Official Democrat Compliment\Complaint Form

[servantofone]

I like something a Republican is doing ( and not because it is April Fools day). :tongue:
I saw this story on Good Morning America and was moved that Bill O'Reilly would stand up for this father who is mourning the death of his son. I am normally not a fan of Bill O'Reilly but this is pretty cool. This church give religion a bad name and I am glad he is speaking out against them and he is also paying the court cost for the family.

I agree, this is very good of O'Reilly. He's not a Republican though. He's an independent, and as far as I'm concerned, quite annoying most of the time.

 

[SharonL]

I agree, this is very good of O'Reilly. He's not a Republican though. He's an independent, and as far as I'm concerned, quite annoying most of the time.

Thanks for the correction. I though he was a Republican for some reason. Yes I do find him annoying most of the time also.

 

[cybermom]

I do NOT understand how a person can say they worship and fear the Lord..and think he would approve of such disrespect to the neighbor he commanded them to love. It makes me so sad.

 

[JerryP]

I do NOT understand how a person can say they worship and fear the Lord..and think he would approve of such disrespect to the neighbor he commanded them to love. It makes me so sad.

Cyber, they just don't worship and fear YOUR or my god. This is another example of man using his god (NOT the same as ours - little do they know) to excuse their inexcusable behavior. Just think of all the people who believe their god tells them to kill anyone who simply doesn't follow the rules man made for their religion. The "worst" thing my god tells me to do is "convert" them and certainly without violence. Hopefully man will be able to work it out before it is too late (Iran will soon have nukes).

BTW, I don't think my god and your god are the same either. I believe each person has their own relation to their god and if it isn't good, it can be. Your and my relation to our gods (fortunately) is good.

 

[SharonL]

This church is full of nutbags! I have seen their leader and it is seriously a cult! They contact the media every time they protest a military funeral and I really think they do it for the reaction. Sad part is they are attacking men that have fought for our country. :nonod:These people do not represent Christians!
There is another group though that follows these guys around and they are called the Patriot Guard Riders. They are bikers that shield the mourning family from protesters. They are awesome!

-Patriot Guard Riders :thumb:

 

[servantofone]

Cyber, they just don't worship and fear YOUR or my god. This is another example of man using his god (NOT the same as ours - little do they know) to excuse their inexcusable behavior. Just think of all the people who believe their god tells them to kill anyone who simply doesn't follow the rules man made for their religion. The "worst" thing my god tells me to do is "convert" them and certainly without violence. Hopefully man will be able to work it out before it is too late (Iran will soon have nukes).

BTW, I don't think my god and your god are the same either. I believe each person has their own relation to their god and if it isn't good, it can be. Your and my relation to our gods (fortunately) is good.

I agree that what that church is doing is sick and wrong. However, your other points are misleading.

A religion doesn't have to be something that people made up about a god (although it could be), but rather it could actually be what a true God said about Himself. And if God does exist, which you seem to believe yourself, then I believe that he would communicate truth about Himself.

If that is true, then multiple people would have to believe the same things about the same God. If we both believe two different things, then logically, one of us would have to be wrong. Being wrong is not a good thing; nor is creating a god that fits your mold. Why worship something that you created rather than the Creator Himself? Only God is good.

 

[JerryP]

I do get your point BUT just as I believe that the smell of a rose is different for you than it is for me (both pleasant and never bad) I think that god is personal and communion with god an individual reality. I am sure that practically no one would agree with me (which is fine) but my god is supreme and as such doe not desire worship or adoration. In fact, if my god were to exhibit any of the petty foibles of homosapiens I would know he were not my god. My spiritual goal it to live a good life and aspire to imitate god.

For the sake of discussion, I absolutely agree that god is good. In fact I'm pretty sure all people of all religions (except the evil worship ones) attribute all good things happening to them as "from" their god. But where do bad things come from? Let's take an "act of god" such as the Haiti or Chile earthquakes. That was not good, at least IMHO. If that were an "act of god" why was it people prayed for help from god instead of simply asking him to stop. Maybe they are being punished and instead of "mercy" they really need to figure out what it was they were doing to PO their god and how they are going to change what they are doing and stop doing that. It is impossible for me to accept a concept of god that includes punishment, revenge, restitution, and adulation and encourage man to harm man in any way. It just seems so below an almighty, all powerful, a knowing and all loving God. As far as communication goes, my god communicates to me in everything I do and see and does not require anyone else as a relay, conduit or interpreter.

 

[JerryP]

-Patriot Guard Riders :thumb:

Thanks. It's nice to know there are such groups. We don't hear enough about such (guess it doesn't sell papers or air time).

 

[servantofone]

Let's take an "act of god" such as the Haiti or Chile earthquakes. That was not good, at least IMHO. If that were an "act of god" why was it people prayed for help from god instead of simply asking him to stop. Maybe they are being punished and instead of "mercy" they really need to figure out what it was they were doing to PO their god and how they are going to change what they are doing and stop doing that.

It's not necessary to think of it as God punishing Haiti for doing something evil. I'd like to know how those who claim this, know this is a fact. However, from a Christian perspective, I would say that all that is wrong in the world is a result of sin's curse. When man sinned, sin was passed onto all men and death through sin. Evil things that happen in the world were introduced into the world when man originally sinned. So earthquakes are just reminders that something is wrong with the world. The world is in need of a Savior from sin and death. Christians are waiting on the return of the promised Messiah. When He comes, He will reverse the curse of sin and the last enemy he will crush is death.

It is impossible for me to accept a concept of god that includes punishment, revenge, restitution, and adulation and encourage man to harm man in any way. It just seems so below an almighty, all powerful, a knowing and all loving God..

The logic here doesn't make much sense to me. If your employer suddenly decided to forgo paying you for two weeks of work you had done, would you just shrug it off? I think not. You would demand that you were payed for the work that you did. You deserve to be paid because you worked; and it is only right that you be paid.

You believe in a god that is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, and almighty, right? If this god of yours is all in all, then what would be wrong with him demanding worship and adoration? If he is all in all, he deserves worship and there is nothing sinful about receiving and asking for what is justly his.

As far as communication goes, my god communicates to me in everything I do and see and does not require anyone else as a relay, conduit or interpreter.

No offense, but that's why this discussion won't work. You can change or alter who your god is whenever you please. There is really no way we can debate who god is if your god changes as quickly as you change your mind.

Just for the fun of it though, I'll drop you a few lines about the God I serve.

My God is all in all. He created all things and is worthy and deserving of all worship. Even though man rejected God and instead lusted after the god of their own appetite, God promised a Savior to redeem mankind. And while we were still sinners, the promised Savior died in our place. Taking our sin upon His own body He died and was buried, and our sin was buried with Him. Three days later, the impossible happened. That Savior bodily rose from the dead. The grave could not hold Him, and He conquered death, which is the ultimate end of sin. And it is in His life that we as mortals can find new life. "By confessing our sin He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." One day our Savior will return and will right this world, removing the curse of sin. The resurrection of the Messiah is proof positive that God can overcome even death.

And all of this was God's plan, not mine. I can't put God on a leash.

 

[precocious]

Sometimes....bad things just happen to good people.....God is there to help you with it, if you chose to seek His help.

 

[JerryP]

... this discussion won't work. You can change or alter who your god is whenever you please. There is really no way we can debate who god is if your god changes as quickly as you change your mind.

Just for the fun of it though, I'll drop you a few lines about the God I serve.

You're totally correct. The discussion won't work although exchanging thoughts with you is enjoyable and stimulating. And I know that you exhibit no offense toward me and you realize the same of me.

My only difficulty with your God is that (which BTW I truly believe - really - is the same as mine, in spirit) is that everything "known" about Him is just what we have been told by man. The defense of the validity of this being the truth is only another man saying that it is true and the scriptures have been written, translated, altered, changed etc. innumerable times. As such, what makes what I say (or you say) any less true. None can tell.

This leaves me with the simple deduction that man is potentially an all good spirit (created in the likeness of god?) since I observe some men being more "god-like" (good) that others less god-like (evil). I can experience this and as such I conclude that I should endeavor, personally, to become more close to and improve my inner goodness.

It matters not who has said what in the past, who has written what in the past, who has said so and so has happened in the past, I need to live for today to improve my worth into tomorrow to become more connected to God.

Incidentally, as well as you and I exchanging views on this matter I like to think that others reading this will be inspired to search their own souls to improve their own convictions.

 

[spazntwitch]

Guys and gals, thanks for keeping this discussion civil.

 

[servantofone]

You're totally correct. The discussion won't work although exchanging thoughts with you is enjoyable and stimulating. And I know that you exhibit no offense toward me and you realize the same of me.

Very good. Too often people are offended by differences. You've never been that way. I like people that can disagree with civility.

My only difficulty with your God is that (which BTW I truly believe - really - is the same as mine, in spirit) is that everything "known" about Him is just what we have been told by man. The defense of the validity of this being the truth is only another man saying that it is true and the scriptures have been written, translated, altered, changed etc. innumerable times. As such, what makes what I say (or you say) any less true. None can tell.

The scriptures being altered and changed is not a fair argument. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that what we have today in the Old Testatment is the same as what they had 2,000+ years ago. That's pretty amazing accuracy at copying.

Besides, we believe in an Almighty God, do we not? Why would it be so hard for Him to communicate something, have it written down, and then proceed to preserve its accuracy through time? I have to think, that if there is a God, He would communicate to mankind. And if He would communicate to mankind, then I look for that communication. I find it in the Bible. That logic is not far fetched. It's harder for me to believe in an Almighty God that gives no direction to man.

This leaves me with the simple deduction that man is potentially an all good spirit (created in the likeness of god?) since I observe some men being more "god-like" (good) that others less god-like (evil). I can experience this and as such I conclude that I should endeavor, personally, to become more close to and improve my inner goodness.

I find the opposite being true. Man seems to be depraved if left to his own ways.

Incidentally, as well as you and I exchanging views on this matter I like to think that others reading this will be inspired to search their own souls to improve their own convictions.

Just so it is known, I'm less interested in improving my own convictions or anyone else's, but rather, finding truth. Conviction about something that is false will just lead to further deception.

I'd like to find a way to continue this discussion, but I don't think we can do so without establishing some common ground. The first thing we need to agree on is this:

1. Is there absolute truth about God or is it all relative? I'm arguing from the point of absolute truth and you seem to be approaching it from relative truth. Let's try to find a point of agreement here and build up from there. Otherwise we'll be like two men arguing about the rules of a game, while meanwhile one is holding a tennis racket and the other a football. Is there such thing as truth?

 

[servantofone]

Guys and gals, thanks for keeping this discussion civil.

Thanks for keeping a civil eye on us.

 

[JerryP]

I'm think'n .... The difficulty for me is that I think your absolute truth is more what I would contend to be an agreed upon truth or a community truth. Wouldn't non-Christian (Asian, Middle East, Far Eastern) religions tend to feel that what their community agrees is true or their prophets told or handed down to them feel the same? I'm sure there is an absolute truth about God or maybe that God is simply absolute truth. I am quite confident that you and I subscribe to parallel, not exactly the same, moral and ethic codes. I follow the 10 commandments (even relatively as you say, the ones referring to God and if I were to confess I covet my neighbors iPad), I love my neighbor, I live a good life, etc... Unfortunately, and becasue of the variety of religions, somebody is wrong and maybe all are wrong. There seems to be no way to prove it. There are certainly glib ways to answer the question of why would God do this? but none are terribly satisfying to me.

I don't see that we can compare "belief". You believe what you believe about God, I believe what I believe about God. The only common ground is that we have "belief" itself. I would like to think that my belief is only my idea but that would be patently untrue. My belief, although I think quite sane, logical and quite religious cannot help to have been influences by The Bible, Buddhist scripture (I practiced) and even Sherlock Holmes, Mark Twain and Dan Brown (The Lost Symbol) etc... Yet for me it is all philosophical fodder and does not require belief.

I feel that in our discussion we are metaphorically holding hands (which is pleasant) but we will never be any closer than that and as reluctant as I am to let go if the warm conversation, mainly becasue it IS good, we must let it go.
Godspeed.

 

[servantofone]

I'm think'n .... The difficulty for me is that I think your absolute truth is more what I would contend to be an agreed upon truth or a community truth. Wouldn't non-Christian (Asian, Middle East, Far Eastern) religions tend to feel that what their community agrees is true or their prophets told or handed down to them feel the same? I'm sure there is an absolute truth about God or maybe that God is simply absolute truth.

Absolutely, everyone feels what they believe is truth or they wouldn't believe it. But that's not what I'm trying to get at here. What I'm trying to establish is, whether or not there is an absolute truth regardless of differeing opinions about it.

Please reference my attached image at the bottom of the page so I can explain this better. Obviously, someone with Idea A or Idea B thinks that they are correct, but when you compare that to the truth, only C is correct... do you follow?

Could you apply the same concept to God? I believe you can. We may never be able to agree on what that truth actually is, as we each have our own ideas and reasons for reaching that conclusion. But since Truth exists, we can debate as to which idea is correct and why. And we can know, when idea A and idea C are different, that only one can actually be correct.

Some people think that although Idea A, B, and C are not equal, when it comes to god, they are all truth, because truth is relative. They would tell me that my diagram is incorrect, because god is whatever truth you imagine him to be. What you think and I think are both correct.

So I'm just trying to find which boat you row in. I believe that absolute truth is the correct option. If we agree on that, I think we can build off of that to begin a discussion on how we arrive at our conclusions.

I am quite confident that you and I subscribe to parallel, not exactly the same, moral and ethic codes. I follow the 10 commandments (even relatively as you say, the ones referring to God and if I were to confess I covet my neighbors iPad), I love my neighbor, I live a good life, etc...

I would agree. Our moral codes are probably very similar. But that doesn't really matter so much to me. My concern is with how we decide who God is. We could both discuss purchasing a house. If I tell you that the house I'm looking at is green, and you tell me that the house you are looking at is also green, we can't immediately assume we are looking at the same house. My house may end up being a green houseboat and yours a green mansion. Why we would consider buying a green house is beyond me though... :thinking:

Unfortunately, and becasue of the variety of religions, somebody is wrong and maybe all are wrong. There seems to be no way to prove it. There are certainly glib ways to answer the question of why would God do this? but none are terribly satisfying to me.

Maybe all religions are wrong, that is a possibility that has to be considered. And each religion could have some truth and some error. That's also a possibility that has to be considered. I don't disagree. However, if we agree on the fact that there is a truth and two contradicting ideas about that truth cannot both be correct, then we could at least discuss why we chose an idea as being the truth.

I feel that in our discussion we are metaphorically holding hands (which is pleasant) but we will never be any closer than that and as reluctant as I am to let go if the warm conversation, mainly becasue it IS good, we must let it go.
Godspeed.

Fair enough. If you don't wish to continue, that is fine. I would enjoy finding a way to build up the discussion, but the choice is yours. No pressure.

 

[JerryP]

OK. Maybe the first thing to discuss is IF we will be able to discuss.

The premise that seems to make it most difficult to me is that opposed to empirical data, you subscribe to religious dogma. In the example you gave to support the validity of The Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls, I don't agree that because a book is old that it is truth. In fact there are innumerable parallels drawn to compare the religious dogma of the past 2000 yrs to earlier periods. A poor example is this site POCM Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth > POCM > Christianity is another ancient Pagan religion. but it illustrates my point.

Can this be overcome and once overcome doesn't that conclude all discussion since individual experience and observation is just that - individual? We can agree on what we THINK are similarities (subject to the limitations of words and language) but then what is beyond?

Maybe the subject needs to change or at least the god concept removed. Is there any absolute "truth"? As you aptly pointed out, truth to me IS relative. If there were a way to make truth absolute I'd want to next figure out how to bottle it.

 

[precocious]

If there were a way to make truth absolute I'd want to next figure out how to bottle it.

:shhh: Jerry, the Swedes already figured out how to bottle absolut....:wink:Ask diGriz, he'll tell you some truths! :tongue: Follow him in chant to the porcelain god.

Tell me you didn't see that one coming........:laugh:

 

[JerryP]

I'll drink to that!

 

[servantofone]

OK. Maybe the first thing to discuss is IF we will be able to discuss.

The premise that seems to make it most difficult to me is that opposed to empirical data, you subscribe to religious dogma. In the example you gave to support the validity of The Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls, I don't agree that because a book is old that it is truth.

I did not mean that the Bible is truth because it's old. I merely answered to the false remark you made that the Bible has been changed many times and is therefore inaccurate. Obviously the Old Testament has been copied extremely accurately for the past 2,000 years based on what was in the Dead Sea Scrolls which represents all but one book we have in our Old Testatment today. That doesn't mean it is truth, but it does mean that it hasn't changed in the past 2,000 years. That's all. Too many people want to say that the Bible has been changed constantly and it can't be trusted. That's not true. Whether or not it represents what God said is another debate and we can't get that far until we establish the #1 question.

Can this be overcome and once overcome doesn't that conclude all discussion since individual experience and observation is just that - individual? We can agree on what we THINK are similarities (subject to the limitations of words and language) but then what is beyond?

But you are acting as if the individual experience and observation doesn't describe the same thing. We could go to watch a movie together and come out of the theater with completely different observations and experiences about that movie. We are still describing the same movie though. So we could start narrowing down what we disagree on about the movie and why we came to those conclusions. Ultimately, since we are describing the same movie, when we disagree, we know one of us is wrong. However, this doesn't work unless you believe in absolute truth (not alcohol).

Maybe the subject needs to change or at least the god concept removed. Is there any absolute "truth"? As you aptly pointed out, truth to me IS relative. If there were a way to make truth absolute I'd want to next figure out how to bottle it.

Can you explain to me how this works for you? You seem like you would debate facts, like is the Bible true, but if you don't believe in absolute truth, how can you ask that question? If anything about God is relative, then the Bible is true for me and not for you. And yet we are both correct. I however believe God is absolute. Opposing statements about God cannot both be true. Truth about God is an absolute.

Statement #1: God is perfect.
Statement #2: God is not perfect.

I believe that Statement #1 and #2 cannot both be true. One is truth and the other is error. If we disagree, we may not be able to prove one over the other, but one of us is still correct. Truth exists regardless of the ability to prove one statement over the other. The facts may not exist. You may need faith to believe. But we have to establish whether or not you can be boxed into an absolute truth model before debating facts. Otherwise, we'll be chasing our tails.