Creating a New Nation! The New C.S.A. (2)

[Nathan Poe]

Good point. I would have to give the girls a health plan if it is legal, that would cut into the profit margin. But that would mean happy employees, and even happier customers. Happier customers = more money.

Let's not forget taxes. On the plus side, I'm sure condoms, lubricants, Viagra, and chocolate syrup can all be deducted as business expenses.

And of course, regulating the industry does result in a higher quality product, meaning more satisfied customers, meaning more repeat business, meaning more money.

The Nevada ranches are a prime example of legalized prostitution working pretty darn well.

 

[Gremlins]

Q. If all you liberals believe that because Jesus rose from the dead, that that canceled completely the entire Old Testament; then can you explain this.

Is it now perfectly fine to have other gods before YHVH?

Is it now perfectly fine to make graven images and worship them?

Is it now perfectly fine to take the LORDS name in vain?

Is it now perfectly fine to not take a day to rest and worship.

Is it now perfectly fine to not honor your father and mother?

In your opinion, these are all no-no's. BUT BUT BUT, because you live in a country with freedom of conscience and of religion, you can live this way without forcing other people to do the same. Just how you wouldn't like to be forced to pray five times a day facing Mekkah, non-Christians might not want to be forced to live the way you do. I realise the first generation of fundies in the CSA might be ok with following your insane laws, but what about the next generation? They have just as much right to live there as their parents (freedom of movement means the freedom not to have to move if you don't want to), but with what you cutely call "modified democracy" (i.e. vetting out reformist candidates like for the Iranian Majlis) and "modified freedom of speech" (i.e. book burning and censorship), how would they be able to air their voices?

Is it now perfectly fine to murder?

Is it now perfectly fine to steal?

Hello?

These actually have a negative affect on society that is perceivable. The other ones don't. Also, implying that not murdering or stealing is impossible without Christian law is a fallacy and you know it.

Hello?

 

[Cabal]

Q. If all you liberals believe that because Jesus rose from the dead, that that canceled completely the entire Old Testament; then can you explain this.

Is it now perfectly fine to have other gods before YHVH?

Is it now perfectly fine to make graven images and worship them?

Is it now perfectly fine to take the LORDS name in vain?

Is it now perfectly fine to not take a day to rest and worship.

Is it now perfectly fine to not honor your father and mother?

Is it now perfectly fine to murder?

Is it now perfectly fine to steal?

Noone ever said they were now. The PENALTY is different - that is, now we have repentance and grace and eternal life - otherwise civil legal consequences in this life and possibly eternal death in the next.

As opposed to an automatic death sentence in this life.

VII. THE APPLICATION OF GOD'S LAW TO CIVIL JUSTICE
In order to more fully comprehend the issue at hand, it is important to understand the historical divisions of God's law. To aid our understanding, God's law has been divided into three categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. This division is found in our Westminster Confession

Woh, WOH. So here we see the fatal flaw (correction, yet ANOTHER fatal flaw). You're using sources other than the Bible to justify this.

When Paul speaks about the role of law in the book of Romans, he DOES NOT differentiate between these three apparent types.

And the irony of using one particular doctrine's dogma to justify your position hasn't escaped you at all then? How about answering my questions (and those of others)? Why do you then expect fascist-enforced conformity in Christianity to work when the sheer number of denominations in the world today show that unity in the Church isn't our best trait? It would be a pointless and avoidable bloodbath because you would have to quell the inevitable dissension/uprising/armed revolution.

Although this statement from our Confession seems hopelessly confusing, a bit of careful thinking should clear the fog. First, it CANNOT mean that it is God's intent for the judicial law not to be applied at all. This would mean that the State is not under God in any way and implies that the Bible has nothing to say at all about penal justice. This is absolutely unconscionable and I cannot understand how any Christian could advocate such a monstrous position.

Again, not what we're advocating. We simply maintain that the penalty for these acts (which are still sinful under God) have been altered. You've created a total strawman because we never said the Bible had nothing to say about penal justice. We just don't believe in immediately slaughtering anyone who puts a foot wrong ACCORDING TO YOU without chance of appeal, or for actions which should not be capital crimes.

Secondly, if the judicial laws no longer apply in any way, how could any civil magistrate do his duty according to Romans 13? Romans 13:4 teaches us that it is the duty of the Civil Magistrate to be an avenger of God's wrath on the one who practices evil. How is a Civil Magistrate to carry out this duty without an absolute standard of what is good and evil?

Conscience, given by God?

Or - the civil law of the government, which was instituted by God.

Without biblical judicial law, it is up to the magistrate himself to determine what is good or evil. The magistrate or legislative body must then arbitrarily determine the punishment for criminal behavior.

Hence the checks and balances of DEMOCRACY - something your fascist police state would sorely lack.

Thus, King James I of England applied the death penalty for pickpocketing. An abandonment of theonomy leads to arbitrariness, tyranny and uneven punishment.

You owe me a shipment of irony meters.

It implies that God does not know what He is doing when it comes to civil law. Does any Christian really believe that better and more just laws can come from the minds of sinful, finite, fallen men? How absurd!! Christians who detest theonomy must understand that they are arguing against God.

So how do you reconcile your arguments with the fact that Jesus stated that a large portion of the Mosaic law was to placate the sinful desires of the Jews (cf. divorce fiasco)?

Is fallen man better equipped than God to write laws which restrain crime and more efficiently govern people?

Is one fallen man's maverick interpretation of scriptures, poorly backed up with ancient dogma from ONE Christian denomination any better?

Hardly.

SUPERCALIFRAGILISTICEXPIALIDOCIOUS

 

[Nathan Poe]

You know, for about 1600+ posts now, we haven't agreed on much regarding the C.S.A. -- SoF claims divine inspiration, the rest of us claim his utter psychosis, and we get nowhere.

That being said, SoF, I would like to tone down the emotions here for a moment and discuss this on a purely rational level -- I agree not to compare you to Hitler, or joke about your apparant desire to hang children, and in return, you concede that my thoughts on the Bible are worth listening to, despite my status as an unbeliever.

After all, as a Bible believer yourself, you do believe in absolute truths, do you not? You do believe that some things are just plain true no matter what their source is, don't you?

So, in the interest of holding out an olive branch, Shield, I offer this verse:

[bible]Isaiah 1:18[/bible]

And a simple question: If I could, using nothing but Reason and the Bible, show you why your C.S.A. is quite simply a bad idea, would you abandon it?

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

This is a repost...but as you'll see, it's just as topical now as it was when I posted it:

I've repeatedly posed the question of whether or not OT criteria for capital punishment would be applied in their entirety in the CSA, and SoF repeatedly dodges the question, or tries to obfuscate the issue with irrelevant Bible quotes and !!!!!God says I'm right, He does He DOES!!!!! "rebuttals."

So, SoF, here are the questions yet again:

1. Will the OT be the sole source of law and be followed to the letter in the C.S.A.? This question should be answerable with a simple "yes" or "no," as either C.S.A. law = OT, or C.S.A. law ≠ OT.

2. If the answer to #1 is no, then on what basis and authority does SoF deviate from OT law?

I'm still waiting for an actual, original response (in other words, no cut-and-paste Scriptures) that addresses the questions. And judging from the mentality that SoF has displayed so far, I suspect I'll be waiting a long time for answers. SoF knows if he answers #1 "yes," then there's no difference between him and the fanatics that crashed airplanes into buildings on 9/11; both were "just following orders" from their holy books.

On the other hand, if SoF answers no, then all of his "my authority comes straight from God" rhetoric goes right out the window...

We're still waiting, SoF...

 

[ShieldOFaith]

You know, for about 1600+ posts now, we haven't agreed on much regarding the C.S.A. -- SoF claims divine inspiration, the rest of us claim his utter psychosis, and we get nowhere.

That being said, SoF, I would like to tone down the emotions here for a moment and discuss this on a purely rational level -- I agree not to compare you to Hitler, or joke about your apparant desire to hang children, and in return, you concede that my thoughts on the Bible are worth listening to, despite my status as an unbeliever.

After all, as a Bible believer yourself, you do believe in absolute truths, do you not? You do believe that some things are just plain true no matter what their source is, don't you?

So, in the interest of holding out an olive branch, Shield, I offer this verse:

[bible]Isaiah 1:18[/bible]

And a simple question: If I could, using nothing but Reason and the Bible, show you why your C.S.A. is quite simply a bad idea, would you abandon it?

Let us talk under the olive branch.

Abandon the idea of the New C.S.A.? Hum....

I don't see that happening; however, I'm willing to listen.

SOLA GRATIA.

 

[Nathan Poe]

(It's late, but I have a cold, so sleeping probably isn't going to happen anyway)

If you don't mind, Shield, I want to set some premises that I think we can all agree with:

First of all, Let's talk about those OT laws. You obviously hold the position that these laws came either directly from God (as in the case of the Ten Commandments) or indirectly from God (Written into the Torah by divinely inspired humans). Not being much of a believer myself, I would obviously disagree.

Which of us is right? For the purposes of this discussion, it does not matter.

I say it does not matter because what I would like to discuss here is not who wrote these laws, but why they were written.

With me so far?

I hope we can both agree that regardless of who wrote those laws (Man or God) it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to write laws that addressed problems which didn't exist -- particularly when most of those laws carried a death sentence. (Would you or anyone else waste time to write a law prohibiting the hunting of unicorns?)

Still with me here?

So, before the Law was given, can we both come to a reasonable conclusion that crimes such as the obvious ones -- murder, rape, theft -- as well as certain other specific crimes -- including but not limited to Idol worship, homosexuality, witchcraft, bestiality, incest, etc. -- were enough of a problem that somebody -- be it Man or God -- decided that enogh was enough, and stepped in as if to say, "All right, people, knock it off, already, or else!"

Let me stop here for now; I await your response. If you disagree with my premise so far -- that the OT laws were first written to deal with existing crimes in Ancient Hebrew society -- please let me know and we'll see if we can iron out any of the wrinkles.

SCIENTIA EST POTENTIA.

 

[ShieldOFaith]

(It's late, but I have a cold, so sleeping probably isn't going to happen anyway)

If you don't mind, Shield, I want to set some premises that I think we can all agree with:

First of all, Let's talk about those OT laws. You obviously hold the position that these laws came either directly from God (as in the case of the Ten Commandments) or indirectly from God (Written into the Torah by divinely inspired humans). Not being much of a believer myself, I would obviously disagree.

Which of us is right? For the purposes of this discussion, it does not matter.

I say it does not matter because what I would like to discuss here is not who wrote these laws, but why they were written.

With me so far?

I hope we can both agree that regardless of who wrote those laws (Man or God) it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to write laws that addressed problems which didn't exist -- particularly when most of those laws carried a death sentence. (Would you or anyone else waste time to write a law prohibiting the hunting of unicorns?)

Still with me here?

So, before the Law was given, can we both come to a reasonable conclusion that crimes such as the obvious ones -- murder, rape, theft -- as well as certain other specific crimes -- including but not limited to Idol worship, homosexuality, witchcraft, bestiality, incest, etc. -- were enough of a problem that somebody -- be it Man or God -- decided that enogh was enough, and stepped in as if to say, "All right, people, knock it off, already, or else!"

Let me stop here for now; I await your response. If you disagree with my premise so far -- that the OT laws were first written to deal with existing crimes in Ancient Hebrew society -- please let me know and we'll see if we can iron out any of the wrinkles.

SCIENTIA EST POTENTIA.

Very little time; work...

I understand where you are coming from. However, I think we might see two different sides of the coin here.

You are seeing it from purely mans perspective; I am seeing it mainly from GOD'S perspective.

Gotta go, will talk more.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Very little time; work...

I understand where you are coming from. However, I think we might see two different sides of the coin here.

But we're still looking at the same coin; that's what matters right now.

You are seeing it from purely mans perspective; I am seeing it mainly from GOD'S perspective.

Being a man myself and not a God, I find man's perspective a lot easier to see things from -- Not sure how you manage it the other way.

Furthermore, let's not forget that it is you, not God, seeking to establish the New C.S.A. for the purpose of enforcing these laws on your fellow citizens. Given that this whole discussion is in response to a human being seeking to impose these laws on other human beings, a human perspective seems more appropriate, IMHO.

That being said, my next premise actually is a bit about God's role in establishing the laws -- After all, the main laws were more or less no-brainers: Don't kill each other, don't rape each other, don't steal from each other. Just about every other, Non-Hebrew, society since the beginning of time figured those out without divine help.

From God's perspective, I would suggest that one of the reasons He was so adamant about the laws was to remind the Hebrews not only of their original Covenant, but of their more recent deliverence. Several times throughout the Torah, God reminds the Hebrews how it was He who rescued them from Egyptian slavery -- clearly He does not what them to forget that for a moment.

It doesn't take GOD's perspective to recognize quid pro quo when we see it: "I got you out of there; you owe be big time for that. You can make it up to me by following the laws I'm about to tell you..."

It's certainly not a coincidence that the laws God gave to them were, for the most part, clear, pragmatic, and helped the Hebrews survive and maintain their religious and cultural identity. They helped the Hebrews, and, let's face it, they helped God as well. God is, among other things, a pragmatist -- He knows that if His chosen people die off or abandon the Covenant, He's unemployed.

So while you may be seeing things from God's perspective, God Himself, it would seem, occasionally looking at things from a very human perspective -- a sensible thing to do when dealing with humans.

Gotta go, will talk more.

Later.

 

[mpok1519]

Have you read anything he has said? He knows the Bible so well and understands it very well, all the people against him keep bringing up things that make no sense and they don't even know the Bible. Your basically saying SoF knows nothing about the Bible and atheists know everything. I already disproved this with the Yibbum issue.

no, there are plenty of people out there who 'know the Bible' but are still sick and twisted human beings; being a religious scholar has nothing to do with one's conduct of character; you havn't disproved anything, but only have proven that SoF has mental issues and he seriously needs to get help before he becomes a harmful threat to himself or others.

Trust me, knowing a TON about religion does not make you a good person.

Anyone who advocates the mass execution of all homosexuals, drug doers, and disobidient women and children, is NOT a good person. I garauntee you that if you knew him in real life, you'd see someone totally different; a biggoted person who has uttered plenty of slurrs in his lifetime.

He doesn't know anything about the Bible obviously; he copy and pastes scripture as if he actually knows what God is saying. He speaks as if he has crawled around in God's mind, spoke to Him, had coffee, dinner and a round of Golf with Him, everyday for the past year, but we all know tis is complete crap. He doesn't know what God is thinking, He doesn't know what God is saying. He can only read an archaic transcript of what he THINKS God is saying, but interprets it with the one thing motivating his religion; hate.

His religions more about hate than love, which is what Christ is for.

You cant genocide millions of people saying "Oh, we love them, so we have to save them from their sinful lifestyles!"

Also, I want to hear what he has to say about a widowed woman being forced to marry her brother in law....and what if the bro in law wants marriage but she does not? Well, since the Bible is sexist, I'm sure it'd force the women to do whatever the man wants her to do.

this is the kind of nation SOF wants; the one where woman don't even have the choice to marry who they wants; where woman are secondclass citizens, as the Bible says they must be. (I know it doesn't, butpeople like SOF thinks men are more important than women)
-------------------


SOF<< you havt answered my question about women being forced to marry their brothers in law.

 

[GrayCat]

I just want to say Congrats to SoF for being respectful in the last couple posts. No yelling and no throwing Bible verses around. Much nicer to read through LOL

 

[Nathan Poe]

no, there are plenty of people out there who 'know the Bible' but are still sick and twisted human beings; being a religious scholar has nothing to do with one's conduct of character; you havn't disproved anything, but only have proven that SoF has mental issues and he seriously needs to get help before he becomes a harmful threat to himself or others.

I think we all have to agree that the Bible, being the most well-known book in human history, is without a doubt also the most exploited book in human history. It has been used to justify more atrocity than any other work.

Notice that I do not say used correctly or incorrectly, only used. History is full of tinhorn despots who have used their knowledge of Scripture, combined with the hoi polloi's ignorance of it, to push through all manner of abominations, all seeming to carry God's seal of approval -- none of it actually doing so.

Trust me, knowing a TON about religion does not make you a good person.

Agreed-- I would much rather deal with a person who knows a little religion and puts it into sincere practice, than someone who knows a ton of it and uses it to further his own ends.

Anyone who advocates the mass execution of all homosexuals, drug doers, and disobidient women and children, is NOT a good person. I garauntee you that if you knew him in real life, you'd see someone totally different; a biggoted person who has uttered plenty of slurrs in his lifetime.

Under normal circumstances, I'd agree that such a person is a raving lunatic. However, where religion is concerned, the situation is seldom normal. If there is a God, I think we can all agree that His defining gift to the human race is the ability to reason, and that as such, it is our moral responsibility to put that gift to use.

If people can reason themselves into believing that God wants so many people killed in His name, then it must be possible that such people can similarly reason themselves into realizing that their original position may have been mistaken.

With Reason comes humility -- the greatest, truest, and most useful humility of all: The humility to say, "But then again, I might be wrong."

My position is that anyone who lacks even this much humility has renounced the use of their reason, and as Thomas Paine put it, to argue with such people is "like giving medicine to the dead."

Now, I'm right now in the middle of a little thought experiment with SoF, and he seems to be telling me that he does posess this level of humilty, and thus, reason.

Condemning him as a complete kook has gotten nowhere: let's see if Reason fares any better.

He doesn't know anything about the Bible obviously; he copy and pastes scripture as if he actually knows what God is saying. He speaks as if he has crawled around in God's mind, spoke to Him, had coffee, dinner and a round of Golf with Him, everyday for the past year, but we all know tis is complete crap. He doesn't know what God is thinking, He doesn't know what God is saying. He can only read an archaic transcript of what he THINKS God is saying, but interprets it with the one thing motivating his religion; hate.

He does know quite a bit about the Bible, insofar as he knows what it says. Obviously we all disagree with him as to what it all means, but getting angry at him solves nothing.

Oh, sure, it's very satisfying to vent, but in the end, it turns into a shouting match: We shout, he shouts louder, we shout louder still... until the "winner" is nothing more than the last man to lose his voice.

What does this win? Absolutely nothing.

Clearly, SoF has reasoned to himself that the most draconian laws of the OT were such a good idea, that they need to be reinstated in the here and now. I'm curious as to how he followed that train of thought to where he is now. If, at any point along the way, SoF can be forced to see with unassailable logic where any one of his premises are incorrect, we'll have accomplished a lot more than we did in over 160 pages of back-and-forth name-calling.

Already, we've located something: SoF, being a human being, seeking to establish power over other human beings using a human institution (civil government) claims that he does so from GOD's perspective. I see this as a potentially fatal flaw in his reasoning -- perhaps, on examination, he will too.

Patience, mpok -- with patience and perseverence we just might break this dialectical deadlock.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I just want to say Congrats to SoF for being respectful in the last couple posts. No yelling and no throwing Bible verses around. Much nicer to read through LOL

Well, you do catch more flies with honey than with vinegar...

(although they'll eat anything you give them once you pull off their wings )

[BIBLE]Proverbs 15:1[/BIBLE]

 

[ShieldOFaith]

no, there are plenty of people out there who 'know the Bible' but are still sick and twisted human beings; being a religious scholar has nothing to do with one's conduct of character; you havn't disproved anything, but only have proven that SoF has mental issues and he seriously needs to get help before he becomes a harmful threat to himself or others.

Trust me, knowing a TON about religion does not make you a good person.

Anyone who advocates the mass execution of all homosexuals, drug doers, and disobidient women and children, is NOT a good person. I garauntee you that if you knew him in real life, you'd see someone totally different; a biggoted person who has uttered plenty of slurrs in his lifetime.

He doesn't know anything about the Bible obviously; he copy and pastes scripture as if he actually knows what God is saying. He speaks as if he has crawled around in God's mind, spoke to Him, had coffee, dinner and a round of Golf with Him, everyday for the past year, but we all know tis is complete crap. He doesn't know what God is thinking, He doesn't know what God is saying. He can only read an archaic transcript of what he THINKS God is saying, but interprets it with the one thing motivating his religion; hate.

His religions more about hate than love, which is what Christ is for.

You cant genocide millions of people saying "Oh, we love them, so we have to save them from their sinful lifestyles!"

Also, I want to hear what he has to say about a widowed woman being forced to marry her brother in law....and what if the bro in law wants marriage but she does not? Well, since the Bible is sexist, I'm sure it'd force the women to do whatever the man wants her to do.

this is the kind of nation SOF wants; the one where woman don't even have the choice to marry who they wants; where woman are secondclass citizens, as the Bible says they must be. (I know it doesn't, butpeople like SOF thinks men are more important than women)
-------------------


SOF<< you havt answered my question about women being forced to marry their brothers in law.

If you are going to go all liable and slanderous, and frothing at the mouth: at least get it right, man.

Your accusation of mass executions is an absolute lie. And you know it. It makes you feel good to slander someone, so you do it. Weak.

The truth is that if you were to create a NEW NATION, the optimum word being "NEW". NEW.

NEW. <===

"N". "E". "W". <=== this spells new.

You are probably unaware of this word. Here; I'll help you out:

new

/nu, nyu/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noo, nyoo] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, adverb, noun –adjective 1.of recent origin, production, purchase, etc.; having but lately come or been brought into being: a new book. 2.of a kind now existing or appearing for the first time; novel: a new concept of the universe. 3.having but lately or but now come into knowledge: a new chemical element. 4.unfamiliar or strange (often fol. by to): ideas new to us; to visit new lands. 5.having but lately come to a place, position, status, etc.: a reception for our new minister. 6.unaccustomed (usually fol. by to): people new to such work. 7.coming or occurring afresh; further; additional: new gains. 8.fresh or unused: to start a new sheet of paper. 9.(of physical or moral qualities) different and better: The vacation made a new man of him. 10.other than the former or the old: a new era; in the New World. 11.being the later or latest of two or more things of the same kind: the New Testament; a new edition of Shakespeare. 12.(initial capital letter

) (of a language) in its latest known period, esp. as a living language at the present time: New High German. –adverb 13.recently or lately (usually used in combination): The valley was green with new-planted crops. 14.freshly; anew or afresh (often used in combination): roses new washed with dew; new-mown hay. –noun 15.something that is new; a new object, quality, condition, etc.: Ring out the old, ring in the new.=================================================

Now I know this is a very hard concept to understand if you are not paying attention to what someone else is saying and you are just concentrating on frothing at the mouth and slandering the person who is trying to reason with you. It is very tough indeed. I understand that. When you don't listen to someone talking to you and all you are doing is nodding your head: but you are not listening to them; you are just putting together your rebuttal and not actually listening to what they are saying: you will miss easy concepts like "NEW".

"NEW"!

"NEW".

If you were to create <=== see.

Create something "NEW".

Start from scratch and create something "NEW". Leaving the old. Breaking away from the old. Fleeing from the old. Running completely in the other direction from the old. Then CREATING something "NEW"!!! WOW!

I know this concept is still very very hard for you to concentrate on. Because right now you have flown from this page and started to think about nothing but creative ways of trying to slander me.

"NEW" is nowhere on your mind.

"NEW" is not a concept that you can concentrate on because you are way to busy trying to look cool and call me names to make yourself look good. So you can not hear, see, think, upon the simple concept of "NEW".

"NEW" can not enter into your mind right now. Only cute little quips about insanity can occupy that mind of yours. You are so focused on the word "insanity" that no other word can come up and register into the front of your mind. You are so focused on how you can use the word "insanity" in a sentence without becoming boring; that the word "NEW" can not take center stage in your mind.

As one who drifts off the road because they are focused on something other than the road in front of them; so you can not steer your mind toward the simple concept of "NEW".

No matter how many times I explain the fact that if a group of people were to CREATE A NEW NATION FROM SCRATCH that it would not have to have "mass executions" to start it out; you can't get that concept. NO. This is due to your fixation on the word "insane". You love the word so much that you have to concentrate on this word and all else loses focus. Pure mental concentration on this one word captivates your mind and you can do nothing but fawn over it and love it and keep full mental focus on this word.

No human being can speak rational words or try to convey rational thoughts with you because your mind is dead set focused on one word and one word only. So your brain bars all attempts of others who try to convey to you some other word or concept.

This is truly very sad. Because you seem to be fairly bright. You would probably be able to have good conversations with others if you'd only have the ability to see past this one single word.

It would be wonderful to see you be able to understand the concept of "NEW". It would be a major break through. Some of us would actually be able to hold a conversation with you.

Ah! But alas, we can not do this.

So sad.

I really wish you could understand this simple concept of "NEW".

A NEW NATION STARTED FROM SCRATCH. WOW.

Unfortunately the above line in your mind looks like this:

A INSANE BOUT OF INSANITY, IS INSANE. CIAO.

This is very sad. To see the potential to carry on a good conversation turned into a waste of time. Sad.

I am very sad that I had to waste all this time writing this post. I am sad that nothing I said here will be read and understood by you. Sad.

SOLI DEO GLORIA.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Proverbs 15:1, Shield -- let it go, and let's stay focused.

 

[Wednesday]

Originally Posted by ShieldOFaith

If you are going to go all liable and slanderous, and frothing at the mouth: at least get it right, man.

It makes you feel good to slander someone, so you do it.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Meanwhile

SOF<< you havt answered my question about women being forced to marry their brothers in law.

It's about time you answered it.

 

[ShieldOFaith]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Meanwhile



It's about time you answered it.

My kettle is clean and good.

When said individual approaches with respect; then said individual will get an answer.

SOLI DEO GLORIA.

 

[Wednesday]

When you'll earn that respect, then you'll get it. You have done nothing to earn it.

 

[ShieldOFaith]

If you don't mind, Shield, I want to set some premises that I think we can all agree with:

First of all, Let's talk about those OT laws. You obviously hold the position that these laws came either directly from God (as in the case of the Ten Commandments) or indirectly from God (Written into the Torah by divinely inspired humans). Not being much of a believer myself, I would obviously disagree.

Which of us is right? For the purposes of this discussion, it does not matter.

I say it does not matter because what I would like to discuss here is not who wrote these laws, but why they were written.

With me so far?

I feel ya. However, Nathan Poe, this is really where the crux of this discussion lies, don't you think? The "WHO" is a very big factor here. I don't see us getting to "WHY THEY WERE WRITTEN" unless the "WHO" is going to be mentioned.

You see, I have a very difficult time with the "WHY" without the "WHO".

In other words, I believe that man outside of GOD would have just let anarchy go buck wild and we would have killed each other to the last man if there was no GOD. Which brings us to the whole Genesis 1:1 theme. I can not even believe that there is no GOD. No matter how hard I try, I could never in this life time not believe that GOD exists. Even if (gigantic IF) I were proven wrong about Christianity, I still would believe that there was some kind of God/s out there. Whether it was Hindu, Muslim, Native American, Aliens... I don't care what; I'd believe that someone/ something made us.

With that, I say once again that the "WHO" is more important than you think.

However, let us move forward if you will.

This is going to be a long and strange discussion.

SOLA GRATIA.

 

[Gremlins]

In other words, I believe that man outside of GOD would have just let anarchy go buck wild and we would have killed each other to the last man if there was no GOD.

Why? There's no evidence for this. Some kind of widescale organisation is needed once agriculture and irrigation are in widespread use, and once one group becomes well organised, it puts enough pressure on neighbouring groups that they follow the same path. Some kind of social organisation is objectively good (although actually early hunter-gathering communities were much more egalitarian). Why is some kind of God needed? How do you know God isn't an invention of those on top to control those below. Look at the evidence: in Hinduism, the cast system puts priests and kings on top, in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia (and China) government was a gift from the Gods, and the Emperor/Pharoah/King was an embodiment of the belief system. Look at the way the Vatican has sought to control Europe in the past.