What is positive about a statement like, "To have honor, you must have faith."
Well I don't have faith, is he then saying I have no honor?
When he says, "In order to have honor, you must be true to God"
Which God is he talking about? Who decides what it means to be true to God? There could be two religious people, each saying something different, but both might believe they are being true to God. Who is right? Who is wrong?
Surely a lot of Christians think that Beck isn't being true to God because he is a Mormon.
One thing that shouldn't be up for dispute is that Mormonism isn't Christianity. It hijacked parts of Christianity, as did Islam. The book of Mormon is called "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." It's pretty absurd that Jesus would need ANOTHER Testament besides the New Testament(especially when it contradicts the New Testament).
Another thing that shouldn't be up for debate is that Christianity isn't Judaism. It hijacked Judaism for itself and stole their God. To say that Christians worship the same God of the Jews is an insult to Jewish people and their faith.
All of these religions claim the same divinity behind their beliefs and all are just as likely to be wrong.
MOD-IS-BEST.. If you had paid any attention to the Restoring Faith -- Under God:Indivisible event the night before, many of your questions would be answered.
As far as you having honor (or not), since you have no faith then by what measure would you base honor upon? Man's idea of honor? A cow's idea of honor? Conservative honor? Liberal honor? Surely not God's because you said you have no faith. You have nothing to base true honor upon but you quickly judge someone else's idea of honor. Do you base honor upon faith in yourself? How does that fit with your neighbors idea of honor? With no possible valid baseline for you to use as a model for honor except your own ideals, it would seem that you are lacking....honor.
I'm not a man of faith either. But I'm not twisted up in knots because the man did not stipulate that those without faith are honorable as well.
I think at one time, many years ago, I may have been offended by a lot of what G man says because my beliefs were ridged and tied to my ego but that is not the case for me now. It seems like those who do not believe are more open minded and for some, yes, but most no. Of course religious people exhibit similar compulsions but I find more close minded, ego driven atheists than believers. I would never be upset that Christians did not include me in their proclamations or try to pry apart the different denominations and pit them against each other to stroke my own ego. It's just asinine. I go no further down the rabbit hole of the atheists mind.
What kind of honor does your God offer?
The honorable tale that if God tells you to kill your son, you should obey because hey, after all, it's God?
The same kind of honor that Lott showed when he offered up his daughters to get raped instead of the angels?
The same kind of honor that says a human sacrifice is moral and necessary?
Need I go on?
We all define honor in our own way. What may be honorable to one person isn't honorable to another.
I define my honor by despite me being an Atheist, have religious friends of all backgrounds who I care for deeply.
I define my honor by valuing their children's life, more then I do my own.
I define my honor by trying to win on the battlefield of ideas and not of threats of eternal damnation(something faith doesn't do).
I define my honor by admitting that I don't have all the answers, that there is more then one way to live a moral life and that I could be wrong on my view points of life(something faith doesn't do).
Who decides what is "true" honor? Which God do we base "true" honor off of? Which interpretation of which God do we base "true" honor off of?
Is a Catholics idea of "true" honor the same as a Protestants? What about a Mormon, or Muslim, or Buddhists?
The only problem is, Beck is talking about unifying people.
If Beck really cared about America, he would be talking about Freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness, things that all people can agree on, regardless of whether or not they follow a God.
You can't accuse other people of trying to divide America, and then say, "In order to have honor, you have to have faith."
Honor and faith are independent of each other and as you can see, there is already one person on here who is questioning my honor because I don't think a God exists.
How can atheists be close minded? It's a rejection of a claim. Most of the Atheists I know take the "weak" stance in that they won't say a God doesn't exist, just that they haven't been swayed by the evidence.
It is religion who says they know a God exists. Even more so that their God is the correct one and that I'm going to hell if I don't accept it. You can't get more close minded then that.
None of what I do on here is based around my ego. Most people who know me would say I'm self-deprecating, not egotistical.
Also, the denominations don't need me to "pry apart" the different denominations, they do that themselves. It's mainly Christians who say that Mormonism isn't Christianity(which is true) and Rick Santorum said Protestants were no longer Christians.
As I said, all of these religions claim the same divinity behind their beliefs and use it to reject the other religion's claims.
Do I think mormons are insane people who believe in a world of many gods instead of one and are theologically pinheads and definitely NOT Christian, YES I DO. But I can watch Beck without taking offense when I see a man simply trying to do what he believes is right. Every great moment in this country has preceded itself with a great awakening of religion not atheism. The bedrock of the values you cherish are rooted and immutable only because they are provided by God. If they came from evolution, then clearly they can change and evolve for the better, and will be constantly a moving target. This is why you won't see any great movements lead by athiests, it just doesn't happen.
@Moderation...You say you have no faith? That is a lie. ou have absolute faith that there is no God. In the end, your faith will show you the fires of hell...Mine will show me an eternity of bliss. My faith is in Christ alone. Your faith is in NOTHING. But buddy, you still have faith and there is no way you can get around it. Get over your petty BS and get ready for an eternity of hell becuse of your faith in NO God...Have a nice day!
@ Moderation... The Bible is a book that describes what God's plans are for us, what happens when you follow those plans, includes examples of real humans who fall short of God's ideal life and shows the consequences of following your own human will rather than God's. The Bible also describes how even our failures and imperfection can be used for the Glory of God.
See here is the deal, God's will is going to be done, the choice we have is whether we will go WITH Him or AGAINST Him.
Going against God brings a death sentence, so whether you think it "right" for the Bible to describe a death sentence for sins that is to be carried out on earth (as in your examples) or in the final judgement, the penalty for sin is still death.
The examples you site (and they seem to be the popular ones non-believers use to somehow imply that they are so much more moral and enlightened than God) illustrate how letting sin openly continue in a society is dangerous and can destroy a society.
It is like having a cancerous tumor within the human body, if the tumor is not removed, the whole body will eventually die. The examples you site show that it is better for the body (society) to remove the diseased part (the sinful son) rather than let that infection spread and destroy all.
Those are admonisions to God's people to make sure their children live uprightly. As for me, if I knew the actions of my kids would result in death,I would do all in my power to make sure they were
Apparently you've never actually seen what I write on here.
I've always said that I am not claiming that a God doesn't exist, just that I haven't been swayed by the evidence.
The thing is, the Bible hasn't proven any of its claims of sins, or an afterlife, or hell to be true.
It's just something that you "believe" will happen. You have absolutely no proof outside of what the Bible has said to accept any of it as true.
Besides, you then openly admit that even if God was evil, you would still worship him out of fear of eternal punishment.
I don't need a scapegoat for my "sin." I am responsible for my actions and don't need to hurl them onto someone else. I will not worship a tyrant. Hell, I won't worship anything. I view worship as a disgusting practice in general. I don't think anything or anyone is worthy of worship.
"What kind of honor does your God offer?"
Pff, here we go...
The honorable tale that if God tells you to kill your son, you should obey because hey, after all, it’s God?"
That was merely a test of loyalty, one that Abraham passed with flying colors. God never intended to have Abraham kill his son. He wanted to see who Abraham loved more. It was obviously a tough choice for Abe, but he did it anyway. That's a beautiful story of faith, I'm sorry if you can't see it that way.
"The same kind of honor that Lott showed when he offered up his daughters to get raped instead of the angels?"
This again? You've posted this over and over. Which book is this from? Cite it or I call b.s.
"The same kind of honor that says a human sacrifice is moral and necessary?"
Now you're just being a punk. Jesus' disciples begged him to run, to resist, but it was Jesus' choice to become a martyr. His death was more powerful a message than living whatever short life he had left in the 1st century at 34 years old. He couldn't live forever as a mortal. Besides, King Herod was after him since before he was even born. He had to have thought his luck had run out.
"Need I go on?"
Yes, you stopped there because these are the same three recycled talking points you've referred to countless times. You're out of mud to sling.
"We all define honor in our own way. What may be honorable to one person isn’t honorable to another."
If everybody defined the black and whites of morality for themselves, there would never be absolute peace. We are seeing that today.
"I define my honor by despite me being an Atheist, have religious friends of all backgrounds who I care for deeply. I define my honor by valuing their children’s life, more then I do my own. I define my honor by trying to win on the battlefield of ideas and not of threats of eternal damnation(something faith doesn’t do). I define my honor by admitting that I don’t have all the answers, that there is more then one way to live a moral life and that I could be wrong on my view points of life(something faith doesn’t do)."
If all you said is true, you would make a great Christian. Welcome to the faith, brotha'
"Who decides what is “true” honor? Which God do we base “true” honor off of? Which interpretation of which God do we base “true” honor off of?"
"Is a Catholics idea of “true” honor the same as a Protestants?"
I'm sure it's very close. Christian = Christian = Christian
"What about a Mormon, "
"or Muslim, or Buddhists?"
Merely stepping stones to the same Creator. Different route, same destination.
Exactly my point! I think Hitchens response to your assertion answers it best. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVoloVvsupM#t=26s
Obviously Abraham thought he was doing the moral thing, because God commanded it. In Abraham's mind, sacrificing your child was a moral action that God would ask of you. Any story of "faith" which includes someone willingly trying to sacrifice another human being isn't a story that should be revered in my eyes.
I suggest you read Genesis 19:8
"Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.""
Whether or not Jesus died willingly is irrelevant. It is Christianity today who says that he did that on my behalf. Well I don't want that. I don't remember asking for it. I think a human sacrifice is disgusting, and if I were alive at that time period, I would have to fight against it. I would have to reject it and say that I don't want it done on my behalf.
There will never be absolute peace.
I am not a Christian, and it shows your ignorance and loyalty to your faith that just because I can live a moral life that I would "make a great Christian." There are moral Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists, Agnostics. Also, being a Christian doesn't automatically make you moral.
God, in His mercy, has reduced the plan of salvation to simple faith, so that all people can be saved by believing God's promises and accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
As per Lot, Clarke from Bible.cc said it better than I could have.
"Nothing but that sacred light in which the rights of hospitality were regarded among the eastern nations, could either justify or palliate this proposal of Lot. A man who had taken a stranger under his care and protection, was bound to defend him even at the expense of his own life. In this light the rights of hospitality are still regarded in Asiatic countries; and on these high notions only, the influence of which an Asiatic mind alone can properly appreciate, Lot's conduct on this occasion can be at all excused: but even then, it was not only the language of anxious solicitude, but of unwarrantable haste. "
In order to understand the reason for Christ's crucifixion, we must know the plan of salvation revealed from the Old Testament. Since the fall of mankind in the garden of Eden, every person has had a problem with sins they have committed. God, in contrast, is holy, which means He never has and never will commit any sin and will not stand in the presence of anyone who has sinned. In the Old Testament, God provided a means of eliminating sin through a blood sacrifice. Why did God choose to use a blood sacrifice? No one can say for certain, since none of us have the mind of God. However, I believe God wanted to make sure that we knew how costly sin is to Him.
God stated very explicitly that the daily sacrifice for sin, performed by the priests, would be replaced through the establishment of a new covenant and foretold what He would do to satisfy His requirement for a blood sacrifice for sin. The sacrifice was to be done by His Servant, who is His Son, both man (descended from David) and eternal God simultaneously. Only a sacrifice by a holy God, who is Jesus Christ, could pay the penalty for our sin. His sacrifice would be costly and would require death by crucifixion, which would pay the penalty for our sin. Crucifixion is one of the most cruel and tortuous ways to die. When we think how Jesus died on the cross for us, it is to remind us of the cost of our sin, and God's love for us, in His willingness to personally die for us, so that we can commune with a holy God.
"I am not a Christian, and it shows your ignorance and loyalty to your faith that just because I can live a moral life that I would “make a great Christian.”
"There are moral Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists, Agnostics."
No argument that there are those that follow God's word unknowingly without ever reading scripture or even being aware of Him.
"Also, being a Christian doesn’t automatically make you moral."
True, you have to walk the walk too. And you can be moral without religion, but it doesn't help
Oh.....my......goodness. That is the most hilarious defense I've ever seen for Lot's actions.
"A man who had taken a stranger under his care and protection, was bound to defend him even at the expense of his own life."
You can defend their life, at the expense of your own life, or even at the expense of your daughters. Lot didn't do that, he didn't try to "defend" anybody's life. Also, one could argue that those "guests" life weren't in danger for their life, that the mob just wanted to rape them. The fact is, Lot didn't try to defend his guests life at the expense of his own life. What did he do? He offered up his daughter's instead.
The only moral action would be, "You will have to kill me if you want to rape these people." Did lot take this action? No. He didn't even try to tell the Mob what they were planning to do was wrong. He almost eagerly offers his virgin daughters to get raped.
According to you, God can do whatever he pleases because he is God. It is God who said that a human sacrifice was necessary. He could have easily had said, "okay, you're all forgiven." No, he didn't do that.
Your religion boils down to this.
Your God sent himself, to be sacrificed to himself, to create a loophole for a system that he created.
July 4, 2012 at 3:12pm
Everything Cruise represents in his actions are the opposite of Reacher’s. Lee Childs had to have a say in this.(side note, how much CGI is used to make him seem tall?)
That’s actually a kind of a stereotype, a generality that is not always true. I have met a man with Down’s Syndrome who was a real creep, as rude and nasty a person as I have ever encountered. I don’t doubt that he must have some very good reason for feeling the anger that he was always bristling with, but like most angry people, he took it out on a lot of the wrong people. I bring this up not to dump on that poor guy, but to point out that thinking of them as angels is just another way of not thinking of them as what they are – people.
Chet, personality is derived from the quality of care and amount of love given by the parents, especially when the child is young. It doesn't matter if the child is normal or Downs. Perhaps the person you interacted with wasn't loved or treated well as he grew up. I would expect that all of Will's children would be what we describe as "nice" people. I don't like the word "stereotype". To say others are doing it is a veiled insult. So, with all due respect, buzz off.
I don’t doubt that all of George Will’s kids are nice people, but the idea that all people with Down’s Syndrome are nice, yeah, that is a stereotytpe. That's not an insult, it's just a fact. I don't think anyone is stereotyping this group deliberately or negatively, but that doesn't make it not a stereotype. .
@ Chet so what is the standard of nice? What is your definition of creepy? If my definition includes your behavior that makes it so - right? Since we are talking subjective standards...my "standard" is as valid as yours
@ Chet are you projecting again?
February 27, 2012 at 1:52am
The best film actually won. Uggie stole my heart.
February 17, 2012 at 10:17pm
Scamming America into socialism one student at a time.