Adnan's emotions... A white paper [modified]
-
I agree with all this. And I guess I'm trying to understand this with modern events.
Judah Himango wrote:
it's apparent he opted to forgive and welcome back with open arms, rather than condemn to hell.
But that is when they asked to be forgiven.In the meantime, does he expect all of us to close our eyes and take a sword to the head? I mean if that happens, all that believe in him are dead. I really do not mind living next to jews, muslims and everyone else for that matter. I just get upset with these terrorist, and when we try to defend ourselves, we end up being the racist ones. It makes no sense. We should be able to defend ourselves and still be good Christians, right? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
The Jews wanted Jesus to lead a revolt and topple the Roman Empire at that time. He told them again and again they've got the wrong idea. The Christians bear persecution under Nero and did not ever conspired to retaliate back (ok, I recalled vaguely a story on a Christian group defending a place and got all killed by Romans but that's not actively attacking). None of the Christians under the New Testament ever taught us to retaliate and kill our enemies. I have to agree with Judah, Jason, and Fisticuffs that the TRUE teaching of Christianity is to love even your enemies. Hey, nobody ever said being a Christian is easy. Maybe some people just want to have all the good things but not the cross itself that they have to carry. "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" - Ross Edbert Sydney, Australia
-
That's largely based on the assumption that there is no God. If there is no God, then to an outsider, it seems that religion is harmless so long as it's a open to all new ideas, tolerant of everything and everyone, adhering to the "all paths lead to the same mountain" kind of thinking. I hear that a lot: "your belief, Judah, is harmless so long as you're not hurting anyone". Look at it from the other perspective for a moment. If there is a God, then not everyone or everything should be tolerated, assuming good and evil exist. This sounds nasty and evil, but in practice it's logical and required. For one, we can all agree that killing another human for no reason at all is evil and shouldn't be tolerated. If some acts are evil, then not all paths lead to the same mountain. If some of the paths -- ways of living your life -- be that religion or just plain ethics, lead to an evil way of live, a way of life that is not God-honoring, then we can't say that all ways are acceptable. This is what I am concerned about most. Those who just do whatever's right in their own eyes live a life free to do whatever they please. Sounds good, right? I tried living that way for awhile. But where did it get me? Pornography, insatiable lusting, all lust no love, in the sex department. That's a dark, downward spiral for anybody. Doing whatever's right in your own eyes is flexible; you can have your own personal rules; for instance, be kind to others. But your own rules you're of course free to bend and break anytime you want without consequence. What I'm saying is this: without God (and I don't mean in a religious way, but in a personal relationship way), free living is hardly free; instead you become slaves to addictions that you can ruin your life with. What I've found out through all this is that the real free living is found by living a Godly life, not by following the whims of your personal wants and desires. The real free life, ironically, is the servant life, living for God and living for other instead of yourself. Nish, I hope that is something you'll find out in your life. Now, you're right about all this painful bashing of other religions. You know what, I can't speak for everybody here, since we all come from different backgrounds. I know for those believing that Jesus is the Messiah, those folks saying all these nasty things about Islam, they're not following Jesus too closely. Jesus said that of all of our Scripture, of everything written in the Jewish Law, the whole point of all of it, boils down to 2 things: love God, a
Judah Himango wrote:
If some of the paths -- ways of living your life -- be that religion or just plain ethics, lead to an evil way of live, a way of life that is not God-honoring, then we can't say that all ways are acceptable.
This seems to be saying that unless people accept your god in your way they aren't leading acceptable lives.
Judah Himango wrote:
Those who just do whatever's right in their own eyes live a life free to do whatever they please.
Actually, in civilized society they don't. There are laws that exist. However, those laws have to be common sense and not religion based if you expect diverse peoples to accept them. Maybe when you were conducting your hedonistic experiment, you were too young to exercise common sense?
Judah Himango wrote:
I don't buy the nonsense that everyone's way to God is alright, but at least the disagreeing can be done with respect and without backstabbing and hatred; we should leave leave those things to the lawless, godless folks.
There you go again equating godless to lawless and seem to be saying to be a good person we'd better come around to your way of thinking. To me, that's pretty insulting. The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance. -- modified at 20:51 Wednesday 14th June, 2006
-
It started with a group of Islamic nomads in the 11th century. I can't remember the name of it but the word Assassin comes from it.
leckey wrote:
I can't remember the name of it but the word Assassin comes from it.
Hashshashin (or Assassins) had a militant basis as a religious sect of Ismaili Muslims from the Nizari sub-sect. They were thought to be active in the 8th to 14th centuries. .... This constant religious estrangement would eventually see them go so far as allying with the Occidental Christians against Muslims on a number of occasions. .... Plainly, their connection to mainstream Islam was tangential at best.[^]
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
True, but that's no reason to be an atheist.
Blast! An off-topic statement! :rolleyes: Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New):laugh:
-
For people that don't believe in God, such as yourself, is there real good living in your life? Are you doing whatever you see fit, or do you have personal rules that guide you? If you've personal rules, how do those rules stand up when tested? I'm not trying to judge you here, or condemn you or make you feel bad, so please don't take it that way: Pornography is a good example because most men are easily overcome by it, reducing their good intentions and strong wills (whether backed by faith or not) to nothing. As married men, isn't it our obligation to stop indulging in things like that? Or maybe, by now, you've convinced yourself it is harmless? This is a real world application of good living and morality, not some airy spiritual thing. Where is the bit that keeps you from indulging in desires like that? What tells you to stay away from things like that? And does it actually work? Again, I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I don't know your personal life and don't need to; the point is resolving this, seeing if God-less people can really live clean lives. I don't think they can. To be honest, neither can Godly people, but there is, at least, an out for them. But that's another discussion.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Goof around music jam with my brothers (with video) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
For people that don't believe in God, such as yourself, is there real good living in your life? Are you doing whatever you see fit, or do you have personal rules that guide you? If you've personal rules, how do those rules stand up when tested?
As far as my conduct with others goes i'm a reciprocal altruist who starts out nice and will attempt to resolve conflict in a reasonable manner. I often wish I did volunteer work, and I donate money to causes that I believe do good. I do not (probably could not) live my life for others in the true Christian or Buddhist sense though, and I don't think many believers do either. I am far too selfish. Some people seem more capable of acts of total selflessness than others and I do not believe that can be driven purely by faith. Having been living in sin for a couple of years I can discuss the porn issue with some experience. As a single man, I used pornography pretty heavily. Now my context has changed, I do not to anywhere near the same extent and feel guilt when I do. This is due to empathy with my girlfriend, not an absolute prohibition. I know people who mutually use porn in their relationships, for them it is a different choice. Whether it's conductive to a healthy long term relationship in those circumstances, I can't really say, not enough evidence, not my relationship. I certainly don't have any moral qualms about watching explicit (not porn in the commercial sense) films with my girlfriend, as its the furtive masturbation that's the moral issue, not the pixels. Can I live up to my ideals? Generaly not. Which might imply that I at least try to set them higher than the way I know that I am inclined to behave :) Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
True, but that's no reason to be an atheist.
Blast! An off-topic statement! :rolleyes: Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. Also visit the Ultimate Toolbox blog (New):laugh: Your welcome text in your UT Blog at the top needs to be inside the right margin (in FireFox).
-
I guess I have a logical objection to it: if there is no God, aren't right and wrong nothing but human conjecture? Are there any real rights and wrongs universally speaking, or is everything relative? If the basis for morality is one's own perception of good and evil, the problem is easy to spot: one's perception can change on the whim; in fact, your own desires for doing evil things can affect your perception of good and evil and even influence you to believe an evil is not actually evil, thus defeating any perceived idea of right and wrongs. In other words, such a system is not far from doing whatever you see fit. Maybe you have your own ideas of right and wrong, but if you so desire, a wrong will quickly become a right. Such is not a moral system at all, but a lawless system based on the good intentions and strong will of humanity, both of which crumble easily when pittted against human desire.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Goof around music jam with my brothers (with video) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
True, but what you perceive to be God's universal right and wrong or good and bad is by design flawed based upon what you perceive God to be. Even in Mathematics, most of what we believe to be proven theorems are based upon axioms that are defined, but not proven, as being self-evident. That is why Euclid's Fifth Postulate was a cause for great debate among mathematicians since it could not be proven right or wrong. That is why we still don't know if we live in a Euclidean universe or not. That is the greatness of God's creation. There is a very good "joke" on how Islam teaches Euclidean geometry which I actually find to be very moving. However, the translation is lost in English and is not worth repeating. So believing that many forms of good and right can exist, because God allows it, is just as valid as believing only one form can exist. It's all hearsay in the end and God only knows.
-
Which ones? Islamic terrosism in Indonesia? Canada? Bali? India? Madrid? The Netherlands? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
Until the 1980s, attempts to mobilize Muslims all over the world for a jihad in one area of the world (Palestine, Kashmir) were unsuccessful. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a watershed event, as it revived the concept of participation in jihad to evict an “infidel” occupier from a Muslim country as a “personal duty” (fard ’ein) for every capable Muslim.[^]
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Ultra right wingers prefer to follow a more convenient Jesus
Fabulous!!!
-
kgaddy wrote:
What if I saw a man getting ready to kill an innocent child. The only way to stop him his is to shoot him (say he is a long way away). Are you saying I should not shoot him and let the child die? I just want to make sure here.
The child's life and soul is in God's hands, not yours. The murderer's life and soul is in God's hands, not yours. To kill someone to save a life is a sum of zero. To kill someone to save a life implies that YOU are judging the worthiness of their souls, that YOU are judging which soul is ready to meet the Father and which is not. YOU are not the judge of that. To be honest, it seems like you are searching to be told that killing someone would be OK, given some arbitrary circumstance. This is not what Jesus wants of us. - F
Fisticuffs wrote:
To kill someone to save a life is a sum of zero.
I sure am glad that our military and police forces dont think that way. Stand rigid for the next battle Peace means reloading your guns The love for life is all hatred in disguise - Dimmu Borgir
-
Judah Himango wrote:
Are there any real rights and wrongs universally speaking, or is everything relative?
I do not believe that good and evil exist as tangible forces outside of human interpretation, no. I do believe we are born moral creatures, with an an inherent ability to learn right and wrong, this is developed through learning, experience and empathy. Not all morality can or should be framed in absolute terms. I do not have the same degree of moral certainty when thinking about the murder of an innocent human being as I do when thinking about childhood obesity. This doesn't mean I am about to flip-flop my stance on murder. From the perspective of an unbeliever, religious law is man made law, applied by its believers depending on will and circumstance. Christians at least have changed their minds over many issues over the centuries - how many marriages were blessed between 50 year old men and 12 year old girls by the church and for how long was slavery condoned? How many were killed over doctrinal differences by the faithful? You may posit the will of God as a constant, but the interpretation of that will has historically been variable. See "The reliance of the traveller" and present day Iran for an example of what happens when the interpretation of divine will remain relatively constant - anachronistic barbarity.
Judah Himango wrote:
such a system is not far from doing whatever you see fit
And neither is yours, you simply justify it using the supernatural, unless of course you no longer sin and manage to apply your morality correctly at every turn - in which case you are probably guilty of pride :) Why do you need the threat of Supernatural vengeance (or at least neglect) to behave decently? Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-- modified at 19:12 Wednesday 14th June, 2006
Ryan Roberts wrote:
religious law is man made law
That's where we start to differ. There is law which we say to be God's Law; something Messiah boiled all down into 2 laws: love God, and love others. Those are not man-made. Of course, you might believe them to be man made; it's all differences stemming from belief versus disbelief. What you point out as inconsistencies is right on: religious people don't always act Godly. I made this clear to Nish below; religious people can behave worse than non-religious people. The reason is because religion cannot be the focus. Instead, a personal relationship with God must be the focus, ritualism aside. I don't need threats of divine vengence to behave. Instead of vengence, we have a sheer gift: forgiveness! Even if we don't deserve it. That's what we like to call grace. :cool: Doing good, then, isn't some chore or tedious job to attend to, but a way of living free in God. Free from addictions and ungodly living that God-less ways tend to degenerate into.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Goof around music jam with my brothers (with video) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
True, but what you perceive to be God's universal right and wrong or good and bad is by design flawed based upon what you perceive God to be. Even in Mathematics, most of what we believe to be proven theorems are based upon axioms that are defined, but not proven, as being self-evident. That is why Euclid's Fifth Postulate was a cause for great debate among mathematicians since it could not be proven right or wrong. That is why we still don't know if we live in a Euclidean universe or not. That is the greatness of God's creation. There is a very good "joke" on how Islam teaches Euclidean geometry which I actually find to be very moving. However, the translation is lost in English and is not worth repeating. So believing that many forms of good and right can exist, because God allows it, is just as valid as believing only one form can exist. It's all hearsay in the end and God only knows.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
based upon what you perceive God to
Ah, see, there is the whole point. I'm betting everything, my whole life, on the idea that God is what Jesus showed us: pure love. Love God, love others, the 2 commandments on which all of Jewish and Christian Scripture hang. Sure, you can choose to believe your own way; my way is as flawed as yours, sure. Each person bets his life to his beliefs and lives accordingly. I'm betting mine on God, the one and only, that says love is the key. :cool:
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Goof around music jam with my brothers (with video) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
religious law is man made law
That's where we start to differ. There is law which we say to be God's Law; something Messiah boiled all down into 2 laws: love God, and love others. Those are not man-made. Of course, you might believe them to be man made; it's all differences stemming from belief versus disbelief. What you point out as inconsistencies is right on: religious people don't always act Godly. I made this clear to Nish below; religious people can behave worse than non-religious people. The reason is because religion cannot be the focus. Instead, a personal relationship with God must be the focus, ritualism aside. I don't need threats of divine vengence to behave. Instead of vengence, we have a sheer gift: forgiveness! Even if we don't deserve it. That's what we like to call grace. :cool: Doing good, then, isn't some chore or tedious job to attend to, but a way of living free in God. Free from addictions and ungodly living that God-less ways tend to degenerate into.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Goof around music jam with my brothers (with video) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
There is law which we say to be God's Law; something Messiah boiled all down into 2 laws: love God, and love others. Those are not man-made. Of course, you might believe them to be man made; it's all differences stemming from belief versus disbelief.
The biggest problem I have with organized religion is that most of the laws that are preached to us by so called "men of God" are man's interpretation of God's law as filtered through the interpreter's eyes, wants, needs and beliefs (and sometimes lies!). Many organized religions (and that's what this whole thread boils down to, that organized religions are causing most of the world's problems because of the inherent intolerence against other organized religions) say "our way is the one true religion and all the rest shall be damned" when MY belief is that God will accept us regardless of which religion we follow as long as the basic tenents of that belief are to do no harm. Do I believe in a supreme being? Yes. Do I believe I have to get together with a bunch of like minded people in worship? No, because it's between me and and God and nobody has the right to come between us. Do I believe that Jesus was God's son made flesh? I have to say yes simply because according to what I understand from the bible we're all God's children. Was there something special about him? I can say it's possible but I don't know with any level of certainty (hense the lower case "h" in the previous sentence). And quite honestly, neither does anyone else alive today unless that person happens to be 2000+ years old. So does that mean I'm going to burn in hell? If you're right then yes, but if none of the organized religions are right, then no. Mike Poz
-
Judah Himango wrote:
If some of the paths -- ways of living your life -- be that religion or just plain ethics, lead to an evil way of live, a way of life that is not God-honoring, then we can't say that all ways are acceptable.
This seems to be saying that unless people accept your god in your way they aren't leading acceptable lives.
Judah Himango wrote:
Those who just do whatever's right in their own eyes live a life free to do whatever they please.
Actually, in civilized society they don't. There are laws that exist. However, those laws have to be common sense and not religion based if you expect diverse peoples to accept them. Maybe when you were conducting your hedonistic experiment, you were too young to exercise common sense?
Judah Himango wrote:
I don't buy the nonsense that everyone's way to God is alright, but at least the disagreeing can be done with respect and without backstabbing and hatred; we should leave leave those things to the lawless, godless folks.
There you go again equating godless to lawless and seem to be saying to be a good person we'd better come around to your way of thinking. To me, that's pretty insulting. The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance. -- modified at 20:51 Wednesday 14th June, 2006
Legal laws do not govern morality, however. One can be perfectly legal and be morally detestable: Take the UN for instance. The whole body has sat idly for so long while genocides are going on in Africa; and this is not the first time! Perfectly legal, perfectly immoral. I could come up with a thousand other instances; it is a mistake to equal legality with morality and ethics. When I spoke of law, the meaning is God-law, not man-law. God-law is boiled down to 2 laws on which all the other laws hang[^].
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Goof around music jam with my brothers (with video) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
To kill someone to save a life is a sum of zero.
I sure am glad that our military and police forces dont think that way. Stand rigid for the next battle Peace means reloading your guns The love for life is all hatred in disguise - Dimmu Borgir
-
Judah Himango wrote:
For people that don't believe in God, such as yourself, is there real good living in your life? Are you doing whatever you see fit, or do you have personal rules that guide you? If you've personal rules, how do those rules stand up when tested?
As far as my conduct with others goes i'm a reciprocal altruist who starts out nice and will attempt to resolve conflict in a reasonable manner. I often wish I did volunteer work, and I donate money to causes that I believe do good. I do not (probably could not) live my life for others in the true Christian or Buddhist sense though, and I don't think many believers do either. I am far too selfish. Some people seem more capable of acts of total selflessness than others and I do not believe that can be driven purely by faith. Having been living in sin for a couple of years I can discuss the porn issue with some experience. As a single man, I used pornography pretty heavily. Now my context has changed, I do not to anywhere near the same extent and feel guilt when I do. This is due to empathy with my girlfriend, not an absolute prohibition. I know people who mutually use porn in their relationships, for them it is a different choice. Whether it's conductive to a healthy long term relationship in those circumstances, I can't really say, not enough evidence, not my relationship. I certainly don't have any moral qualms about watching explicit (not porn in the commercial sense) films with my girlfriend, as its the furtive masturbation that's the moral issue, not the pixels. Can I live up to my ideals? Generaly not. Which might imply that I at least try to set them higher than the way I know that I am inclined to behave :) Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
and I don't think many believers do either
Very true what you say about living for others. I have trouble with it myself. It's very tough in practice; it takes a lot of humility, I can tell you that. It's tough, and I'm not very good at it yet. :) As for pornography, you know, it has nearly ruined my life on several occassions. Just be careful, my friend. Maybe it's not the same for all guys, but for me, it kept getting worse and worse with myself needing more and longer "highs" each time. Like an addictive drug, really. It truely has been a God-intervening-and-setting-things-straight that scooped me out of that mess. That's why I'm so crazy about God all the time, he's saved my life from me throwing it away. Now that I'm living a cleaner life and he set me up with so many good things, wow, it's like a fresh cool wind blowing into a hot house, God has cleared the air for me personally. Praise God for that, man! :)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Goof around music jam with my brothers (with video) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Judah Himango wrote:
There is law which we say to be God's Law; something Messiah boiled all down into 2 laws: love God, and love others. Those are not man-made. Of course, you might believe them to be man made; it's all differences stemming from belief versus disbelief.
The biggest problem I have with organized religion is that most of the laws that are preached to us by so called "men of God" are man's interpretation of God's law as filtered through the interpreter's eyes, wants, needs and beliefs (and sometimes lies!). Many organized religions (and that's what this whole thread boils down to, that organized religions are causing most of the world's problems because of the inherent intolerence against other organized religions) say "our way is the one true religion and all the rest shall be damned" when MY belief is that God will accept us regardless of which religion we follow as long as the basic tenents of that belief are to do no harm. Do I believe in a supreme being? Yes. Do I believe I have to get together with a bunch of like minded people in worship? No, because it's between me and and God and nobody has the right to come between us. Do I believe that Jesus was God's son made flesh? I have to say yes simply because according to what I understand from the bible we're all God's children. Was there something special about him? I can say it's possible but I don't know with any level of certainty (hense the lower case "h" in the previous sentence). And quite honestly, neither does anyone else alive today unless that person happens to be 2000+ years old. So does that mean I'm going to burn in hell? If you're right then yes, but if none of the organized religions are right, then no. Mike Poz
I sympathize with your views on organized religion. I'm not a fan of it myself, been burned too much. Too many people use religion as a way to control others and "put them in their place". I'm more focused, at least at this point in my life, on a life of living for God and others, with a real relationship with God. I'm just trying to live a Godly life best I see fit. I also agree we are all God's children no matter what religion we adhere to. That's why I'm pretty set on getting along with people like Adnan, no matter how much we tend to disagree. For me, I'm putting my bet on Jesus. I think he's proven himself to be the Messiah spoken of. But better yet, he lived and commanded us to live the most Godly way I've ever heard of: to love God and love other people. I don't think there's any better way to live your life, so I'm betting my life wholly on this Messiah fellow. :)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Goof around music jam with my brothers (with video) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Judah Himango wrote:
For people that don't believe in God, such as yourself, is there real good living in your life? Are you doing whatever you see fit, or do you have personal rules that guide you? If you've personal rules, how do those rules stand up when tested?
As far as my conduct with others goes i'm a reciprocal altruist who starts out nice and will attempt to resolve conflict in a reasonable manner. I often wish I did volunteer work, and I donate money to causes that I believe do good. I do not (probably could not) live my life for others in the true Christian or Buddhist sense though, and I don't think many believers do either. I am far too selfish. Some people seem more capable of acts of total selflessness than others and I do not believe that can be driven purely by faith. Having been living in sin for a couple of years I can discuss the porn issue with some experience. As a single man, I used pornography pretty heavily. Now my context has changed, I do not to anywhere near the same extent and feel guilt when I do. This is due to empathy with my girlfriend, not an absolute prohibition. I know people who mutually use porn in their relationships, for them it is a different choice. Whether it's conductive to a healthy long term relationship in those circumstances, I can't really say, not enough evidence, not my relationship. I certainly don't have any moral qualms about watching explicit (not porn in the commercial sense) films with my girlfriend, as its the furtive masturbation that's the moral issue, not the pixels. Can I live up to my ideals? Generaly not. Which might imply that I at least try to set them higher than the way I know that I am inclined to behave :) Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Can I live up to my ideals? Generaly not. Which might imply that I at least try to set them higher than the way I know that I am inclined to behave
I would say that no one here can live up to their ideal. The Apostle Paul called himself wretched, and the chiefest of sinners. He said that his spirit wanted him to do what was right, but his flesh was constantly in conflict making him do the opposite. Yet, he praised Christ for his forgiveness in spite of our sinful nature. If Paul struggled with sin and still won the race, it gives me all the more confidence that I can do it too. But only in Christ is it fully possible to win.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
I sympathize with your views on organized religion. I'm not a fan of it myself, been burned too much. Too many people use religion as a way to control others and "put them in their place". I'm more focused, at least at this point in my life, on a life of living for God and others, with a real relationship with God. I'm just trying to live a Godly life best I see fit. I also agree we are all God's children no matter what religion we adhere to. That's why I'm pretty set on getting along with people like Adnan, no matter how much we tend to disagree. For me, I'm putting my bet on Jesus. I think he's proven himself to be the Messiah spoken of. But better yet, he lived and commanded us to live the most Godly way I've ever heard of: to love God and love other people. I don't think there's any better way to live your life, so I'm betting my life wholly on this Messiah fellow. :)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Goof around music jam with my brothers (with video) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
For me, I'm putting my bet on Jesus. I think he's proven himself to be the Messiah spoken of. But better yet, he lived and commanded us to live the most Godly way I've ever heard of: to love God and love other people. I don't think there's any better way to live your life, so I'm betting my life wholly on this Messiah fellow.
That was actually one of the commands of Moses in Deuteronomy. Jesus called it the greatest commandment.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
I sure am glad that our military and police forces dont think that way.
Not a fan of Christianity, huh? - F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Not a fan of Christianity, huh?
No, i am not a fan of you. Stand rigid for the next battle Peace means reloading your guns The love for life is all hatred in disguise - Dimmu Borgir
