. Death can't be corrected. Justice is not blind either. Yes, a few have died for their first offence and I am sorry they couldn't control themselves enough before they commited the crime. I stood shoulder to shoulder with one guy, who happened to be white, that murdered another guy for being hispanic. He is now serving a 30 year sentence. Should he have been put to death? Yes. Why? Because he shot the man in the back of the head with a shotgun in a cornfield in the middle of the night without any provocation. My opinion isn't based on vengence. It's justice for the young man who died that night. Why should we keep the murderer alive? Why should citizens like me be forced to pay for the comforts of a prison cell for this man to live in for 30 years?


I agree. They shouldn't be walking around free if they are a menace to society. But they shouldn't be six feet under. That's my point.
And just where do you think they should be?
Why should we keep murderers alive or on death row for more than a day? I ask these questions because to me, your point makes no sense.

Free-Agent Smith
November 9th, 2004, 01:23 AM
And just out of curiosity, chilice, do you think that Charlse Manson, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Albert Fish, Jim Jones, Gary Ridgeway, Robert Hanson, Henry Lee Lucas, David Berkowitz, Jeffery Dahmer, Richard Ramirez and dozens of other murderers like them should be, or have been, kept alive too?

Lighthouse
November 9th, 2004, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by Chileice

Lighthouse,
You have an inflated view of your own ideas. You rarely look beyond the surface of the issue, you often resort to ad homenims and you comment on absolutely everything which makes most of your comments virtually meaningless. If you listened better, spoke less and didn't take yourself so seriously... others would. So maybe not dim as in stupid, but dim as in unwise.
Idiot.

How's that for ad hominem?

Anyway...seriously:eek:, what makes you think I'm this way? Do you not realize that less than a year ago I was just like you? My beliefs have changed, Chileice. Because of scripture. Tolerance is not Christ-like. And it never was.

Lighthouse
November 9th, 2004, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by Chileice

You are right on OEJ. He had to be with them rather then condemn them from some distant ivory tower. There is a judgement, but he came to rub shoulders with us so that we could see we are loved and so that we would repent.
Don't forget that He showed us our need to repent, also. If He had not, we wouldn't have. And He did the same with the sinners He ate with.

Ecumenicist
November 9th, 2004, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Idiot.

How's that for ad hominem?

Anyway...seriously:eek:, what makes you think I'm this way? Do you not realize that less than a year ago I was just like you? My beliefs have changed, Chileice. Because of scripture. Tolerance is not Christ-like. And it never was.

If Christ were intolerant, you would have had no hope. No
one would.

Lighthouse
November 9th, 2004, 04:11 AM
:darwinsm:

Are you serious, Dave?

:darwinsm:

Ecumenicist
November 9th, 2004, 04:29 AM
yes

Nineveh
November 9th, 2004, 08:16 AM
Dave will prolly ask this witch to come be a guest speaker at his church building if he hasn't already.

Chileice
November 9th, 2004, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

If Christ were intolerant, you would have had no hope. No
one would.

Originally posted by John (John 7)
The Unbelief of Jesus' Brothers
1 After this, Jesus traveled in Galilee, since He did not want to travel in Judea because the Jews were trying to kill Him. 2 The Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, 3 so His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go to Judea so Your disciples can see Your works that You are doing. 4 For no one does anything in secret while he's seeking public recognition. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world." 5 (For not even His brothers believed in Him.)
6 Jesus told them, "My time has not yet arrived, but your time is always at hand. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it does hate Me because I testify about itthat its deeds are evil. 8 Go up to the festival yourselves. I'm not going up to the festival yet, because My time has not yet fully come." 9 After He had said these things, He stayed in Galilee.

Kind of interesting, isn't it, that Jesus' own brothers didn't believe him at first. But Jesus didn't toast them. He had patience and they later became James, the early head of the church and Jude. Hmmm, maybe the patience method has some merits.

Now isn't this intersting in the very next chapter:



Originally posted by John (John 8)
Jesus the Light of the World
1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 3Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?" 6This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
7So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." 8And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?"
11She said, "No one, Lord."
And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."
12Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."


I can just hear some TOLers yelling: chop her head off!! Nuke her, Jesus! You have to follow the OT law if you are God, let's get a pile of rocks! But you know, Jesus didn't lop her head off or stone her or anything else. He gave her a chance to change. He didn't even lop off the head of the disgraceful pighead that was having an affair with her... probably he seduced her to set up a trap for Jesus... what a disgraceful twit. But Jesus didn't go after him. Yes, he was tough on sin, but he was gentle with the sinners.

He was even gentle with the Pharisees becaus ehe had the power to destroy them. They were trying to kill him. He could have acted in legitimate self-defence. Still, he was patient with them, hoping that some would come to faith. And you know what? Many did. Look at these verses:

Originally posted by John
John 11.45 Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in Him. 46 But some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them the things Jesus did.

All through John we see an increasing number of Jews coming to him, even members of the Pharisees like Nicodemus. Then after his death we see this:

Originally posted by Luke
Acts 6

7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Now what if Jesus had just nuked all those no good rotten priests who led him to the cross? What about Saul? That scum-sucking Christian hater. He should have been eliminated for he was far more than a first-time offender. But God was patient and allowed him the time to repent. Will all repent? Heavens no! But do you and I know who will and who won't? We don't have a clue. So Dave is right on. And Dave is serious, Lighthouse. I'm sorry you don't take the scripture as seriously as he appears to. I'm sorry you let yourself get on board the satanic train of vengeance and hate. You were better off a year ago. How can so many be led astray by such an evil plot?

Yes, love is greater than tolerance. But tolerance is a Christian virtue... a Christ-like virtue. Jesus was the most tolerant man who walked the earth. He was perfection surrounded by a sea of imperfection and yet he tolerated it and loved us. He was power personified and yet he did not use it to beat anyone into submission. If Christ were intolerant... you would have no hope. I would have no hope. Hopelessness would reign supreme.




:help:

Ecumenicist
November 9th, 2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Dave will prolly ask this witch to come be a guest speaker at his church building if he hasn't already.

Which witch? Which witch is whitch?

firechyld
November 9th, 2004, 08:31 PM
lighthouse....


Anyone else agree with Zakath? That I'm dim?

You're a bright kid. But you act dim sometimes. That's why it's so frustrating when you do your "dense" routine... you're not actually stupid.

Chileice ...


You have an inflated view of your own ideas. You rarely look beyond the surface of the issue, you often resort to ad homenims and you comment on absolutely everything which makes most of your comments virtually meaningless. If you listened better, spoke less and didn't take yourself so seriously... others would. So maybe not dim as in stupid, but dim as in unwise.



lighthouse....


Idiot.

How's that for ad hominem?

Anyway...seriously, what makes you think I'm this way? Do you not realize that less than a year ago I was just like you? My beliefs have changed, Chileice. Because of scripture. Tolerance is not Christ-like. And it never was.

This is exactly the kind of thing that irks me. Chileice had some good advice for you there. Improving your communication skills hardly makes you change your beliefs... but it does stop you coming across as a jerk.

aikido7
November 9th, 2004, 11:12 PM
My mother made me a child molester.

If I buy her the yarn, will she make me one, too?

One Eyed Jack
November 9th, 2004, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by aikido7

My mother made me a child molester.

If I buy her the yarn, will she make me one, too?

Aikido, if you're going to post nonsense, do it in one of the spam threads.

Lighthouse
November 10th, 2004, 01:08 AM
Christ did not tolerate sin. And He called sinners out. Are you all blind to this fact?!

Free-Agent Smith
November 10th, 2004, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Aikido, if you're going to post nonsense, do it in one of the spam threads. He was joking?

Free-Agent Smith
November 10th, 2004, 01:17 AM
I have never claimed to be innocent. I have been punished for my crimes. What makes you think that vengence and justice are the same thing?


Yes, a few have died for their first offence and I am sorry they couldn't control themselves enough before they commited the crime. I stood shoulder to shoulder with one guy, who happened to be white, that murdered another guy for being hispanic. He is now serving a 30 year sentence. Should he have been put to death? Yes. Why? Because he shot the man in the back of the head with a shotgun in a cornfield in the middle of the night without any provocation. My opinion isn't based on vengence. It's justice for the young man who died that night. Why should we keep the murderer alive? Why should citizens like me be forced to pay for the comforts of a prison cell for this man to live in for 30 years?

And just where do you think they should be?
Why should we keep murderers alive or on death row for more than a day? I ask these questions because to me, your point makes no sense.

Free-Agent Smith
November 10th, 2004, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

And just out of curiosity, chilice, do you think that Charlse Manson, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Albert Fish, Jim Jones, Gary Ridgeway, Robert Hanson, Henry Lee Lucas, David Berkowitz, Jeffery Dahmer, Richard Ramirez and dozens of other murderers like them should be, or have been, kept alive too? I thought maybe you missed my posts to you.

logos_x
November 10th, 2004, 01:26 AM
Brandon

What has gotten into you? You won't even hear what Cheleice has to say?

It has nothing to do with being right, or being wrong. It has to do with being who you are, in Him. And you aren't acting like yourself.
It doesn't ring true, and you come across as one of the hypocrites you are so fond of rebuking.

You become what you focus on.
If you can communicate without being an inconsiderate boob, then why act like one?
And don't try the "Jesus did it" bit....that dog won't hunt.

Lighthouse
November 10th, 2004, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by logos_x

Brandon

What has gotten into you? You won't even hear what Cheleice has to say?

It has nothing to do with being right, or being wrong. It has to do with being who you are, in Him. And you aren't acting like yourself.
It doesn't ring true, and you come across as one of the hypocrites you are so fond of rebuking.

You become what you focus on.
If you can communicate without being an inconsiderate boob, then why act like one?
And don't try the "Jesus did it" bit....that dog won't hunt.
I have heard so much of what Chileice has said. I agree with him at times, but he's ignoring the truth, here. I used to believe exactly what he does. I now know I was wrong. I will not run form sinners, but I won't tolerate sin, either. And if they don't care about the truth, I'll shake the dust from my feet. I thought I knew who I was in Christ, but I was so farr off. Then I saw the scriptures that contradicted me. And I felt so free. I am dead to sin. The plank has been removed from my eye. And I can now see clearly to remove the speck from my brother's eye.

Chileice
November 10th, 2004, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

I have never claimed to be innocent. I have been punished for my crimes. What makes you think that vengence and justice are the same thing?


Yes, a few have died for their first offence and I am sorry they couldn't control themselves enough before they commited the crime. I stood shoulder to shoulder with one guy, who happened to be white, that murdered another guy for being hispanic. He is now serving a 30 year sentence. Should he have been put to death? Yes. Why? Because he shot the man in the back of the head with a shotgun in a cornfield in the middle of the night without any provocation. My opinion isn't based on vengence. It's justice for the young man who died that night. Why should we keep the murderer alive? Why should citizens like me be forced to pay for the comforts of a prison cell for this man to live in for 30 years?

And just where do you think they should be?
Why should we keep murderers alive or on death row for more than a day? I ask these questions because to me, your point makes no sense.

Sorry for the delay but I have been quite busy. TOL is a fill in when I can thing. I don't think we are too far apart except on the death penalty. I don't think punishment is vengeance necessarily. But it can be. I think lots of times the death penalty is applied in cases in response to an overwhelming cry for vengeance. And I think it can be applied capriciously. And the worst part... if you are wrong, there is no recourse.

I don't think my tax dollars should be the driving force behind keeping a person alive. If that is the case, then abortion makes sense and so does euthanasia. It is certainly cheaper to abort than to support a welfare baby. And WAY cheaper to knock off some old grandpa before he sucks up my tax dollars on his long-term illness. The amount spent on keeping a few people in prison for the lon-term is nothing compared to what is spent on welfare and SS. But that is NOT a reason to allow abortion or euthanasia. At least it isn't for a pro-life person like myself.

God has saved many people in prison. Sometimes a man or woman has to come to the end of the rope before they allow God any room in their lives. There will be judgement for those who take the lives of another... even the life of a criminal. Life is sacred and I am not God. I will leave the determination of life and death to Him.

Chileice
November 10th, 2004, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

I thought maybe you missed my posts to you.

As far as all those mass-murderers go... I certainly have a hard time letting them live. I am for them living based on principle.... not on any warm feeling I have toward them. I too am tempted to let my desire for vengeance get the best of me. But I still think letting them live is the God-honoring thing to do.

Chileice
November 10th, 2004, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I have heard so much of what Chileice has said. I agree with him at times, but he's ignoring the truth, here. I used to believe exactly what he does. I now know I was wrong. I will not run form sinners, but I won't tolerate sin, either. And if they don't care about the truth, I'll shake the dust from my feet. I thought I knew who I was in Christ, but I was so farr off. Then I saw the scriptures that contradicted me. And I felt so free. I am dead to sin. The plank has been removed from my eye. And I can now see clearly to remove the speck from my brother's eye.

When I was young, I let my zealouness ruin my relationship with my brother. He got into a cult group and I got into a very strict discipleship fellowship. We couldn't get together without argueing. So I just didn't get together with him. Later after I got out of college, got done criticizing all the luke-warm churches, got done trying to correct the whole world for how they could not be discipling everyone exactly how I was taught, I began to get in touch with my brother again. We had set up a time to get together for Christmas at my uncle's home and to spend a couple of weeks together and rebuild the relationship and actually enjoy one another again.

Well, it never happened. He was killed before it happened. The nice long letter I had written him was sitting by the door stamped and ready to go to the post office when my wife and I got the call. You see, lighthouse, you can love people even if you don't agree. And you had better well come to understand that before you have to live with the regret of being a hard-nose jerk in the name of God. The weird thing is, he had gotten out of the cult.... without my help. All my hardness did was ruin a relationship with someone I loved, and nothing can bring that back, not even all the "right doctrine" in the world. That's why I even bother with you, lighthouse. Because I see a lot of me in you. And I would love to help you avoid the amazing heartache of being right and killing love.

Originally posted by lighthouse
2 Corinthians 3
Christ's Epistle
The New Covenant Written on Hearts
1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need, as some others, epistles of commendation to you or letters of commendation from you? 2 You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3 clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.

The Spirit, Not the Letter
4 And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Maybe in this context, these verses will make sense to you. The letter can kill. In many things I was right, even back in college. But my spirit was hard-edged and cold and looking for a fight. That made the letter kill. When my spirit changed the same letter can now be shared in a life-giving way. Something to consider, my friend.

Aimiel
November 10th, 2004, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Chileice

As far as all those mass-murderers go... I certainly have a hard time letting them live. I am for them living based on principle.... not on any warm feeling I have toward them. I too am tempted to let my desire for vengeance get the best of me. But I still think letting them live is the God-honoring thing to do. How is it 'God-honoring' to ignore His Word: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." We have glorified murder to the point that children are committing murder, and people are getting away with murder. OJ Simpson and Bill Clinton are two of the most glaring examples. Letting people walk, who we know are guilty of murder is our fault, for not prosecuting them with everything possible to get them to justice.

Free-Agent Smith
November 10th, 2004, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Chileice


I don't think my tax dollars should be the driving force behind keeping a person alive. If that is the case, then abortion makes sense and so does euthanasia. It is certainly cheaper to abort than to support a welfare baby. And WAY cheaper to knock off some old grandpa before he sucks up my tax dollars on his long-term illness. The amount spent on keeping a few people in prison for the lon-term is nothing compared to what is spent on welfare and SS. But that is NOT a reason to allow abortion or euthanasia. At least it isn't for a pro-life person like myself.

God has saved many people in prison. Sometimes a man or woman has to come to the end of the rope before they allow God any room in their lives. There will be judgement for those who take the lives of another... even the life of a criminal. Life is sacred and I am not God. I will leave the determination of life and death to Him.

I don't support abortion, euthanasia, welfare nor do I even care for the idea of social security(it breeds laziness). I don't believe in using the death penalty as a tool for vegence. I don't believe in letting people like murderers live because there is that possibility that they might get the chance to murder again. As for a convicted person's relationship with God, that is between them and God.

Free-Agent Smith
November 10th, 2004, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Chileice

As far as all those mass-murderers go... I certainly have a hard time letting them live. I am for them living based on principle.... not on any warm feeling I have toward them. I too am tempted to let my desire for vengeance get the best of me. But I still think letting them live is the God-honoring thing to do.

What principle? Since when do we honor God by letting murderers live?

Nineveh
November 10th, 2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Dave Miller

Which witch? Which witch is whitch?

Did you bother to read the first post of this thread?

Nineveh
November 10th, 2004, 11:34 AM
A better principle:

By lying to my people, who listen to lies, you have killed those who should not have died and have spared those who should not live.

Chileice
November 10th, 2004, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

What principle? Since when do we honor God by letting murderers live?

Since the coming of the Lord. The New Testament has 101 verse with the word "kill" in it (NKJV) and not once, not even ONE time does the NT say we should kill anybody. It always speaks of killing in negative terms except in Revelation at the final judgement. It is not now ours to kill anyone. If God chooses to kill someone for their behaviour, He will and he has the power to do it as he did Herod and Annanias and Sapphira without the intervention of any human instrumentality. I believe more of them would either die or be saved if we were redemptive rather than vindictive.

Free-Agent Smith
November 10th, 2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Chileice

Since the coming of the Lord. The New Testament has 101 verse with the word "kill" in it (NKJV) and not once, not even ONE time does the NT say we should kill anybody. It always speaks of killing in negative terms except in Revelation at the final judgement. It is not now ours to kill anyone. If God chooses to kill someone for their behaviour, He will and he has the power to do it as he did Herod and Annanias and Sapphira without the intervention of any human instrumentality. I believe more of them would either die or be saved if we were redemptive rather than vindictive. God gave authority to the government to judge things such as murder and other crimes. Maybe you would care to point out in either testament where God said that the use of death as a means of punishment. The NT speaks of killing but doesn't condone murder. If it does please point me to the book, chapter and verse.

And why do you think our laws concerning the death penalty are vindictive?

Aimiel
November 10th, 2004, 03:13 PM
Jesus said that we should forgive others, but He never told us to abandon government, or reason. There are people who deserve the death penalty, and the mere fact that the leading opponent of it is France should tell you that.

firechyld
November 10th, 2004, 09:23 PM
I have heard so much of what Chileice has said. I agree with him at times, but he's ignoring the truth, here. I used to believe exactly what he does. I now know I was wrong. I will not run form sinners, but I won't tolerate sin, either. And if they don't care about the truth, I'll shake the dust from my feet. I thought I knew who I was in Christ, but I was so farr off. Then I saw the scriptures that contradicted me. And I felt so free. I am dead to sin. The plank has been removed from my eye. And I can now see clearly to remove the speck from my brother's eye.

Again... no-one's trying to change your beliefs. No-one's asking you to "tolerate sin".

We're just trying to get in touch with that interesting and friendly lad who used to use your name. Because he seems to be lost under the craving for confrontation that's driving you now.

Don't you come here for conversation anymore? It's a shame... I could really use someone to discuss the new X-Men title with. But, as I said before, your attitude makes me not want to converse with you anymore. :( And that has nothing to do with what you believe.

I miss lighthouse. :( I liked him ever so much better than Sozo the Second.

firechyld
November 10th, 2004, 09:24 PM
Chileice:

Thank you for sharing that story. You have my sympathies.

Lighthouse
November 11th, 2004, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by Chileice

When I was young, I let my zealouness ruin my relationship with my brother. He got into a cult group and I got into a very strict discipleship fellowship. We couldn't get together without argueing. So I just didn't get together with him. Later after I got out of college, got done criticizing all the luke-warm churches, got done trying to correct the whole world for how they could not be discipling everyone exactly how I was taught, I began to get in touch with my brother again. We had set up a time to get together for Christmas at my uncle's home and to spend a couple of weeks together and rebuild the relationship and actually enjoy one another again.

Well, it never happened. He was killed before it happened. The nice long letter I had written him was sitting by the door stamped and ready to go to the post office when my wife and I got the call. You see, lighthouse, you can love people even if you don't agree. And you had better well come to understand that before you have to live with the regret of being a hard-nose jerk in the name of God. The weird thing is, he had gotten out of the cult.... without my help. All my hardness did was ruin a relationship with someone I loved, and nothing can bring that back, not even all the "right doctrine" in the world. That's why I even bother with you, lighthouse. Because I see a lot of me in you. And I would love to help you avoid the amazing heartache of being right and killing love.
My brother and I get along just fine. It seems to me that the net is not the easiest place to actually show my personality. It doesn't come across as who I truly am. Anyone who knows me personally, and has seen who I am now, likes me, and has no qualms wiht me in this area. Except for a few who don't understand when I'm kidding, and take offense when none is meant.



Maybe in this context, these verses will make sense to you. The letter can kill. In many things I was right, even back in college. But my spirit was hard-edged and cold and looking for a fight. That made the letter kill. When my spirit changed the same letter can now be shared in a life-giving way. Something to consider, my friend.
"The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law."
-1 Corinthians 15:56

The law is all about death. Grace is all about life.

Lighthouse
November 11th, 2004, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

Again... no-one's trying to change your beliefs. No-one's asking you to "tolerate sin".

We're just trying to get in touch with that interesting and friendly lad who used to use your name. Because he seems to be lost under the craving for confrontation that's driving you now.

Don't you come here for conversation anymore? It's a shame... I could really use someone to discuss the new X-Men title with. But, as I said before, your attitude makes me not want to converse with you anymore. :( And that has nothing to do with what you believe.

I miss lighthouse. :( I liked him ever so much better than Sozo the Second.
I haven't been reading it.

Anyway, I do still converse outside of theology. But I'm sick of hypocrites like Dave Miller. And I'm also tired of people like granite who can't stop badmouthing Christianity based on what some people did with it. And I feel pain for you, because I know God wants so much more for you.

aikido7
November 11th, 2004, 07:04 AM
Constantinian Christianity vs. Godliness.

Ceasar vs. Jesus

Dogma vs. Parable

Nineveh
November 11th, 2004, 07:53 AM
Wicca vs Episcopals is the theme of this thread.

Aimiel
November 11th, 2004, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

I miss lighthouse. :( I liked him ever so much better than Sozo the Second. I just said basically this very thing, to a friend, on the phone, last night. Very true. Sozo, Jr.. :nono:

Nineveh
November 11th, 2004, 08:03 AM
Personally, I'm rather relieved :Brandon: isn't like dave miller.

Lighthouse
November 12th, 2004, 01:25 AM
Thank you, :Nineveh:.

servent101
January 12th, 2005, 12:23 PM
Lighthouse
And I feel pain for you, because I know God wants so much more for you.

So there is actually a heart under all those nasty insults you keep posting?

Who would of guessed? It is definately well hidden.


With Christ's Love

Servent101

Nineveh
January 12th, 2005, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by servent101

So there is actually a heart under all those nasty insults you keep posting?

Who would of guessed? It is definately well hidden.

Now what were you telling me today about being "nice" and not judging? Leading by example?

Lighthouse
January 13th, 2005, 12:28 AM
Serpent101-
You're going to hell if you don't submit to Christ.

servent101
January 13th, 2005, 10:32 AM
Lighthouse
You're going to hell if you don't submit to Christ.


Someday you may meet the LORD - and He will be so unlike your ill guided concept you hold now, that you will be liberated from all your misconceptions - and life will be worth living again. As it seems apparent now - you live to kill people, by insulting them, verbally abusing them in the vain justification that your "diabolical monster" you worship as God, has instructed you to do this uncalled hate and stigma campaign.

Keep at it Lighthouse - keep trying, there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

Lighthouse
January 13th, 2005, 10:35 AM
If I hated you I'd let you go to hell, instead of warning you. Are you really so stupid to think that warnings are made from hate? I hate no one, unlike you, serpent.

servent101
January 13th, 2005, 11:14 AM
Lighthouse
instead of warning you.

What you are doing is perverting the Truth - and as well showing that the Love of God is not fully developed in you.

No one in the "Spirit” would so callously call people down - and malign what they try to say so vehemently.

Jesus says to overcome evil with good - if you at least did that - you would sow so much fewer seeds of discontent amongst the brethren with your flagrant insults.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Nineveh
January 13th, 2005, 12:38 PM
Sybel,
Don't you ever get tired of being a hypocrite?

servent101
January 13th, 2005, 01:44 PM
Queen of the Damned
Don't you ever get tired of being a hypocrite?

Yes I do insult people, but not as a matter of habit, nor as much as you Nineveh - Oh Queen of the Damned...

When you going to repent, instead of just hurling insults at people who refuse your worship of the diabolical monster your ill-conceived minds have conjured from the Scriptures?

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

Poly
January 13th, 2005, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by servent101

Queen of the Damned

Yes I do insult people, but not as a matter of habit, nor as much as you Nineveh - Oh Queen of the Damned...


Oh ok, I see. You can insult people as long as you do it as many times as servent101 says is ok.

Hypocrite!!

Nineveh
January 13th, 2005, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by servent101

Queen of the Damned

Well, that's not very nice :) ( or origional .. you'll have to start giving dave a dime every time you use it :) )


Yes I do insult people, but not as a matter of habit, nor as much as you Nineveh - Oh Queen of the Damned...

No, you are a hypocrite. You tell others to be nice and non- judgemental expecting they won't notice that you don't practice what you preach.

When you judge it's like a hypocrite. You offer nothing in the way of instruction as to why you are judging them or how they could escape your judgement other than "be nice". Which you can't even seem to manage yourself.


When you going to repent, instead of just hurling insults at people who refuse your worship of the diabolical monster your ill-conceived minds have conjured from the Scriptures?

I've told you my witness, it's you that can't seem to share yours. When did you repent?

Anyway, that "diabolical monster" comment will be held to your account, until you do repent, hope it's soon.

And speaking of "minds" how's !!!First doing these days? Haven't seen it around lately.... :)

Lighthouse
January 13th, 2005, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by servent101

Lighthouse

What you are doing is perverting the Truth - and as well showing that the Love of God is not fully developed in you.

No one in the "Spirit” would so callously call people down - and malign what they try to say so vehemently.

Jesus says to overcome evil with good - if you at least did that - you would sow so much fewer seeds of discontent amongst the brethren with your flagrant insults.

With Christ's Love

Servent101
I don't do anything callously. I do it out of love, for the same reason Christ called people out. And I pervert nothing. You are the pervert. You are evil, and I will take every opportunity to overcome your putrid sickness with the goodness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

anami
January 14th, 2005, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by servent101

Sibbie -

No hate in the post - sorry, if the truth hurts - well you were warned here on TOL - the TRUTH HURTS - ever hear of Truth Smack -

You are the one clamoring hate in the attitudes of your posts - you, nineveh and lighthouse - but there is not one mention of your behavior in the Bible, so I guess the fact it was written two thousand years ago, simply means nothing - that since the Bible does not mention the attitude you have your attitude is in no way of being articulated, understood, nor the harm you people do in any way can be categorized - reality free rhetoric.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

so sorry, i must correct you here Servent 101. There is actually mention of such behavior in the bible. It is actually something common in Nineveh's namesake. Nahum 1:11 "From you, O Nineveh, has one come forth who plots evil against the lord and councils wickedness."
Most of the beggining of that book of the bible is long glorious denouncement of the city of Nineveh, which as God prophesizes in that book, was wiped out in 612 B.C. by the Babylonians. Some other interesting references are Jonah 1:1 and 4:11 and Zephaniah 2:13. Why would such a good christian name themselves such a thing?

Nineveh are you an athiest or something trying to make christians look bad?:doh:

servent101
January 14th, 2005, 08:17 AM
anami
Nineveh are you an athiest or something trying to make christians look bad?

If Nineveh is not what she appears - I think she is a good Christian trying to reveal the evil dark side of the force - by making a sarcastic example of what some christians are like in real life.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

Nineveh
January 14th, 2005, 09:24 AM
anami...

If you ever look like an idiot, please know we all stepped back and let you...

Sybel...

Please know if you ever look like an idiot it's because you were standing next to anami when everyone else stepped back and let him/her....

Lighthouse
January 14th, 2005, 10:47 AM
Serpent does a fine job of making himself look like an idiot. He doesn't need anami's help.

Nineveh
January 14th, 2005, 10:48 AM
:ha:

Ok, I stand corrected :)

anami
January 14th, 2005, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

:ha:

Ok, I stand corrected :)

Yet the question goes unanswered...
Why Nineveh?

For whatever reason, servent's isn't a bad idea.

Nineveh
January 14th, 2005, 02:47 PM
What question?

Why you can't comprehend the story of Nineveh and still call yourself "pantheological"?

anami
January 14th, 2005, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

What question?

Why you can't comprehend the story of Nineveh and still call yourself "pantheological"?

Once again, you are highly unqualified to judge whether or not i am a good pantheologist. i seriously doub't you have the roughest of outlines as to what it is. Also again, this is theology, i think A you think B that doesn't automatically make me wrong. Do you see?

Lighthouse
January 15th, 2005, 03:19 AM
The word is "pantheologian," not "pantheologist."

Nineveh
January 15th, 2005, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by anami

Once again, you are highly unqualified to judge whether or not i am a good pantheologist.

I can certainly discern you haven't invested much time in Judeo-Christianity. But if you insist on being the mayor of pantheologyville, be my guest.


i seriously doub't you have the roughest of outlines as to what it is.

Let me guess:

Pan: all
Theology: study of the nature of God (god(s))


Also again, this is theology, i think A you think B that doesn't automatically make me wrong. Do you see?

Making a statement you can't back up doesn't automatically make you right either.

***********************

:Brandon:

I think it's more along the lines of anami being a pantheist rather than "pantheologist" or "pantheologian".

Zakath
January 15th, 2005, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh
...Making a statement you can't back up doesn't automatically make you right either... ... says a believer in an invisible, unknowable deity!!! :darwinsm:

servent101
January 15th, 2005, 01:50 PM
anami

I also suspect that lighthouse and nineveh are addicted to adrenalin - a substance that is produced when one is outraged - their posts suggest that they are outraged at whatever does not agree with their view - they simply twist the facts so their brain chemistry is altered so their adrenalin is available to them. Adrenalin is a very addictive substance. Too bad all they can do is perceive reality in a way in which they trick their minds to think there is a crisis – and no matter how much we try to tell them it is they who are bringing a mockery to the Lord’s Ministry – they just perceive our behavior in a way which allows their body chemistry to provide the adrenalin to continue on with what they perceive as the good fight.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Lighthouse
January 15th, 2005, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

... says a believer in an invisible, unknowable deity!!! :darwinsm:
Unknowable?:darwinsm:

You can't stop proving that you never had any faith, can you?

anami
January 15th, 2005, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

I can certainly discern you haven't invested much time in Judeo-Christianity. But if you insist on being the mayor of pantheologyville, be my guest.

i only claimed to be a Panthologist, not any sort of politicians. Don't give me creadence i don't ask for.
*edit* almost forgot... There are so many thousands of religions and i have but one mind and one set of eyes. Don't get your ego in a bunch because i don't have as good of a hold on it as someone who is currently practicing it. :doh:



Let me guess:

Pan: all
Theology: study of the nature of God (god(s))

Very good a study of the nature behind Gods.
So where is your problem?




Making a statement you can't back up doesn't automatically make you right either.
wha t have i not backed up, and i will.

***********************

:Brandon:

I think it's more along the lines of anami being a pantheist rather than "pantheologist" or "pantheologian". [/QUOTE]

anami is the very last person who will care what you title it, or what it believes.:jump:

anami
January 15th, 2005, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by servent101

anami

I also suspect that lighthouse and nineveh are addicted to adrenalin - a substance that is produced when one is outraged - their posts suggest that they are outraged at whatever does not agree with their view - they simply twist the facts so their brain chemistry is altered so their adrenalin is available to them. Adrenalin is a very addictive substance. Too bad all they can do is perceive reality in a way in which they trick their minds to think there is a crisis – and no matter how much we try to tell them it is they who are bringing a mockery to the Lord’s Ministry – they just perceive our behavior in a way which allows their body chemistry to provide the adrenalin to continue on with what they perceive as the good fight.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Servent 101,

Thank you for this note. It is always good to have verification, i keep having to check my posts to see if i'm the adrenalyn junkie. They keep telling me i am fiestier than i thought i was being. i agreed with what you are saying, but i wouldn't presume so without the reality check. Thanks for that!

With Christ's and every ripple of love he ever made,

a

p.s. i edited this so that i wouldn't be rude, forgot a capital C.

temple2006
January 15th, 2005, 10:22 PM
Who said that tolerance is a virtue? To tolerate is to denigrate the dignity of a person. It is hardly acceptance - love. Tolerance can have and in most cases probably has limits - true love does not.

anami
January 15th, 2005, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by temple 2000

Who said that tolerance is a virtue? To tolerate is to denigrate the dignity of a person. It is hardly acceptance - love. Tolerance can have and in most cases probably has limits - true love does not.

Jesus practiced tolerance. That is the argument for everything else around here.

temple2006
January 15th, 2005, 10:49 PM
Anami....No,no,no.....Jesus practiced LOVE.

anami
January 15th, 2005, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by temple 2000

Anami....No,no,no.....Jesus practiced LOVE.


Are you saying love has no telerance?

it's anami,

thanx

Lighthouse
January 16th, 2005, 12:11 AM
Love means not tolerating damaging behaviors, and activities, as well as other things.

aikido7
January 16th, 2005, 12:29 AM
God in the Old Testament and in Revelation is intolerant; Fundamentalism at Bob Jones University is godliness.

Lighthouse
January 16th, 2005, 12:56 AM
Do what, :aikido:?

servent101
January 16th, 2005, 12:22 PM
Temple2000
Who said that tolerance is a virtue? To tolerate is to denigrate the dignity of a person. It is hardly acceptance - love. Tolerance can have and in most cases probably has limits - true love does not.

Yes - what we are left with is faith, hope and Love - and the greatest of these is Love.

Seems that some people have the gift of bringing the lost back to the Lord - calling them to repentance - but when everyone tries this - and is told that the amount the "world" rejects you is a gage of how much one loves the Lord... well it just does not wash.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Nineveh
January 16th, 2005, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by anami

i only claimed to be a Panthologist, not any sort of politicians. Don't give me creadence i don't ask for.
*edit* almost forgot... There are so many thousands of religions and i have but one mind and one set of eyes. Don't get your ego in a bunch because i don't have as good of a hold on it as someone who is currently practicing it. :doh:

There ya go again, trying to assess people's moods....

According to firechyld that means you are "practicing" a "tool".


Very good a study of the nature behind Gods.
So where is your problem?

Judeo Christianity can't be part of your "all". Christ stands opposed to being part of "all".


wha t have i not backed up, and i will.

Then go reply to the post I called you attention to on the other thread.


anami is the very last person who will care what you title it, or what it believes.:jump:

You labled yourself. I simply think you are mistaken.


Jesus practiced tolerance. That is the argument for everything else around here.

mmhm. He was so tolerant of the money changers and pharisees. Maybe you haven't read that part yet.

Nineveh
January 16th, 2005, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by servent101

Temple2000

Yes - what we are left with is faith, hope and Love - and the greatest of these is Love.

Seems that some people have the gift of bringing the lost back to the Lord - calling them to repentance - but when everyone tries this - and is told that the amount the "world" rejects you is a gage of how much one loves the Lord... well it just does not wash.

This coming from a "non salvationist"?

You might also want to remember it was Christ speaking to His disciples when he said, remember if the world hates you it hated Me first.

You aren't hated because of your witness to Christ, non-salvationist. I haven't seen your witness to Christ once on TOL. Even when asked.

anami
January 16th, 2005, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

There ya go again, trying to assess people's moods....

:confused:


According to firechyld that means you are "practicing" a "tool".

How and in what way am i practicing what kind of tool. And who says that someone i have never met from Austrailia can assess my spiritual life accuratly, through the medium of you?

In short, this is out of the blue, what de heck are you talkin about?




Judeo Christianity can't be part of your "all". Christ stands opposed to being part of "all".
No your interpretation of the bible stands opposed to being part of all. It's an ego thing. Pantheology is the study of all religions, so regardless of the beliefs of those who practice a picticular religion, it can not be left out in the study of all religions.




The go reply to the post I called you attention to on the other thread.

Ask me as many times as you want, i will not waste my time defending my typos, and trying to think of clever smilies to respond to your smilies. Get over it, i came here to debate not play i'm rubber you're glue.




You labled yourself. I simply think you are mistaken.

:confused:






mmhm. He was so tolerant of the money changers and pharisees. Maybe you haven't read that part yet.

Why do you keep saying read that part yet?
Honey, i have read the bible more times than you are years old. i do not have much of it committed to memory, and have found that would only be helpful in life, here and here only. Just because he lost it and was being judgmental that does not mean that it was the point of his message.

Nineveh
January 16th, 2005, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by anami

:confused:
[QUOTE]

Oh please, you've been inaccurate now 4 times.

[QUOTE]How and in what way am i practicing what kind of tool. And who says that someone i have never met from Austrailia can assess my spiritual life accuratly, through the medium of you?

Pantheology is a tool used to compare religions. That was from someone taking comparitive religion in school (firechyld).

You are a "panteist - Judeo-Christianity".


In short, this is out of the blue, what de heck are you talkin about?

I'm sure you can follow along if you try.


No your interpretation of the bible stands opposed to being part of all. It's an ego thing. Pantheology is the study of all religions, so regardless of the beliefs of those who practice a picticular religion, it can not be left out in the study of all religions.

Only if you don't wanna be "pan" theological.



Ask me as many times as you want, i will not waste my time defending my typos, and trying to think of clever smilies to respond to your smilies. Get over it, i came here to debate not play i'm rubber you're glue.

I have no clue what you are talking about, but it's this (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=651385#post651385) post, I'm talking about.



:confused:

You said you were "pantheological" I say you are a "pantheist".


Why do you keep saying read that part yet?

That was your excuse for butchering Jonah, that and you "forgot" how the story went.


Honey, i have read the bible more times than you are years old.

Sweetiepie, that doesn't stop you from forgetting most of it. Either that or you just haven't ever payed attention to what it says.


i do not have much of it committed to memory,

Obviously.


and have found that would only be helpful in life, here and here only.

Well, for you at least, here at TOL.


Just because he lost it and was being judgmental that does not mean that it was the point of his message.

Jesus Christ "lost it"? Do you even know what He said?

Lighthouse
January 16th, 2005, 07:29 PM
anami isn't practicing a tool, he's just a tool.

anami
January 16th, 2005, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Pantheology is a tool used to compare religions. That was from someone taking comparitive religion in school (firechyld).
According only to her school, that is it's definition, don't believe everything you hear. one comparative religions course which is not even her main feild of study, does not make her an expert.


You are a "panteist - Judeo-Christianity".

Don't call me names!
Truth is you have no idea and couldn't know me well enough to title me, why are you trying.

If i am a panteist does that make me worship panties? Again, you are really coming from left field here.

oh and when i say something has no relevance to the conversation a good argument is not "if you tried you would understand."




I'm sure you can follow along if you try.
Only if you don't wanna be "pan" theological.

elemantary jibes are above. (i get harped at if i don't answer at all.)





I have no clue what you are talking about, but it's this (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=651385#post651385) post, I'm talking about.

ok, answered again.





You said you were "pantheological" I say you are a "pantheist".

whatever, it is a word no one knows the definition of anyway, so fling it around however you want, nothing changes in reality land, roses smelling as sweet and all that. i am definatly not a panthiest as i follow nothing.




That was your excuse for butchering Jonah, that and you "forgot" how the story went.

i did no such thing as butcher Jonah by interpreting "his book" differently than you.


Obviously.
Well, for you at least, here at TOL.

Jesus Christ "lost it"? Do you even know what He said?

i was just insinuating that he is human and makes mistakes.

Lighthouse
January 16th, 2005, 08:18 PM
Jesus was not a mere human. Jesus is God, and God makes no mistakes.:rolleyes:

anami
January 16th, 2005, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Jesus was not a mere human. Jesus is God, and God makes no mistakes.:rolleyes:

opinions and interpretations are as common as individuality.

Lighthouse
January 16th, 2005, 10:22 PM
I wonder if God is grieved in His heart that He made you.

Nineveh
January 17th, 2005, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by anami

According only to her school, that is it's definition, don't believe everything you hear. one comparative religions course which is not even her main feild of study, does not make her an expert.

She was the only one to offer the definition. The only other places I could even locate the word were pagan websites. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.


Don't call me names!
Truth is you have no idea and couldn't know me well enough to title me, why are you trying.

From what you have said, what you actually know and how you use terms.


If i am a panteist does that make me worship panties? Again, you are really coming from left field here.

I deserved that, I mocked your typos...

But as a pantheist yes, "panties" would be part of your god too :)


oh and when i say something has no relevance to the conversation a good argument is not "if you tried you would understand."

So far, when something has "no relevence" to you it's because you can't recall the argument you are making.


elemantary jibes are above. (i get harped at if i don't answer at all.)

It seems to be the only thng you will reply to. When it comes to discussing your beliefs you cop out.


ok, answered again.

Again? You told me it was "too stupid" to reply to. But, that thread is on the list, so I'll see when I get there.


whatever, it is a word no one knows the definition of anyway, so fling it around however you want, nothing changes in reality land, roses smelling as sweet and all that. i am definatly not a panthiest as i follow nothing.

So you are an atheist studying pantheology? (and butchering Judeo-
Christianity as a hobby on the side?)


i did no such thing as butcher Jonah by interpreting "his book" differently than you.

It wasn't about a "spin" you could put to it, it was about ignoring the whole last half of the book.


i was just insinuating that he is human and makes mistakes.

You aren't very "pan" theological when it comes to Judeo-Christianity.

anami
January 17th, 2005, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I wonder if God is grieved in His heart that He made you.

Highly doubtful.

anami
January 17th, 2005, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

She was the only one to offer the definition. The only other places I could even locate the word were pagan websites. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.



From what you have said, what you actually know and how you use terms.



I deserved that, I mocked your typos...

But as a pantheist yes, "panties" would be part of your god too :)



So far, when something has "no relevence" to you it's because you can't recall the argument you are making.

the name calling vears us so offf course, sometimes i can't. What are we arguing here? The one word definition of my faith?




It seems to be the only thng you will reply to. When it comes to discussing your beliefs you cop out.

again, and again and again and again... what do you want to know about my beliefs and i will tell you. Mind reading would be unethical even if i could do it. What do you want to know?




So you are an atheist studying pantheology? (and butchering Judeo-
Christianity as a hobby on the side?)

No.




It wasn't about a "spin" you could put to it, it was about ignoring the whole last half of the book.

It is about Gods compassion tolerance for even the wicked, which since you claim to be intolerant of gay people, for instance, i was simply questioning why you would pick the name, for one reason.
Besides this is tolerance vs. Godliness yet got does not fight tolerance but encompasses it.

Besides i did read it. Jonah told the people(jonah 3:7) great calamity they would face if they did not repent. So they even repented under duress. God says the people are stupid but he cares for them any way, micah is a similar story from a different place and by the time we get one short book away to Nahum, the lord is angry at Nineveh for the whole book.

Nineveh
January 17th, 2005, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by anami

What do you want to know?

What you believe.



It is about Gods compassion tolerance for even the wicked, which since you claim to be intolerant of gay people, for instance, i was simply questioning why you would pick the name, for one reason.

God's compassion toward Nineveh was to send Jonah. Beyond that He spared them because they repented.

You still don't want to understand why chose the name, do you?

In a nutshell it's to stand against folks who believe in "judge not".


Besides this is tolerance vs. Godliness yet got does not fight tolerance but encompasses it.

You and I obviously have different D/deities.


Besides i did read it. Jonah told the people(jonah 3:7) great calamity they would face if they did not repent.

Actually, Jonah didn't utter one word about repentance. He said, "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned."

Just to let you know, Jonah 3:7 was the decree from the King, not Jonah's witness. You will find that in 3:4.


So they even repented under duress.

According to Scripture, "The Ninevites believed God." 3:5


God says the people are stupid

Name the verse. I believe you do not understand what you are trying to quote.


but he cares for them any way, micah is a similar story from a different place and by the time we get one short book away to Nahum, the lord is angry at Nineveh for the whole book.

Is this an attempt to try to justify your ignorance about how much time elapsed between Jonah and Nahum?

Lighthouse
January 18th, 2005, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by anami

Highly doubtful.
It's more than doubtful. He's not grieved that He made you. But you do grieve Him.

anami
January 18th, 2005, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

It's more than doubtful. He's not grieved that He made you. But you do grieve Him.

So now Lighthouse is a prophet, the mouthpiece of God? i don't think so.

Son, it is very immature of you to lob out half - (oops? uh ? behinded) insults at someone you have never met and have no concept of. You do not know who you are dealing with so i would not assume anything about my relations with what you might call "God". To do so you inevitably only damage your own relations with God, there can be no other outcome.

Lighthouse
January 18th, 2005, 09:02 PM
I only speak what the Bible says.

Mr. 5020
January 18th, 2005, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I only speak what the Bible says. Where does the Bible say, "I only speak what the Bible says."?

Lighthouse
January 18th, 2005, 09:21 PM
*raises eyebrow*

anami
January 18th, 2005, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

What you believe.

On what planet is this something you can lay out efficiently in a post? Haw finite are your beliefs?

Here's a go for mine ish.

1. you can not ever know everything. If you try, you will die long before you have finished. If you accept that relationally thinking, you can not ever know a significant amount of anything and therefore veritably nothing. With that perspective of mind you can learn more than you ever could have learned if you though you know something.

2. There is, in order for anything to exist, some outer perameter of absolutely nothing. Within that there is a mathmatical object called the wave function, which is the collection of absolulely every quantum particle in existence. This breaks down into miultiverses and universes which explains multi-demensional worlds. That and the fact that every molecule in existence is made of the same quantum particles which are the exact same thing as the sentient functional whole for the forward function of at root quantum particles.
This is what i throw myself down and humble myself before acnowledging that is and directs my every action and creates"me".

3. i'd go into the ethics of that here but, it would take up so much space, and no one has probabably read this far anyway, why push it. We'll cover ethics next time.

4. So this is a big thing to comprehend, Jesus and others tried to explain it and it was rightly tarnished to be what it is. christanity today has not much to do with the style or philosophy of life Christ lived. Humans were not far enough evolved yet to "deal" So we have been evolving until society is ripe to become aware. in short, and in reference to the A.C.B. quote earlier The wave function was personified into our image for us to understand something so huge very simply. All religions are languages to understanding the inclusion in the wave function.

Ok. i am only at four and there is so much more, i have a few non-computer world things to attend to , so i must go and will reply to other posts later as this took so long. Beliefs is a big subject. i have taught courses in it. All you get on the web is a brief synopsis, and a touching, but if you want to spend the time we can start a thread about it and i'll go to town.





God's compassion toward Nineveh was to send Jonah. Beyond that He spared them because they repented.


Actually, Jonah didn't utter one word about repentance. He said, "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned."

Do i need to say anything here?
He spared them because they repented says the book of Jonah supposedly the story of things written by him, so in the book of Jonah it says not only that they repented but did so under threat and duress.



Just to let you know, Jonah 3:7 was the decree from the King, not Jonah's witness. You will find that in 3:4.

In the book of Jonah which, even though i don't believe it, you attest was written by God through Jonah.




According to Scripture, "The Ninevites believed God." 3:5

when they say Nineveh repented they even mention that it was the kings and therefore the city of Ninevah, That's like saying if Bush does something i did too, and frankly i never bombed anyone.



You still don't want to understand why chose the name, do you?

In a nutshell it's to stand against folks who believe in "judge not".

but the story is about God saying judge not. Why would you talke that name and stand against anyone!!!??
Don't just look at the quotes in your weekly flier and listen to what the precher says pretending it's holy writ. Read the whole story from that actual bible and you find a story about a place so wicked Jonah faced god's wrath in the belly of a fish instead of go there. So he goes anyway and a set of kings ttell him the city has repented and within what has to be aproximatly much less than 200 years the whole city is wicked again and stupid, so much so god denounces it for the remainder of the book and then it is destroyed by that prophacy and constructed in it's place is arguably the wickedest city ever was (Babylon stemmed from the people of Nineveh)

So yes i understand you took the name to denounce those who believe judge not.
i simply say you fully embody that misunderstanding of the points of Nineveh's inclusion in the bible. By using the name to write wicked bigoted hate threads against huge stereotypes of different people fully embodies the two faced falsly holy eternally wicked soul of the city that became babylon.

Good name choice in short.
If you were nice or tolerant or repentant to God it wouldn't make much sense. but i am not arguing with you, i think you made a great choice for doing such things.




You and I obviously have different D/deities.
i'm reading your holy word, you are not reading mine.




Name the verse. I believe you do not understand what you are trying to quote.

Jonah 4:10 begins,
"But the lord said," YOu have...(metaphorical dead through lack of care vine reference)...(11) But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who can not tell their right hand from their left, and as many cattle as well. Should i not be concerned by that great city?"

Now, whether he means physically can not tell left from right or, given sociological habits of the area, that he was saying they were confusing two hands used for very opposing purposes, it seems he was implying they were not too bright.

That verse finishes off Jonah, but since Nineveh later fell, it is likely God in infinite wisdom knew Jonah's mission there would eventually fail when he sent him to do it. You can not discount the book of Nahum when using Jonah simply because it happened after it.




Is this an attempt to try to justify your ignorance about how much time elapsed between Jonah and Nahum?

It actually doesn't matter,however, Jonah served as a prophet to Israel and Assyria from 793-753 B.C. Nahum was written between 663-612 B.C.
So the maiximum ish time it could be is 181 years. Which is long to a human but not to history. It stands that i believe The point of the cities inclusion in the bible includes it's entire life span and the stuff after was not just thrown in for a larf.:jump:

Nineveh
January 19th, 2005, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by anami

On what planet is this something you can lay out efficiently in a post? Haw finite are your beliefs?

All you have to do is ask.


Here's a go for mine ish.

1. you can not ever know everything. If you try, you will die long before you have finished. If you accept that relationally thinking, you can not ever know a significant amount of anything and therefore veritably nothing. With that perspective of mind you can learn more than you ever could have learned if you though you know something.

With this in mind, you have an odd reaction when corrected....


2. There is, in order for anything to exist, some outer perameter of absolutely nothing. Within that there is a mathmatical object called the wave function, which is the collection of absolulely every quantum particle in existence. This breaks down into miultiverses and universes which explains multi-demensional worlds. That and the fact that every molecule in existence is made of the same quantum particles which are the exact same thing as the sentient functional whole for the forward function of at root quantum particles.
This is what i throw myself down and humble myself before acnowledging that is and directs my every action and creates"me".

3. i'd go into the ethics of that here but, it would take up so much space, and no one has probabably read this far anyway, why push it. We'll cover ethics next time.

4. So this is a big thing to comprehend, Jesus and others tried to explain it and it was rightly tarnished to be what it is. christanity today has not much to do with the style or philosophy of life Christ lived. Humans were not far enough evolved yet to "deal" So we have been evolving until society is ripe to become aware. in short, and in reference to the A.C.B. quote earlier The wave function was personified into our image for us to understand something so huge very simply. All religions are languages to understanding the inclusion in the wave function.

I believe youbelieve what you believe, but I don't think you know who Christ is.


Ok. i am only at four and there is so much more, i have a few non-computer world things to attend to , so i must go and will reply to other posts later as this took so long. Beliefs is a big subject. i have taught courses in it. All you get on the web is a brief synopsis, and a touching, but if you want to spend the time we can start a thread about it and i'll go to town.

Try to keep it to theological beliefs, that might help. But, so you will know, you can create your own threads. Just try to keep them in an appropriate forum.


Do i need to say anything here?
He spared them because they repented says the book of Jonah supposedly the story of things written by him, so in the book of Jonah it says not only that they repented but did so under threat and duress.

That's not what the Book says. I guess you are free to make up what happened if that's what you feel you need to do to make your point.


In the book of Jonah which, even though i don't believe it, you attest was written by God through Jonah.

How does this correct that you named the wrong verse? The one you cited was the decree of the King of Nineveh (3:7) not Jonah's witness found earlier in chapter 3.

Anyway, if Jonah did his own stuff on his own here, he sure did make himself look really bad.


when they say Nineveh repented they even mention that it was the kings and therefore the city of Ninevah, That's like saying if Bush does something i did too, and frankly i never bombed anyone.

Are you allergic to reading or something?

Starting in chapter 3 v 5:

The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth. When the news reached the king of Nineveh ...


but the story is about God saying judge not. Why would you talke that name and stand against anyone!!!??

The entire Bible is about judgement.

It's not whether you do or don't, we all do, but how that's at issue. If you trully believe you shouldn't, you aught to stop.



Don't just look at the quotes in your weekly flier and listen to what the precher says pretending it's holy writ. Read the whole story from that actual bible and you find a story about a place so wicked Jonah faced god's wrath in the belly of a fish instead of go there.

Why am I not surprised you botch even this part of the story?


So he goes anyway and a set of kings ttell him the city has repented and within what has to be aproximatly much less than 200 years the whole city is wicked again and stupid, so much so god denounces it for the remainder of the book and then it is destroyed by that prophacy and constructed in it's place is arguably the wickedest city ever was (Babylon stemmed from the people of Nineveh)

I have no idea what this glommed together paragraph means. Why don't you try sorting it out in terms of order of events, and this time, READ the book before you attemept your exegesis of it.


So yes i understand you took the name to denounce those who believe judge not.
i simply say you fully embody that misunderstanding of the points of Nineveh's inclusion in the bible.

And so far, you have been wrong on every single point you make about it. I'm not shocked you still don't understand why I chose the name I did.


By using the name to write wicked bigoted hate threads against huge stereotypes of different people fully embodies the two faced falsly holy eternally wicked soul of the city that became babylon.

You still can't wrap your mind around the fact the people repented after Jonah gave witness, can you?


Good name choice in short.

Thanks :)

Too bad you still won't understand why ...



If you were nice or tolerant or repentant to God it wouldn't make much sense. but i am not arguing with you, i think you made a great choice for doing such things.

Nice and tolerant to God? huh?


i'm reading your holy word, you are not reading mine.

You aren't holy, nor are your words. Come down off your prophet pedestal.

I've read enough from you to know you are completely ignorant of the Bible.



Jonah 4:10 begins,
"But the lord said," YOu have...(metaphorical dead through lack of care vine reference)...(11) But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who can not tell their right hand from their left, and as many cattle as well. Should i not be concerned by that great city?"

Now, whether he means physically can not tell left from right or, given sociological habits of the area, that he was saying they were confusing two hands used for very opposing purposes, it seems he was implying they were not too bright.

Actually, "pantheologist" right/left hand is describing their moral capacity. Not their mental capacity. I sort of figured you didn't understand what you were saying.


That verse finishes off Jonah, but since Nineveh later fell,

It's nice to see you finally bothered to look that up....


it is likely God in infinite wisdom knew Jonah's mission there would eventually fail when he sent him to do it. You can not discount the book of Nahum when using Jonah simply because it happened after it.

And you can't use Nahum to defend the argument you are trying to make.

Do you think if Nineveh would have repented again God would have spared them again?


It actually doesn't matter,however, Jonah served as a prophet to Israel and Assyria from 793-753 B.C. Nahum was written between 663-612 B.C.

Oooh you found Google! Good for you!


So the maiximum ish time it could be is 181 years. Which is long to a human but not to history. It stands that i believe The point of the cities inclusion in the bible includes it's entire life span and the stuff after was not just thrown in for a larf.:jump:

Your argument just failed on all points, didn't it? Or do you want to keep traveling down the road of "wrong"?

(hint: it helps to know your argument before you attempt to debate it)

anami
January 19th, 2005, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

All you have to do is ask.
With this in mind, you have an odd reaction when corrected....

Corrected!?




I believe youbelieve what you believe, but I don't think you know who Christ is.
Good girl, you based that off of such little information, you really are polishing that name plate today!




Try to keep it to theological beliefs, that might help. But, so you will know, you can create your own threads. Just try to keep them in an appropriate forum.

My theory of what is is theological. What are you basing an argument of that on?

No you want to know my beliefs you start a thread about it, i am not about to weild down a belief thread for the purpose of or the presumed purpose of buffing my ego.




That's not what the Book says. I guess you are free to make up what happened if that's what you feel you need to do to make your point.

And what are you basing this argument on?

i read it, i quoted it word for word and you are telling me because black and white print argues your preconcieved directed and biased synthesis of what it could be interpreted as.

It is what the book says that's how come i quoted it.




How does this correct that you named the wrong verse? The one you cited was the decree of the King of Nineveh (3:7) not Jonah's witness found earlier in chapter 3.

This you made up,right? what are you referring to?
i named every quote by it's chapter and verse.


Anyway, if Jonah did his own stuff on his own here, he sure did make himself look really bad.

que pas es? WHAT!?!?




Are you allergic to reading or something?

Starting in chapter 3 v 5:

The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth. When the news reached the king of Nineveh ...

Says the frightened king, nothing is given about the sociological lives of the people only that the kings say they did everything they were told to do by a man who threatened the wrath of God. And much as the government i currently live in is fully unsupported by me. Besides if you really want someone to do something, starving them is a good method, Fast my behind! Not likely every wicked person decided to take a fast and repent all at once. More likely it appeared they had repented by being forced by unwilling fasting, apearences look good and the winners write the history books.

But all of this is completely regardless of my argument, which is that Nineveh's inclusion in the bible includes it's complete life span and that the point is GOD HAD TOLERANCE.




The entire Bible is about judgement.

Oh here is our problem...i am using a holy book of the christians and catholics the first few books belong to the Jews too though, You must be dealing with an entirely different book titles "Bible" Any other distinguishing references than it is about judgement while the most common book titled "bible" is about tolerance and a cool guy named Jesus, and lots of poitics and sex.




am I not surprised you botch even this part of the story?

i don't care what you say, Jonah got eaten by a great big fish in the bible. :kookoo:




I have no idea what this glommed together paragraph means. Why don't you try sorting it out in terms of order of events, and this time, READ the book before you attemept your exegesis of it.

You really ought to stop wasting space with dilusional tripe. For your knowledge, so you can just quit it (for Pete's sake) i have read the bible many times, we becan discussing these two books, so i got the book out rereadit (twice actually) read the book inbetween (Micah) and then pulled it out to directly quote from it.




And so far, you have been wrong on every single point you make about it. I'm not shocked you still don't understand why I chose the name I did.
So you say, but you give not one single remote reference to how or why. i am just wrong? You have nothing to back that up but it is more fact than what i can quote from the bible?

And i get it, by your reasons OR mine the fact is the same. You picked the name Nineveh because it captures your intolerant nature.




You still can't wrap your mind around the fact the people repented after Jonah gave witness, can you?

i, um said they did repent, i even gave the quote where it is said. i do not agree with you, however, that Nineveh's importance in the stories of the bible ended at that moment of repentence. i also do not agree that the rest of the bibles references to the fall of Nineveh were just thrown in for a larf, but for no purpose.l




Thanks :)

Too bad you still won't understand why ...

Honey, i get the impression you are not even sure of what the argument is that you are debating.





You aren't holy, nor are your words. Come down off your prophet pedestal.

You are so sweet. Nieve but sweet.
i never claimed any of these things but your subconcious flatters me by naturally assigning them to me, even though your concious is arguing with your subconcious. i actually have nothing to do with this converstaion at all, but thanks.
i was referring to what i wouold call holy write much as you concider your bible, and while it is nice of you to assume i wrote it, i did not.


I've read enough from you to know you are completely ignorant of the Bible.

Yeah, but your most intelligent argument has simply been, "you're wrong" So just your belief in my ignorance of the bible doesn't actually make me ignorant.





Actually, "pantheologist" right/left hand is describing their moral capacity. Not their mental capacity. I sort of figured you didn't understand what you were saying.

Says the debater who backs nothing up. Tomatoes/ tomatoes, (sound it out honey)
i disagree with your interpretation of that statement but interpretations of this bible are as different as the readers and only suggestion changes that. Once again you can figure the sky is green for all i care, it still does not make it so.




It's nice to see you finally bothered to look that up....

And you can't use Nahum to defend the argument you are trying to make.

Why not, Does Nahum not exist in your abriviated version of the bible? So it can exist for no one you interact with?


Do you think if Nineveh would have repented again God would have spared them again? God already knew how many times they would repent and that the city would not end on a repentant note. But let's pretend "God" didn't really know what was up.
And yes, the point was to be tolerant of the people who need it most, Funny Jesus did have the same philosophy as God in that instance, he hung out with lepers.




Oooh you found Google! Good for you!

Um, ok honey, Google is not the best place to look up the bible on.
Let me introduce you to a concept. Everything on google pays for space and is written and then coded by humans. Of all of the places to look up individual bible verses and most especially dates, google is fairly corrupted even more so than the written bible! You will find much more accurate (sort of) bible verses in the, um, bible.

But yes i found google quite a great many years ago and even regularly attended dinner with it's founder for a while.

you can figure dates by cross referencing with 1 corinthians, knowing the dates of the reigns of different empires and the dates prophets were alive and whaen they were actually prophets. Then it is just some simple math.




Your argument just failed on all points, didn't it? Or do you want to keep traveling down the road of "wrong"?

which points, you actually need to say which points, not just say all points when there are none. Again, your belief does not create reality.


(hint: it helps to know your argument before you attempt to debate it)

Hint: it helps to have an argument before you debate it.

Lighthouse
January 20th, 2005, 01:06 AM
If anyone doesn't have an argument it is you, anami.

Nineveh
January 20th, 2005, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by anami

Corrected!?

Odd reply to someone you have been talking to for over a week now who has shown you repetedly you are in error.

It's up to you if you want to remain ignorant.


Good girl, you based that off of such little information, you really are polishing that name plate today!

Actually it's pretty simple to discern you are a garden variety pagan.


My theory of what is is theological. What are you basing an argument of that on?

I didn't know expounding on what you believe would be so hard, guess I shoulda known...


No you want to know my beliefs you start a thread about it, i am not about to weild down a belief thread for the purpose of or the presumed purpose of buffing my ego.

Hey, if you don't wanna share : shrugs : no skin off my nose.


And what are you basing this argument on?

Something you may not be familliar with, it's called reality.


i read it, i quoted it word for word and you are telling me because black and white print argues your preconcieved directed and biased synthesis of what it could be interpreted as.

"He spared them because they repented says the book of Jonah"

That is Biblical and can be gleened from the account, but then you felt the need to add:

"supposedly the story of things written by him, so in the book of Jonah it says not only that they repented but did so under threat and duress."

That is no where in the account. The account says simply, "They believed God".


It is what the book says that's how come i quoted it.

You didn't quote the part you made up, you added it to make your point.


This you made up,right? what are you referring to?
i named every quote by it's chapter and verse.

I didn't make up the fact you said, " Besides i did read it. Jonah told the people(jonah 3:7) great calamity they would face if they did not repent."

Jonah 3:6-7 says, "When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. Then he issued a proclamation in Nineveh:"

That's the King talking not Jonah. For crying out loud. It's a simple matter, why do you insist on being wrong?


Says the frightened king, nothing is given about the sociological lives of the people only that the kings say they did everything they were told to do by a man who threatened the wrath of God.

Jonah said, "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned." That is all he said. He didn't tell them to do or not do anything.

The people believed God.

That's it.

Everything else you keep trying to add is simply that, your additions to the account.


And much as the government i currently live in is fully unsupported by me. Besides if you really want someone to do something, starving them is a good method, Fast my behind! Not likely every wicked person decided to take a fast and repent all at once.

I don't really care what you need to add to make your point. The account says:

"The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth."

Then: "When the news reached the king of Nineveh"


More likely it appeared they had repented by being forced by unwilling fasting, apearences look good and the winners write the history books.

Only in the account of Nineveh according to anami.


But all of this is completely regardless of my argument, which is that Nineveh's inclusion in the bible includes it's complete life span and that the point is GOD HAD TOLERANCE.

Tell that to Nahum.

Oh... and do you think God would have been "tolerant" had Nineveh not repented?


Oh here is our problem...

:darwinsm:

You know what they say about pointing fingers, right?


i am using a holy book of the christians and catholics the first few books belong to the Jews too though, You must be dealing with an entirely different book titles "Bible" Any other distinguishing references than it is about judgement while the most common book titled "bible" is about tolerance and a cool guy named Jesus, and lots of poitics and sex.

You musta ripped out the Book of Judges then. And all the instances where God wasn't tolerant. How thick is your Bible? 20 pagaes or so? That would explain why you keep missing so much...


i don't care what you say, Jonah got eaten by a great big fish in the bible. :kookoo:

You said: "Don't just look at the quotes in your weekly flier and listen to what the precher says pretending it's holy writ. Read the whole story from that actual bible and you find a story about a place so wicked Jonah faced god's wrath in the belly of a fish instead of go there."

Are you absolutely sure that's why Jonah didn't want to go? If you are really sure, you won't have any trouble quoting the Scripture that backs you up, right?


You really ought to stop wasting space with dilusional tripe. For your knowledge, so you can just quit it (for Pete's sake) i have read the bible many times, we becan discussing these two books, so i got the book out rereadit (twice actually) read the book inbetween (Micah) and then pulled it out to directly quote from it.

It's not your ability to cut and paste at question, it's your ability to read and understand what is being said.


So you say, but you give not one single remote reference to how or why. i am just wrong? You have nothing to back that up but it is more fact than what i can quote from the bible?

And i get it, by your reasons OR mine the fact is the same. You picked the name Nineveh because it captures your intolerant nature.

You are thick. Is it by choice or by nature?


i, um said they did repent, i even gave the quote where it is said. i do not agree with you, however, that Nineveh's importance in the stories of the bible ended at that moment of repentence. i also do not agree that the rest of the bibles references to the fall of Nineveh were just thrown in for a larf, but for no purpose.l

lol

You went on for days about Nahum. What was it you said? God was wrong or foolish or some such?


Honey, i get the impression you are not even sure of what the argument is that you are debating.

Sugarplum, if anyone needs a map it's you.

It's not your ignorance that keeps you from learning, it's your attitude, especially toward correction that keeps you ignorant.


You are so sweet. Nieve but sweet.

Right.

And how many days have we been talking about Nineveh and you still have trouble with Chapter 3 v 7.


i never claimed any of these things but your subconcious flatters me by naturally assigning them to me, even though your concious is arguing with your subconcious. i actually have nothing to do with this converstaion at all, but thanks.

I do not doubt you are having an "out of body experience" while typing, but I'm more prone to chalk that feeling up to crack than anything spiritual.

You said: " i'm reading your holy word, you are not reading mine."

You were the one implying your "words are holy". Sorry, I don't buy it. I think your words are best described as ignorant, egotistical and sometimes borderline stupid.


i was referring to what i wouold call holy write much as you concider your bible, and while it is nice of you to assume i wrote it, i did not.

Oh, please don't misconstrue that I don't think "your words are holy" with me thinking you had anything at all to do with writting the Bible. The first evidence would be your complete and utter lack of knowing what's in it.


Yeah, but your most intelligent argument has simply been, "you're wrong" So just your belief in my ignorance of the bible doesn't actually make me ignorant.

I would say your ignorance is pretty out there. Me pointing it out is only pointing it out, you are the one making my statement true.

I dunno if you know this or not, but you don't have to stay ignorant. An evidence would be you finally figured out how much time passed between Jonah and Nahum instead of believing it was only a matter of a time span beteween flipping a few pages in the Bible.


Says the debater who backs nothing up.

Right, never mind all those arguments and quotes lol


Tomatoes/ tomatoes, (sound it out honey)

Ok sweetie pie.

Was there some point in this? Or are you taking the tact "if your argument fails you cans still call names"?


i disagree with your interpretation of that statement but interpretations of this bible are as different as the readers and only suggestion changes that. Once again you can figure the sky is green for all i care, it still does not make it so.

LOL

It's not about interpretation it's about understanding figures of speech.


Why not, Does Nahum not exist in your abriviated version of the bible? So it can exist for no one you interact with?

Because in the beginning when I told you why I chose the name, I emphasized the repentance of the people even when Jonah didn't wanna witness.

It was you that tried to drag it into Nahum with your cockeyed understanding of when Nahum happened.


God already knew how many times they would repent and that the city would not end on a repentant note. But let's pretend "God" didn't really know what was up.

You didn't answer the question. Try again:

Do you think if Nineveh would have repented again God would have spared them again?


And yes, the point was to be tolerant of the people who need it most, Funny Jesus did have the same philosophy as God in that instance, he hung out with lepers.

Jesus wasn't tolerant all the time either.


Um, ok honey, Google is not the best place to look up the bible on.

Ok, sugarlump, but it worked for you :)


Let me introduce you to a concept. Everything on google pays for space and is written and then coded by humans. Of all of the places to look up individual bible verses and most especially dates, google is fairly corrupted even more so than the written bible! You will find much more accurate (sort of) bible verses in the, um, bible.

Like it really matters to you who or how the Bible might be misrepresented LOL


But yes i found google quite a great many years ago and even regularly attended dinner with it's founder for a while.

:darwinsm:


you can figure dates by cross referencing with 1 corinthians, knowing the dates of the reigns of different empires and the dates prophets were alive and whaen they were actually prophets. Then it is just some simple math.

Bet you wish you had done it sooner, instead of trying to make Jonah and Nahum sound like mere days apart. (or at least as long as it took you to read from one to the other).


which points, you actually need to say which points, not just say all points when there are none. Again, your belief does not create reality.

And you accuse me of not being able to follow along...

Your "judgement" about my name is totally off. My witness, like Jonah's stands. Even though it has taken a week to get this far, the people still repented when the unwilling Jonah witnessed to them.


Hint: it helps to have an argument before you debate it.

You were the one to take issue. You are still wrong. But out of all of this, you were forced to become a little more familliar with Jonah and Nahum, so it wasn't a total loss :)

Now... if only you would become a little more familliar with the God spoken of in the Bible so you would stop with that ignorant "tolerance" garbage.

anami
January 21st, 2005, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Odd reply to someone you have been talking to for over a week now who has shown you repetedly you are in error.

Once again, if you simply state that i am wrong with out even saying why let alone waiting to see if that why is reasonable then you have not shown me to be in error. You calling me an idiot in no way defuncts my opinion.


It's up to you if you want to remain ignorant.
Actually it's pretty simple to discern you are a garden variety pagan.

A pagan is someone who believes in multiple Gods, i understand why people have Gods and i support that, but i do not beilieve any of them actually exist outside of that persons perspective, therefor it would technically be impossible for me to be a pagan, garden varitety or other.

(see that is what a correction looks like, see you said i was a pagan and i gave you reasonable verifyable reasons why that can not be true. That is a correction.)




I didn't know expounding on what you believe would be so hard, guess I shoulda known...

It is simply very time consuming, and if i thought the information would be anything more than summarily dissmissed i would love to share.




Hey, if you don't wanna share : shrugs : no skin off my nose.
Something you may not be familliar with, it's called reality.
"He spared them because they repented says the book of Jonah"
That is Biblical and can be gleened from the account, but then you felt the need to add:
"supposedly the story of things written by him, so in the book of Jonah it says not only that they repented but did so under threat and duress."

That is no where in the account. The account says simply, "They believed God".
You didn't quote the part you made up, you added it to make your point.
I didn't make up the fact you said, " Besides i did read it. Jonah told the people(jonah 3:7) great calamity they would face if they did not repent."

Calamity = bad

So now if the bible is such a holy word why would there be such a difference? One includes duress where the other does not, that is a very interesting place for such an effective change.

i am currently referencing from a Life Application study bible, but i have several others in the other room, which version are you reading so that we can syncronize bibles.
(Do you still maintain that the bible hasn't been changed? Given that your Jonah 3:7 and mine say completely different things?)


Jonah 3:6-7 says, "When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. Then he issued a proclamation in Nineveh:"

That's the King talking not Jonah. For crying out loud. It's a simple matter, why do you insist on being wrong?

Why can you not follow the argument? i never said the king was not speaking there, in fact i verified that when i stated that the kings though not every citizen converted. You are argueing against nothing....




Jonah said, "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned." That is all he said. He didn't tell them to do or not do anything.

Oh there it is, lucky for you they just rearanged and re worded the same thing... overturned = bad


You went on for days about Nahum. What was it you said? God was wrong or foolish or some such?

No i said what you were asking was silly for if you ask that you presume God was wrong or foolish, but you bring it up again, whether God would have saved Nineveh again if they would have repented, yes, probably because there is tolerance there, as i said. My point was simply that God already knew what would become of Nineveh even before he set Jonah there, therefore not being wrong or foolish as you had indicated.



I do not doubt you are having an "out of body experience" while typing, but I'm more prone to chalk that feeling up to crack than anything spiritual.

Here i am going to call you on your infantile behavior. On a site that ousted someone for vauge inscestual references (an insult plain and simple actually, that was way out of line) Bear in mind this is the same thing. Crack and it's effects are as disgusting to me as incest.

So please note this is childish behavior quite bad form for debate and quite frankly it bothers me.
Please keep your crack obsession to yourself.

thank you


You said: " i'm reading your holy word, you are not reading mine."

You were the one implying your "words are holy". Sorry, I don't buy it. I think your words are best described as ignorant, egotistical and sometimes borderline stupid.

:doh:

No, what i was clearly implying is that you and i both have books that we concider holy. i am reading yours (the bible), you are not reading mine (the book of truth) i was not at anytime implying that i had anything to do with the writing of either of them. It was about our very oposite research styles regarding debate.
(*this would also be concidered a correction, you misunderstood my simple statement twice. i repeat the same idea in different ways until i find one you can understand, this is also a form of correction, but you see the rational nature of why you are being corrected is included at the very least in an implyed form. ie: i imply you thought i meant my personal words when i clearly meant the book i offer most creadence to. Much as earlier in the same sentence i refer to your holy word and i, of course, am not saying you wrote the bible, only that you hold it sacred. Now do you understand?






I would say your ignorance is pretty out there. Me pointing it out is only pointing it out, you are the one making my statement true.

How?


I dunno if you know this or not, but you don't have to stay ignorant. An evidence would be you finally figured out how much time passed between Jonah and Nahum instead of believing it was only a matter of a time span beteween flipping a few pages in the Bible.

What is your issue? i waited until i had time to reference and do the math, and then i handily found it simply stated in this study bible. but what is your issue my point would have help whether it was 1 year or 20 or 110 or 189 or 400, it was irrelivent i only did the math to get you to let go of a pointless topic. It takes thirty seconds to flip the pages of the bible, i certainly never asserted the time period covered by Micah was, thirty seconds.

i am about to give up on ya, darlin'




Right, never mind all those arguments and quotes lol

What arguments and quotes?
"you don't know how long the time period was."
i do but it has always been irrellivent.
"you are stupid"
unsubstansiated
"You are wrong"
Based on what

It sounds like you just don't agree with me and you can't live with that, sorry.
Deal.





It's not about interpretation it's about understanding figures of speech.

And yet you did not understand what i meant by Tamatoe/ tamatoe
Sound it out, and here is a hint sound each out differently. Then you will understand the figure of speech i was using and can go on argueing how you "get it" and i don't.




Because in the beginning when I told you why I chose the name, I emphasized the repentance of the people even when Jonah didn't wanna witness.

It was you that tried to drag it into Nahum with your cockeyed understanding of when Nahum happened.

Yes i believe this discussion started when you i was surprized someone would take that name as their own. We came to a standstill quite a long time ago.
You assert that this period after Jonah and before Nahum that is not written about at all, though it was in the vicinity of 180 years of time, is the only relevant time of it's existance.
i asserted that it's entire life is equally as relevent to it's purpose in its inclusion in the bible.

Now i think your statement sounds silly and you already claimed mine to be stupid. So let's just think as we do, you will never convince me of what you say and it seems the same is true the other way, so rise above lady! Move on.




You didn't answer the question. Try again:

Do you think if Nineveh would have repented again God would have spared them again?

So call God foolish again, ok.
For like the fourth time YES because he was making a show of tolerance in the first place




Bet you wish you had done it sooner, instead of trying to make Jonah and Nahum sound like mere days apart. (or at least as long as it took you to read from one to the other).


i kinda get a kick out of how you wildly interpret my words.
and then you tell me you can interprete the bible so well.
I never mentioed Joanh and Nahum were days apart, the first time you asked that question i relied that i thought it was 200 years or so, which it turned out was longer than it actually was, and certainly never implied it to be a matter of days.

Lighthouse
January 21st, 2005, 11:37 PM
me: I'm right!

someone else: No, I'm right!

anami: You're both right.

me and someone else: You're wrong, anami!

anami, who's right?

anami
January 22nd, 2005, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

me: I'm right!

someone else: No, I'm right!

anami: You're both right.

me and someone else: You're wrong, anami!

anami, who's right?

We're all right...usually by being wrong.:jump:

Lighthouse
January 22nd, 2005, 07:57 PM
Is ignorance realy blissful? I wouldn't know, but I'm very certain you do.:rolleyes:

Mr. 5020
January 22nd, 2005, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Is ignorance realy blissful? There should be a lot more happy commies then.

anami
January 23rd, 2005, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Is ignorance realy blissful? I wouldn't know, but I'm very certain you do.:rolleyes:

yeah, knowing stuff sucks.

Lighthouse
January 24th, 2005, 01:35 AM
I doubt you would know what it's like to know anything, anami.

anami
January 24th, 2005, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I doubt you would know what it's like to know anything, anami.

The onlly thing that can progress my knowledge is the understanding that i know nothing.

firechyld
January 24th, 2005, 02:56 AM
The onlly thing that can progress my knowledge is the understanding that i know nothing.

Careful. It's not nice to misquote Socrates.

anami
January 24th, 2005, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

Careful. It's not nice to misquote Socrates.

i wasn't trying to quote anyone, just talkin'.

Thanks for the complement though.

Frank Ernest
January 24th, 2005, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by anami
The onlly thing that can progress my knowledge is the understanding that i know nothing.

Originally posted by firechyld
Careful. It's not nice to misquote Socrates.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by anami

i wasn't trying to quote anyone, just talkin'.

Thanks for the complement though.
:dizzy:

firechyld
January 26th, 2005, 02:20 AM
Compliment?

Uh.... sure. No worries. :)