True.

We live in mushrooms. We're bound to be a little loopy

The issue I find with some, not all, people who are anti-religious is when they ask me what my faith does for me. When I answer "It gives purpose in an otherwise pointless existence", the normal response insinuates that I am either akin to a child who doesn't want to grow up and get rid of his imaginary friend. Another response is so loaded with arrogance it's stifling. The assuming that I am enslaved, chained by our faith. That they, the non-religous, are somehow "better", as they are "unshackled". I try to avoid people like that.

@Milkgamer55 Haven't had the chance to read it.

@KaywinnitLee That too.

If it were false, it would still operate in a similar fashion as to what hysterical strength inhibitors do for us. Without the nerve blocks, our muscle will rip us apart. Throwing out God leads to the very real risk of people finding something else to Deify. Whether it be Race, culture, or Nation. When any stand as rivals to God, ruin follows. Whether it be ruin one's home, or worse, ones soul.

I'm not consumed by it. It I were to ponder where I'll end up, that is more time I invest in my own fears, instead of helping others or improving myself.

*less* time, sorry.

Milk, purgatory is basically where lukewarm moral people end up.

For a time, I should say.

Milk, Better to be one that is a fencesitter than a being driven by malice. But, I should elaborate, it is better to be a fencesitter, but never confuse "better" with best.

The best is to be a good person. Or at least pursue it with every fiber of your being.

When I mean "good", I mean acting in a manner closest to Christ that you can manage. It will always, of course, pale in comparison, that I don't dispute.

I can't do Christlike acts and think I did it on my own now can i? Christian doctrine states that all good comes from God and he shines out of us. It's similar to thinking that a mirror reflecting sunlight has its own separate illuminance, separate from the sun.

Only through Him can good be a tangible, true thing. Otherwise, it's simply social conditioning spawned by a bunch of nameless Bronze Age Semitic goat herders.

God is GOAT!!!!!!!!

Deus GOAT!!!!!!

If we did it to "be saved", it kills the purpose of the crucifixion.

If we had to ",buy our way into heaven", why on Earth did Christ die for us? Why have a friend pay your debt out of his love for you, than promptly pay it yourself when you have the "money", or "enough good deeds under your belt".

The buying into heaven part was a big reason why I was guarded around Catholic doctrine. Along with the reverence of Mary and the Saints. After several years, I've come to understand the Mary and Saints part better, where I don't see it as idolatrous.

Sadly, I think some well-meaning Christians mistake "carnal" for romantic love. Love in the marriage bed is never carnal. Rutting like an animal in heat, on the other hand,is.

On one of my previous messages, I used the analogy of Christ being a friend paying off a debt. I used that particular analogy because it was the first to come to mind. In actuality, the dynamic between Christ and man was never described in the context of a "friendship". For the relationship with God he is described as our "Father", and us His "Sons". The relationship between us and Christ, is described as that of a groom and bride. I'd wondered for quite some time why that was the case. It wasn't until I read CS Lewis's works called "The 4 Loves" that it made sense.

In CS Lewis's work, he describes the four different words for love in the Greek language. The first being Storge, family,... Philia, or friendship... Eros, or the love between partners... And Agape, or God's love for Man. Love itself.

He described philia as the most spiritual of loves. So, when philia corrupts, it corrupts the most spiritually

I'm probably not describing it well enough. I'd recommend looking up on YouTube "C.S Lewis Doodle". It has many of his works in an audio format. They helped me get through a very dark chapter in my life.

An inability to feel bad about the committing of heinous acts does not exempt you from being Damned. even the most morally decrepit of criminals understand that what they are doing is illegal, therefore wrong. Sociopaths, or those afflicted with psychopathy, are still perfectly able to understand the illegality of their actions.

To question whether said individuals are capable comprehending right and wrong, is to put them on a level similar to children, mental invalids, and domestic livestock. Meaning that they ought to be assigned caregivers or , in the case of the violently deranged, incarceration in a mental asylum.

For individuals who are genuinely mentally retarded or cognitively challenged, we as Christians and reasonable human beings

Who believe in the soul being the self, not the body, could not fault certain behavior by individuals who are trapped within the confines of their own body.

They are not any lesser than what we are simply because their flesh suit refuses to adhere to their commands. I did not think any less of Stephen Hawking because his body would not respond correctly. Nor do I think any lesser of a veteran who returns home bereft of limbs. one of my greatest fears is to suffer a debilitating brain injury that will render me trapped within my own body. only to be released by Death.

Most of the horrible things the media puts out is fear and rage porn, twisting our perception on how bad the world is.

The world is better now than what it was 100 years ago. If we held it to Heavans standard, of course it will always be found lacking. You can't compare a turd, no matter how well polished, to a diamond.

I'm assuming much of that stuff is cleverly omitting certain details to paint a bad picture of Mormons. (Not a Mormon, personally) It's akin to Antitheist jerks with a chip on their shoulders removing the context of the command from God to slaves to listen to your master. Using barebones amount of detail to say, "ooga booga, Christian say slave people must listen to master. Nasty slavers bad. Christians bad" *more cavenan noises*. It's insufferable when it's done to me, so I can assume it gets grating on other denominations.

I'm not making the assertion that Mormonism is either better or worse than my own doctrine, I'm simply noting my displeasure at individuals who professed to consider themselves "better" still conduct themselves in a more uncivil fashion.

I was merely making my opinion known about individuals that are not open to discussion. If somebody is quite civil with me I wouldn't care if they are completely antithetical to my beliefs.

I would appreciate that, thank you

Ask Arthur. Last I heard, he's chilling in Avalon.

Or Brian.

Arthur's Jewish incarnation.

Having an attraction to a man, as a man, is not necessarily a sin. It is the acting upon it. One could argue that homosexual attraction is a chemical imbalance or some other type of bodily corruption.

What I can't abide by, is an argument that, "it gives me happiness. How can I kind and loving God not want me to be happy? It must have just been some prudes that put that in the Bible. It can't be a good God's word." To act upon it and to justify it is a sin. Letting our desires stand as a rival to God is expressly forbidden. "If one does not hate his mother, his father, his wife and children, and even himself, he cannot be my disciple." The word "hate"in this context does not mean literally hate. It means to put it in its place. Not above its station. God commands that we do not hide the guilty from the law. I may have an obligation to my brother as he is my brother, but I cannot let that love for him stand in the way of me doing the right thing if he committed a horrific act. If my wife came down with a terrible illness, I must not rob a bank to get money to pay for her medical bills. I have no right to impose upon someone else. Homosexual behavior, or more specifically the toleration and justification of it, seeks usurp God's authority over love in the romantic sense. He bestowed upon us the gift of the transcendental manner in which a joining of humans can take us. If He gave the gift, he can also tell us what to do with that gift.

Or the proper manner in which to use the gift.

That is where it gets tricky. Homosexual behavior causes less of a material damage, but more of a spiritual damage. Much of my moral sensibilities balk at the idea of a government institution imposing upon somebody's private life. Yet, did Christ not say "Give unto Caesar what is his, and give unto God what is God's".

If there are laws of the land that stand as direct contradiction to God's law, are we not compelled to defy them? This country was built upon defiance of unjust behavior.

Please don't take what I'm saying to personally. This is a rather uncomfortable subject for me as I feel like I'm being pulled in two directions ethically.

Precisely.

If a moral codex of laws instituted by the government were to be enforced harshly, are the people who are following these laws virtuous by following them? Even if it is out of fear that motivates them, not righteousness? Nothing in the Bible ever demands that you follow God. it simply tells you what would happen if you defy him. You can choose to perfectly well not believe that he exists. Then, you have nothing to lose if you engage in behavior that is otherwise forbidden. only through the freedom of will can we ever know are true resolve of being virtuous people that try to live a christ-like life.

If I helped a homeless man, not expecting to get any pat on the back for doing so, would I be more virtuous than if I did it simply so I could stop my mother from demanding that I do so? Do I do it out of selfishness, or selflessnes?

At least in my own opinion.

Sexual activities would also expand to lusting after him. As it requires intent.

@White Feather The reason I used that analogy, is that if I only ever did objectively good acts for selfish means, what happens when I can levy help towards somebody but would get absolutely nothing out of it? I've tainted my soul with selfish desire.

If I wanted to force others to do good acts against their will, I would be committing a great horror on them. If they said no to it, but I demanded, and imposed otherwise, I have inadvertently bestowed upon myself the power of some moral busybody, caught up in the mad scramble of doing good acts to satiat some base hunger for God to consider me good. I may be closer to Heaven in my own eyes, yet be much closer to crafting a hell on Earth.

I need to go do some yard work, be back in a bit.

The Isaac part was about whether Abraham would submit his love for his son to his love and dedication to God. As I mentioned before, in some cases, such as my brother committing a horrible crime, I must "kill" my love for him, to do the right thing.

It was less about literally killing his son, but to not let love for his son cloud his covenant with God.

Through God's gift, Abraham was given a purpose in the world.

One of the greatest gifts a man can have is the opportunity to be a father.

The reason I think God was more "harsh" in the old testament, is the same reason that at times, a parent must be harsh with their young child. They must "demand" that their child listens to their instructions because they don't know better. Once a child reaches a certain age, they begin to understand the reasons behind such "tough love".

It wasn't until I was much older that I realized many of the things my parents did that I , at the time, thought was harsh, but turned out to shape me into a decent person. You can't forge a sword without getting a few times. I don't mean hitting in a literal sense though.

@White Feather I understand fully understand what you are saying. It was torturous for me to come to terms with the idea that I may need toss aside all my loves that I can see with my own eyes, for a God I have never seen. On the part of Jesus, he said he was the Son of God. One cannot be the son of a non-existent archetype. Either Jesus was a lunatic when he said he was the son of God, in which he should not have been executed and should be pitied. Or he was a liar, and deserved execution for being a rebel rouser. You can't say that you like Jesus, and yet want the security of having a grand purpose in the world without admitting that you're either listening to the words of a lunatic or a treacherous bastard.

The reason why I am guarded around the idea of the results mattering more in regards to moral acts, is that if it Western culture, specifically of the American variety, was the most stable and most productive one in the world, and required the deportation or elimination of individuals that would not adhere to it to survive, I would fight with every iota of my soul against it. even if it resulted in the death of my culture, my people, and my family.

None of those should ever stand as rivals to God, and righteousness.

To Deify any of the aforementioned things has always led to ruin. Nationalism that is not tempered by righteousness unleashes a horror of the likes of Nazi Germany. The deifying of race leads to a racialist ethic that would justify the extermination of other races to aid your own. And it frightens me that I can very easily use publicly available statistics to justify such a travesty.

I meant no offense. I have not use profanity. Although we may never see eye-to-eye, I very much appreciate this exchange. I thank you for that.

I just hope that you can understand that my beliefs don't come from hatred. As I know yours does not come from disdain of me.

Mo-me119, most level headed individuals like him that I've talked with adhere more towards the Golden rule. Do unto others as you would have done to you. I may not hold that as the moral sovereign of the world, but it is still, at the very least, a quite respectable ideal.

He has defended his view very admirably, unlike many Christians and non-believers that I've witnessed. This was a very good conversation.

Most definitely. I may conservative, but I find tribalism of a political nature to be insufferable

I don't doubt that there were a large amount of votes that were cast out of near animalistic hatred of the Party and their "I'll" or whatever the hell they call their rivals.

*Ilk*

Well gentleman, this was a sound investment of my time, but I must be off. Dinner awaits. Farewell.

It's 5:00 here.

Referencing God as the Father. And the militant atheist takes offense, while the agnostic looks on in concern

Capitalization of Father clued me in.

You're not wrong.

It is well. The last few years of not been "good" in the normal sense of the word. But, my faith is strong, my resolve unquenched.

I remembered the first time I dropped into this part of the server, fully expecting a bunch of keyboard warriors shit talking each other, with no coherency to be. I'm glad that I was pleasantly surprised. The talks here have helped me make my opinions known and I like to think I have helped others who may have been struggling.

A fitting end to this God awful year.

Please no.

Unless the laceration are on his head itself, concealed by his hair, it does sound rather odd.

Well, to be fair, it was referencing the badassery of crusaders.

The reason why they were so hawkish about keeping it in Latin, was translation concerns.

You can never enact equal outcome. Even twin brothers with the exact same upbringing will end up different.

The giving of charity requires one to be morally motivated to do so. The most common motivator was faith. That also happens to be more absent in our country as of late.

1776. Never put too much stoc
k into the esoteric things involving predicting things like "fortune telling". This extends to matters of a political nature.

On reincarnation, most of the religiouns that have this in their belief in the afterlife have it as a means to right past wrongs, or a type of penance for transgressions in a past life. That contradicts the Christian ethos of Christ dying for us *so* we would not have to "buy" our way, through good deeds, into heaven. That being said, I've humoured the idea on more than one occasion, despite not *truely* believing it to be true.

Something I never understood, why is there such a degree of hostility amongst some sects of Christianity? I understand back in the day, when the schism between the Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churchs in the 11th century. I understand the Creation of the Anglican Church. I understand the Protestant Reformation. I also understand the fragmenting of Protestant individuals into the later denominations such as Methodist, Baptist, etc., What still do not understand, is why on Earth do people still insist on using that as a vessel of conflict between the different groups? It's over, in the grand scheme of things, Micky mouse bullshit. Akin to starting your journey with either your left foot, or your right foot.

I stepped away to do something before adding a follow-up to my question to clarify why I'm asking... And I see a river of a comment chain. My clarification, I'm non-denominational, I was, in many ways, a lukeway Christian. Until I had listened to some of CS Lewis's works, I simply went through the motions. He was an Anglican Christian. Tolkien was a Catholic. Many Apologists adhere to different doctrines. I don't understand how different Christians, as long as they adhere to the divinity of Christ and follow God's law, could be seen as heretical. Some of the staunchest defenders of the faith were Catholic (Crusades). Others, as I said were Anglican (Lewis).

Then you are lost. You are the brother of the prodigal son.

Army, both Lutherans and Catholics are equally responsible for the shenanigans that happened between them. No need to speak harshly.

They lynched Jews, Catholics, and Northerners. I'm a Northerner, and an armed one.

They also hated the Irish. I'm that as well

Either corny is a cognitively challenged invalid, in which he should be pitied, orhe's a troll.

I'm hopping out as well. I have better things to do than play as a monkey in a shit fight in the zoo.

He's believed to be the first, yes.