Tolerance vs Godliness

[Lighthouse]

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








I didn't think so.

 

[Frank Ernest]

I'm SHOCKED!

I'm SHOCKED!

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

 

[Gerald]

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]

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]

sybel,
Have you ever bothered to read the Bible?

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

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]

Re: I'm SHOCKED!

Re: I'm SHOCKED!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, 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.