things we can agree are right/wrong no matter our religions/beliefs what can we agree on?

[ag_NO_stic]

14 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

Well there is always a way to explain something "calmly" and "politely",for example instead of focusing so much on the hell part,you could tell the individual "yes the gay lifestyle is wrong"and then explain why and leave it for them to deliberate on with a few scriptures concerning it to read if they want to concerning the quote gay lifestyle.

No need for shouting or forcing them to do something,why some don't do this as Christians is beyond me.

 

No, because no matter how you try to phrase it or "focus on other parts," we hear "God hates what you're doing, even though he apparently made you this way, and he will burn you up if you don't repent." There is no way to explain "why the lifestyle is wrong" without speaking on god's behalf, which you can't do. God can say it himself if it's a problem. Furthermore, if I say to you "yeah, your christian lifestyle is wrong and hell isn't real," you don't give two shits. So what gives?

[Joefizz]

5 minutes ago, nutrichuckles93 said:

So you would actually be able to say now, "Hey, guys. What's up? Yeah, I'd stone my children if god was adamant in telling me to." I hope somewhere in you that you realize how revolting that is.

Considering that your scenario implies no seriousness concerning the topic of stoning children,no I wouldn't say that.

[nutrichuckles93]

4 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

Considering that your scenario implies no seriousness concerning the topic of stoning children,no I wouldn't say that.

Ohhhhh. I see what you're saying. So because the scenario wouldn't come up where you would greet someone with remarking that you'd stone kids, that automatically means that this basis of what I was saying, that you could now tell someone there exists a situation in which you'd stone kids, is invalidated. I gotcha now. My mistake.

[ag_NO_stic]

Just now, Joefizz said:

Considering that your scenario implies no seriousness concerning the topic of stoning children,no I wouldn't say that.

 

........I can mildly not like tomatoes, I can strongly dislike tomatoes....I can seriously loathe even the thought of tomatoes....but when it comes down to it, I either eat them or I don't. My intentions don't mean shit. In earlier rape scenario....I can hate the thought of rape and and give it all the serious contemplation in the world.....but either I rape or I don't.

[Joefizz]

6 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

No, because no matter how you try to phrase it or "focus on other parts," we hear "God hates what you're doing, even though he apparently made you this way, and he will burn you up if you don't repent." There is no way to explain "why the lifestyle is wrong" without speaking on god's behalf, which you can't do. God can say it himself if it's a problem. Furthermore, if I say to you "yeah, you're christian lifestyle is wrong and hell isn't real," you don't give two shits. So what gives?

teaching about the quote gay lifestyle being wrong is for a purpose of helping someone,telling someone about their lifestyle being wrong outright is for a purpose of hurting someone.

[ag_NO_stic]

Just now, Joefizz said:

teaching about the quote gay lifestyle being wrong is for a purpose of helping someone,telling someone about their lifestyle being wrong outright is for a purpose of hurting someone.

 

.....When I teach someone, I am telling them information. Your statement is contradictory. And you can't prove it's wrong. At the absolute most, you can say "This book says that god told someone to write down that being gay is wrong." This proves neither that it is wrong nor that god actually said it.

[Joefizz]

1 minute ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

.....When I teach someone, I am telling them information. Your statement is contradictory. And you can't prove it's wrong. At the absolute most, you can say "This book says that god told someone to write down that being gay is wrong." This proves neither that it is wrong nor that god actually said it.

Not really common sense can be used too to determine it is wrong.

[ag_NO_stic]

Just now, Joefizz said:

Not really common sense can be used too to determine it is wrong.

 

Wrong.

[midniterider]

9 hours ago, Joefizz said:

Well I didn't say ignore them,what I mean to say is that the old law could not be followed entirely by "all people"and with Jesus dieing for "Everyone's sin" as well as fulfilling the old law,there is still incentive that one shouldn't go against those commandments of the old law,but Jesus provided "Everyone" with a new way to abide by the old law as well as the statutes Jesus gave in the new testament, instead of everyone trying so desperately to abide by the old law,Matthew 22 verses 36-40 he was asked by a lawyer "which  is the greatest commandment"?

he replied"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,and with all thy soul,and with all thy mind."

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it,Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets".

Meaning if one can abide by these two commandments then they abide by "All" the commandments and statutes in both the old and new testament.

Which is why I imagine so many people today feed people the line that loving Jesus is how to be saved, they confuse salvation with upholding God's commandments,and also why Christianity has become so "popular" because it does sound rather easy right?

Love God with all your being,and love your neighbors as yourself,certainly sounds less tough by comparison to many other religions,so lots of people switch over even without changing their ways,like my uncle who is proudly quote gay and is always posting about Jesus being his saviour on facebook,as much as that is strange to me that sort of lifestyle is between him and God and I'm not about to forbid him from doing what he believes to be right,after all he shares posts in the name of Jesus so it can only help Jesus.

 

You didn't mean ignore, you meant...ignore.

 

Matthew 5:

¹⁷ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

¹⁸ For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

¹⁹ Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

Heaven and earth have not passed. Are you teaching us to ignore Mt 5:19? If so you are, then you shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. 

 

Mt 5:19 "Whosoever"....that means Anyone and Everyone. Joe is not excluded.

[Travi]

18 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

Not really common sense can be used too to determine it is wrong.

Common sense is someone be able and allowed to love whomever they wish. My cousin is gay, yet is a devout believer. He obviously read what the bible supposedly said on the topic, yet - he is a man of god. 

 

You are really grasping at straws here. 

[ag_NO_stic]

7 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

You didn't mean ignore, you meant...ignore.

 

Matthew 5:

¹⁷ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

¹⁸ For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

¹⁹ Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

Heaven and earth have not passed. Are you teaching us to ignore Mt 5:19? If so you are, then you shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. 

 

Mt 5:19 "Whosoever"....that means Anyone and Everyone. Joe is not excluded.

 

Methinks a potential false teacher? He's already talked about children getting into heaven without accepting Christ as their Savior...

[Joefizz]

2 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

You didn't mean ignore, you meant...ignore.

 

Matthew 5:

¹⁷ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

¹⁸ For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

¹⁹ Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

Heaven and earth have not passed. Are you teaching us to ignore Mt 5:19? If so you are, then you shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. 

 

Mt 5:19 "Whosoever"....that means Anyone and Everyone. Joe is not excluded.

No I wouldn't teach anyone to ignore Matthew chp.5 as I said the law was fulfilled not done away with and have spoken on many times that it is spiritually good if one can abide by one of the commandments of the old law or more,what I'm getting at is that the law doesn't condemn anyone unto death as it did before Jesus came,so if a person were to be in violation of the old law they are not to be killed for that violation,because it is to be understood that God is long suffering for all to be led to repentance,so if everyone died by way of the law then it would make Jesus's crucifixion and fulfilling of the law,of no effect,it doesn't mean we aren't held accountable for our trespasses,it means in a more simple stand point if we do something that is against the old law then we should not expect death for our trespass nor should we seek to kill those whom trespass,for example one of the commandments is to not covet(lust or desire that which is not ours) many people covet yet you don't see them dropping down dead because the commandment is no longer unto death if one trespasses against it.

that's what I was trying to establish.

[ag_NO_stic]

Just now, Joefizz said:

No I wouldn't teach anyone to ignore Matthew chp.5 as I said the law was fulfilled not done away with and have spoken on many times that it is spiritually good if one can abide by one of the commandments of the old law or more,what I'm getting at is that the law doesn't condemn anyone unto death as it did before Jesus came,so if a person were to be in violation of the old law they are not to be killed for that violation,because it is to be understood that God is long suffering for all to be led to repentance,so if everyone died by way of the law then it would make Jesus's crucifixion and fulfilling of the law,of no effect,it doesn't mean we aren't held accountable for our trespasses,it means in a more simple stand point if we do something that is against the old law then we should not expect death for our trespass nor should we seek to kill those whom trespass,for example one of the commandments is to not covet(lust or desire that which is not ours) many people covet yet you don't see them dropping down dead because the commandment is no longer unto death if one trespasses against it.

that's what I was trying to establish.

 

Did you even read what I posted about the fulfillment of the law? I swear, why do I even bother...

[Joefizz]

27 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

Methinks a potential false teacher? He's already talked about children getting into heaven without accepting Christ as their Savior...

Soooo you believe that children are capable of doing wrong and being aware of it at even infancy and so commit sin,and end up in hell instead or is purgatory to be assumed instead of heaven if they die before being actually reasonably aware and accountable for their own actions!?

By process of elimination of course.

[ag_NO_stic]

12 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

Soooo you believe that children are capable of doing wrong and being aware of it at even infancy and so commit sin,and end up in hell instead or is purgatory to be assumed instead of heaven if they die before being actually reasonably aware and accountable for their own actions!?

By process of elimination of course.

 

Lol no, I don't believe any of that shit.

 

I don't believe in heaven, hell, or sin. But you worship a god who, according to the bible's perspective, will allow a baby to be conceived knowing full well he will give the baby cancer, let it die and send it straight to hell, so good luck with that. Scripture is clear: You must accept Jesus to be saved and offers no "Unless you don't understand it" exception. Any other beliefs about babies going to heaven are just to make you feel better about the god you worship and the hell he created.

 

As I said in a previous post (again, why do I bother), there is no biblical evidence of "age of accountability" except for a passage (In the OT, so....is it applicable to you?) where David asserts that he will see his sin baby (because god killed it) in heaven again one day. 

 

Look at your moral code fighting against the bible and screaming to be heard again.

[♦ ficino ♦]

2 hours ago, Joefizz said:

Yeah anything can be used for evil,scriptures even,alot of things can be more good when you think on appropriate ways to handle things like in what you shared,quote gay people is a tense subject for Christians such as myself because on one hand you don't want to hurt their feelings but you feel you should mention how biblically it's wrong,I've found it's better to not rail on them with scripture but rather if they "want" to learn of if their chosen lifestyle is wrong then you speak on scripture and explain "calmly" and "politely" about why it is wrong otherwise you can end up spiralling them into depression or inspire more wrong behavior,as you said happened in your circumstance,mutual respect has it's place when discussing any subject.

I've thought about your response a little more, Joe, and I think again you're obfuscating, perhaps without realizing it. The issue brought up by buffetphan in her thought experiment is the CONTENT of Christianity's moral system literally construed. Whether someone speaks nicely or insensitively is not at issue. What's at issue is moral and political positions that are justified by appeal to what someone interprets as God's will.

 

It sounds as though you think the thing to criticize in my story is that I didn't do it right - as though if only I'd spoken to the young man the way you or someone in your church would have spoken to him, maybe it would have been respectful and right. You really don't know the HOW I spoke with him. As I remember, I was calm and respectful, but clear about what I thought the Bible means. What I fault in myself as I look back on it was my action to further a system that makes cruel and unjust demands.

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

5 hours ago, Joefizz said:

Well no I would not disobey I would seek an audience with God first about the matter and plead for the lives hanging in the balance, fasting and praying as well,and then if the answer was from God to still proceed then I would obey knowing that I had done all I could to spare my children's lives.

 

So you would question God?

[buffettphan]

4 hours ago, buffettphan said:

 

Niiiiiice.  You would obey imaginary voices in your head and kill a real live human being - your very own child!   Having children made me realize that I was a better, more loving parent than "god" because I would never murder my children nor put them in a fiery hell for all eternity simply for disobeying or rejecting me.   You need to grow up JoeFizz.   If you can't or don't want to grow up or seek psychiatric help, then please PLEASE never have children.  There are already too many children abused in the name of their parents' god.   

 

@Joefizz    What?  You've been on this thread since my earlier comment^^, yet you have no reply to it?  I guess murdering one's own child does not qualify for your OP of "things we can agree are right/wrong no matter our religious/beliefs"

 

Talk about wearing god goggles--you've got some mighty thick ones.   

 

[Joefizz]

1 hour ago, buffettphan said:

 

@Joefizz    What?  You've been on this thread since my earlier comment^^, yet you have no reply to it?  I guess murdering one's own child does not qualify for your OP of "things we can agree are right/wrong no matter our religious/beliefs"

 

Talk about wearing god goggles--you've got some mighty thick ones.   

 

This thread of"things we can agree are right/wrong no matter our religious beliefs" has been derailed here and  there but at least it has been some interesting discussion.

Actually I answered your original question about stoning children twice not in the way you prefer because I see life or death as not an immediate or simple yes or no question to answer,we are obviously divided on this topic because you pretty much toss around the idea like it's nothing,yet somehow I'm criticized for being "Serious","Honest"'and "valueing life" yet somehow just because as a devout servant of God that after establishing that I would do all I could for my children to be spared,I would await and then follow God's orders,which no surprise that God is seen as cruel when he would only bring such a matter up if my children were beyond correction which I don't see happening,satan on the other hand would promptly try to tempt someone to go and stone whoever for the smallest wrong, sure God tempted Abraham concerning his allegiance with Isaac being nearly sacrificed yet he had Abraham stop and God "changed his mind and order"

I see most everyone's point on "killing children being wrong" but stoning is a form of judgement/comdemning not a flat out killing spree as some seem to make it out to be,the likelihood of God actually asking someone to stone anyone in today's time is 0% because he didn't have Jesus die for everyone's sins to have everyone still die under the law of commandments and prophets,so in a sense it's rather a redundant question because I wouldn't face such a circumstance as stoning my own children in today's time if this were before Jesus was born then their would be a probability but I count my blessings that I won't have to suffer that situation,ever.

[buffettphan]

2 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

This thread of"things we can agree are right/wrong no matter our religious beliefs" has been derailed here and  there but at least it has been some interesting discussion.

Actually I answered your original question about stoning children twice not in the way you prefer because I see life or death as not an immediate or simple yes or no question to answer,we are obviously divided on this topic because you pretty much toss around the idea like it's nothing,yet somehow I'm criticized for being "Serious","Honest"'and "valueing life" yet somehow just because as a devout servant of God that after establishing that I would do all I could for my children to be spared,I would await and then follow God's orders,which no surprise that God is seen as cruel when he would only bring such a matter up if my children were beyond correction which I don't see happening,satan on the other hand would promptly try to tempt someone to go and stone whoever for the smallest wrong, sure God tempted Abraham concerning his allegiance with Isaac being nearly sacrificed yet he had Abraham stop and God "changed his mind and order"

I see most everyone's point on "killing children being wrong" but stoning is a form of judgement/comdemning not a flat out killing spree as some seem to make it out to be,the likelihood of God actually asking someone to stone anyone in today's time is 0% because he didn't have Jesus die for everyone's sins to have everyone still die under the law of commandments and prophets,so in a sense it's rather a redundant question because I wouldn't face such a circumstance as stoning my own children in today's time if this were before Jesus was born then their would be a probability but I count my blessings that I won't have to suffer that situation,ever.

 

@Joefizz

 

[Joefizz]

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

So you would question God?

Is that impossible somehow?

As I recall Abraham questioned and pleaded with God multiple times on the matter of him destroying the city of sodom and gomorrah,granted that I'm not a future leader of nations as Abraham was, but I for one wouldn't just give up so easily on changing God's mind by way of reason on any matter concerning my wife children or family if he ordered me to have a part in an order concerning them,because someone dieing from illness or old age is one thing,and  I can accept such things as being a person's time of passing away,but putting me personally in the matter is totally different,I would offer my life up to God before I would let God go through with hurting or killing any family especially my children by any means,if my. children were to be killed even justifiably  by God I would rather him wait until I was dead so I wouldn't witness their deaths.

[sdelsolray]

The squeaker in this new chew toy is already broken and the stuffing is falling out.

[Joefizz]

let me see if I can get this thread back on track again...

It is "wrong "to rig a machine so that noone can win from it after paying money for a possibility to win a prize.

[ag_NO_stic]

23 minutes ago, Joefizz said:

let me see if I can get this thread back on track again...

It is "wrong "to rig a machine so that noone can win from it after paying money for a possibility to win a prize.

 

Try answering posts first. You've ignored several of mine. I'm almost done here, considering my effort is completely ignored and overlooked. 

[nutrichuckles93]

Of course, you'd rather dodge the issues at hand than confront what your religion is about. Anything to keep your god on his pedestal and protect his ego from blame and bruising.