NationStates

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

NEO Rome Republic wrote:I wasn't decrying Religion or God, I was simply talking about a situation in which a person is irritating others. Which isn't decrying the Religion involved, just that said person is themselves being a dickwad.
I may have done in it in the past, but recently(for almost a month from Dec.20th till now) I have not decried Religion or God.
Because the other Religious discussions aren't as politically or socially oriented. If they were, I would hang out over there more.

Just because you haven't done it this particular time doesn't mean you haven't. And when you have, what happens. Those who don't want to engage you simply leave, and those of us who don't mind engaging you stick around. But you still clearly annoy the shit out of us sometimes. Does that mean you shouldn't come here? No, because you hold to you convictions and believe they need a voice, to make others see reason the same way you do.

If a man wants to stand on a side walk and espouse his beliefs via microphone, he is entitled to. No one is required to pay attention to him. But just like you, he's willing to annoy a few people, in the hopes that those who will take to his message, will hear it.

Okay, I see your point.

Menassa wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

I guess I'm missing the point of you invoking the story of Noah then.

It was a response to the claim of pro evangelisim because it would be a shame for God to see a world of evil.

Pretty sure He already does, regardless of evangelism.

Menassa wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Except that's overly objectively bad. Simply telling the world about God, isn't the same as cutting off arms en mass.

If I would not want to evangelize to someone because I see it as bad I would not want them to do it to me.

Doesn't the Jewish faith also argue against it?

Menassa wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Que?

Why not?

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:Sorry, I guess that read differently than I meant it.

You're saying that because a man is Lactose Intolerant, he shouldn't give people milk?

Not to people who are lactose intolerant... then no.

Sorry, I guess I'm not making my point clearly.

Taking it too literal becomes absurd. Just because I don't want gifts, doesn't mean I shouldn't give gifts. Just cause I don't want charity, doesn't mean I shouldn't give charity.

NEO Rome Republic wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Just because you haven't done it this particular time doesn't mean you haven't. And when you have, what happens. Those who don't want to engage you simply leave, and those of us who don't mind engaging you stick around. But you still clearly annoy the shit out of us sometimes. Does that mean you shouldn't come here? No, because you hold to you convictions and believe they need a voice, to make others see reason the same way you do.

If a man wants to stand on a side walk and espouse his beliefs via microphone, he is entitled to. No one is required to pay attention to him. But just like you, he's willing to annoy a few people, in the hopes that those who will take to his message, will hear it.

Okay, I see your point.

Wow, that's twice. Hell must be chilly.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Menassa wrote:It was a response to the claim of pro evangelisim because it would be a shame for God to see a world of evil.

Pretty sure He already does, regardless of evangelism.

Meh, take that up with the person I was responding to.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Menassa wrote:If I would not want to evangelize to someone because I see it as bad I would not want them to do it to me.

Doesn't the Jewish faith also argue against it?

Against Christian evangelism? Of Jews probably... Jewish evangelism isn't really a thing.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Menassa wrote:Why not?


Not to people who are lactose intolerant... then no.

Sorry, I guess I'm not making my point clearly.

Taking it too literal becomes absurd. Just because I don't want gifts, doesn't mean I shouldn't give gifts. Just cause I don't want charity, doesn't mean I shouldn't give charity.

Oh, I see, do good unto others objectively.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

NEO Rome Republic wrote:Okay, I see your point.

Wow, that's twice. Hell must be chilly.

My Dad said to expect a freeze warning.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

NEO Rome Republic wrote:Okay, I see your point.

Wow, that's twice. Hell must be chilly.

Well it is kinda cold in the room I'm currently in.

Is Judas q good guy because he carried out God's will?

Leningrad Union wrote:Is Judas q good guy because he carried out God's will?

He does seem to have drawn the short stick. At the last supper Jesus, with apparent foreknowledge, tells him "Go do what you have to do."

Did he have free will even then? I want to believe so. I do not want to be a pawn of fate.

Of course it was free will, that doesn't mean it wasn't predestined. Read any story (or watch a movie) and you easily get the feeling that the characters have free will hence why you keep hoping someone won't do something or other (even if you have read/seen it a thousand times). Nevertheless, the characters decisions are already set out. This is not the best analogy since a book is not the same as all creation, the book is more like a record of a creation, the story not the actually occurrence. So go and follow God, don't worry about the past, it's over, and don't worry about the future, it is a figment of your imagination. All time kneels before God who is outside it.

Pope Joan wrote:

Leningrad Union wrote:Is Judas q good guy because he carried out God's will?

He does seem to have drawn the short stick. At the last supper Jesus, with apparent foreknowledge, tells him "Go do what you have to do."

Did he have free will even then? I want to believe so. I do not want to be a pawn of fate.

He could not have had free will. There's no such thing. Our actions are dictated by cause & effect. Belief in free will derives from the illusion of control.

Pope Joan wrote:

Leningrad Union wrote:Is Judas q good guy because he carried out God's will?

He does seem to have drawn the short stick. At the last supper Jesus, with apparent foreknowledge, tells him "Go do what you have to do."

Did he have free will even then? I want to believe so. I do not want to be a pawn of fate.

Wouldn't Christians needed Jesus to be dead?

Pope Joan wrote:Did he have free will even then? I want to believe so. I do not want to be a pawn of fate.

The problem of Judas remains one of the more fascinating within Christian theology, and the conclusion reached very much depends on whether an individual belongs to a tradition recognising free will or a tradition dominated by predestination - as well as how the issue of motivation is approached, and whether one considers Judas damned for the initial betrayal or damned by the subsequent suicide.

One thing's for certain, if Erasmus of Rotterdam and Martin Luther couldn't resolve the issue in their point and counterpoint discussion of Judas, then a thread in NSG is even more unlikely to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion given that Christianity now encompasses an even broader spectrum of approaches to the issue now than it did then.

But for interest, an Orthodox perspective can be found here: http://oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-bre ... r-betrayer

The Archregimancy wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:Did he have free will even then? I want to believe so. I do not want to be a pawn of fate.

The problem of Judas remains one of the more fascinating within Christian theology, and the conclusion reached very much depends on whether an individual belongs to a tradition recognising free will or a tradition dominated by predestination - as well as how the issue of motivation is approached, and whether one considers Judas damned for the initial betrayal or damned by the subsequent suicide.

One thing's for certain, if Erasmus of Rotterdam and Martin Luther couldn't resolve the issue in their point and counterpoint discussion of Judas, then a thread in NSG is even more unlikely to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion given that Christianity now encompasses an even broader spectrum of approaches to the issue now than it did then.

But for interest, an Orthodox perspective can be found here: http://oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-bre ... r-betrayer

That's amazing. I never thought about it like that. Thank you for sharing the article.

Do Christians actually care about me going to heaven/hell or do they want me to join the religion for personal purposes?

Leningrad Union wrote:Do Christians actually care about me going to heaven/hell or do they want me to join the religion for personal purposes?

Every conversion means an extra floor for their heavenly mansion.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Menassa wrote:Is the Golden rule not: "Do unto others as you would want others to do to you?"

Yes, and I would want others to do Good unto me.

So you'd have no problem with Cultists, or Scientologists, or atheists, or Muslims, or Shintoists, etc., stopping by your house every afternoon trying to convert you to their beliefs? Because they're convinced that good is THEIR belief system. While yes, its perfectly fine to want to exchange ideas, the whole affair certainly does get annoying after a while. And you can't necessarily prove that one religion is better than the other, because they all lack objective proof that they're true (which is rather the whole point of faith).

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Menassa wrote:Is it written that the Apocalypse of revelation will come about when the world is evil?

Is it not written that after such an Apocalypse the world will live in harmony? Those that survive that is...

It comes about when the Lord chooses.

Menassa wrote:Is there not an objective Good? If I think that humans should have one limb is and I want to saw yours off is that doing Good unto you?

In you're mind it would be good. But I think that's a rather obviously bad scenario. The point I'm trying to make is that the Golden Rule shouldn't taken quite so literally as he's trying to make it.

A lactose-intolerant man undoubtedly would not want to have someone give him milk to drink. Does that mean he should not give it if the situation arises?

And the point I'm making is that to not take it literally would be to violate it. Also, just an FYI, please refer to me as "they", not "he".

Leningrad Union wrote:Do Christians actually care about me going to heaven/hell or do they want me to join the religion for personal purposes?

For most, it definitely is out of genuine concern for your soul. Though there are certainly some who do it for personal gain.

Czechanada wrote:

Leningrad Union wrote:Do Christians actually care about me going to heaven/hell or do they want me to join the religion for personal purposes?

Every conversion means an extra floor for their heavenly mansion.

Ugh, screw that, too much to keep clean. Give me a nice flat on the corner of St Peter St and MLK Blvd

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Czechanada wrote:
Every conversion means an extra floor for their heavenly mansion.

Ugh, screw that, too much to keep clean. Give me a nice flat on the corner of St Peter St and MLK Blvd

Give me Matthew Shepard Ave.

Grenartia wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Ugh, screw that, too much to keep clean. Give me a nice flat on the corner of St Peter St and MLK Blvd

Give me Matthew Shepard Ave.

Wow, nobody's mentioned that one in a while...can't believe it was 16 years ago...

Neoconstantius wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Give me Matthew Shepard Ave.

Wow, nobody's mentioned that one in a while...can't believe it was 16 years ago...

Hmm?

Menassa wrote:

Neoconstantius wrote:Wow, nobody's mentioned that one in a while...can't believe it was 16 years ago...

Hmm?

Matt Shepard being murdered and the whole storm of outrage that followed? Happened in 98?

Neoconstantius wrote:

Menassa wrote:Hmm?

Matt Shepard being murdered and the whole storm of outrage that followed? Happened in 98?

Oh... that... huh... must've slipped my mind?

Menassa wrote:

Neoconstantius wrote:Matt Shepard being murdered and the whole storm of outrage that followed? Happened in 98?

Oh... that... huh... must've slipped my mind?

Yeah, I know, long time ago and pretty obscure reference now, which is why I was surprised somewhat brought it up.

It was flaunted as a hate crime for a long time, but evidence that later came to light indicated that the primary motivation was drugs and alcohol, not his sexuality.

Neoconstantius wrote:

Menassa wrote:Oh... that... huh... must've slipped my mind?

Yeah, I know, long time ago and pretty obscure reference now, which is why I was surprised somewhat brought it up.

It was flaunted as a hate crime for a long time, but evidence that later came to light indicated that the primary motivation was drugs and alcohol, not his sexuality.

Source?