How much GOD loves Us!

[rise]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: rise

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Because obviously you are intimately aware of the feelings of every single homosexual person ever to have lived.

while that may be on my business card, i can't say it's 100% true.

but i've never seen prrof of a gay gene.

Funny how you put so much stock into homosexuality being a choice simply because you've never seen proof of a "gay gene"...

...and yet you claim to believe in "God" when there is absolutely no proof of ANY divine being(s).

utter pwnage


but then again, who needs facts when everything is already written down in a book for you? not only that, but you get to pick and choose.

I just wish people were more tolerant. my hippie-liberal calculus teacher wouldn't let me only learn integrals and skip over differentials :roll:

wow, i can't believe this thread was revived :roll:

anyway, IJ, it has nothing to do with what i read in a book. believing in God != believing in religion.

and i'm all for tolerance, read my posts :roll:

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

He understood it a lot better than the so-called Christians themselves do.

And I'm sure you're a defacto master on the subject. You're the type who just accepts whatever unsubstantiated comments people make on any sort of subject, as long as it fits your little view of the world and society in general.

Originally posted by: preslove
So... we should "keep perspective" about the misogyny in the bible... but not the homophobia in the bible? Who chooses which parts we should have "perspective" about, and which parts we should take literally? If you need to take "perspective" about your divine-word-of-god-book, what does that mean for the quality of this god's word? Does the word of god just not age well?

You're confused for a number of reasons:
You've understood that this word of God was transcribed 3 thousand to 2300 years ago, so that's a step up. Congratulations on that, your parents must be really proud.

Now, you've assumed that Christians accept that every single bit of textual commentary provided by the authors of Leviticus. Leviticus was a social code written in the 9th or 8th centuries B.C. (notice how I say 9th to 8th because the calender goes backwards when it comes to B.C. or "B.C.E" if you insist on being politically correct). In other words, God was not necessarily the author of the book, it was written by a people who were interpreting how God's word and attitude would best be reflected in their own society.

You will find that the Judaic sections (i.e. Old Testemant) of the Bible is against the consumption of Blood and pork and so forth, yet Christians readily eat pork and meat, not just because the New Testament is A-ok with it, but because different cultures didn't have a problem with it.

In regards to your comments about homophobia and misogyny. Such blatant ignorance. Note, I'm not calling you stupid, or even an idiot, but that is truly defacto ignorance.

The civilization founded in what is now Israel that truly flowered in the 9-8th centuries B.C. DID have "misogyny." HOWEVER, every civilization in the world had misogyny. Why? Because civilizations didn't have the luxury of feminism and every single woman making a choice for herself. Hell, most men didn't have that luxury. It's not a case of strong versus weak, but a case for survival. As the ancient people saw it, society needed to be strucutured, or else the whole thing fell apart.

To better respect God's word and the country He gave them, I imagine the Israelites were merely codifying a series of laws they saw would honor Him. Note I said "They saw."

Even so, the Israelites did have lax rules on women. They were treated with respect. They could testify in court (something women living in Assyria and Babylon couldn't, roughly the same time period) they could own land, they could sign legal documents. Of course there were standard norms like widows remarrying, but they weren't followed, and in any case, a widow remarrying or being pressured to, is hardly different from contemporary society, and I'm sure most women are quite content with the way things are structured now.

Again, you're confused between the actual interpretations reflected in individual societies as reflected by their writings, VERSUS, the actual word of God, and the point that Christianity fundamentally believes that those who believe will be saved. That doesn't necessarily mean automatic damnation, you may be presented with a choice, I don't know, I'm not dead yet, if you know the answer, as I'm sure you must, please enlighten me.


So, in response to your actual question: Does the word of God just not age well?

That's a pretty ridiculous question, because if you had studied any sort of basic class on even anthropology or Western Civilization, you would understand that the way we perceive and the way the ancients perceived is not fundamentally different, but it does vary, and the way the ancients, either Israelites, or Hellenistic Jews, saw it, life needed to be a certain way to more effectively honor God.

Please note that this also is not the view of all Christians. I completely disagree on some points and mildly on many others.

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

He understood it a lot better than the so-called Christians themselves do.

And I'm sure you're a defacto master on the subject. You're the type who just accepts whatever unsubstantiated comments people make on any sort of subject, as long as it fits your little view of the world and society in general.

ROFLMAO!!! Speaking of unsubstantiated bullshit, you're clearly a master of the subject.

I stopped reading your drivel when I got to "In other words, God was not necessarily the author of the book, it was written by a people who were interpreting how God's word and attitude would best be reflected in their own society." because that simple sentence proves you're merely talking out of your ass. "Necessarily"???? God is not the author of ANY of the book. Not a single word, not a single passage. Even the thumpers themselves admit that the bible was written by ordinary people. Hell, the most adamant biblical apologists are still forced to admit that the New Testament, the part the Christians choose to believe in the most, was written well after the events they claim to show.

Your great cosmic muffin, even if he did exist, did not write a single word of those fairy tales. Not one. Every single silly little scribble comes from a person who says that they spoke to god personally or that spoke to a person who says that they spoke to god personally. Want a list of all the people that claimed that they too spoke to god and were speaking his words right before they climbed into a tower with a rifle and a good scope? How about a list of those people who claimed to have spoken to god personally right before they planted a bomb in his glory?

It's pretty funny, if somebody came up to you on the street and said that they spoke to god and that he wants you to stop watching TV you'd be sure that they're completely nuts and would get away from them as quickly as possible in the hopes that they don't snap and hurt you. But people 3000 years ago who made outlandish claims about selling your kids into slavery, murdering the infidels, burning animals and other outlandish claims, those people you accept without question. That's why we laugh at you.

I believe that an omniscient, omnipotent Lord created the universe. Do you really I don't believe he has the power to make sure the right thing is in His book?



As to the ealier references in Corinthians and Timothy regarding Women in the Church:

There are a number of different opinions on this, varying from agreeing wholeheartedly to disagree based on culture (see TehMac's post).

What I believe is most correct is actually a combination of both. The reason that Paul brings this up is because in this culture Men were somewhat distant from their families, however God calls us to lead our family (Paul also says: "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the Church" in Ephesians).

Now, how would you justify the Man being the leader of the family at home if the Woman is his leader at church? It's my belief that this is the basis of Paul's teaching here.

Should Women be allowed to teach? Absolutely. Hold power positions in the Church? Absolutely. However Man was created to Lead and care should be taken to make sure this God-given authority is not usurped.


Let me comment on the fact that I said Men are the Leaders of their family. This is does not mean they make all the decisions and don't listen to anyone. This also does not mean that they do whatever they want. In fact, they are charged with loving their Wives like Christ loved the Church. Which means we should always do what is in their best interest and be willing to lay down our life if that's what it takes.

For anyone who would like to continue to discuss feel free to PM, this thread was bumped to troll, I simply wanted to try and clear up some misconceptions.

 

[TallBill]

When does she take her shirt off?

 

[SlickSnake]

(a slightly modified repost on my part, but after prop 8 once again showed how prejudiced and bigoted religious types are and this thread pissed me off when I read it and book marked it not long ago, I decided to add my feelings here, too.)

Jesus has left the building.

Just don't bother to remind so called Christians he was never in the building predjudiced religious hypocrisy built for them to preach hate and intolerance in, in the first place.

Sitting around in a congregation praying for self serving demands from GOD does not equal personal salvation and it is 180 degrees away from it.

And do your bigoted friends and family members still think Jesus was a white Aryan brother just like Santa Clause is even though Jesus was from the Middle East?

And on that topic, Christian types pretty much believe in Jesus like in Santa Clause as kids. Santa is the template for Christian religious indoctrination. Santa's watching you, Santa knows if you've been good or bad, just tell Santa what you want for CHRISTmas. This is all part of the brainwashing of children and making the way for Jesus. The problem is, the adults never outgrow the concept of Jesus, and it leaves most Christians in an infantile spiritual state before God, not an enlightened one.

God is either with you or He is not. God is either for you, or He is against you. Mankind and religions attempt to make God fit its preconceptions of what God is, solely based on social cultures and beliefs. This obvious fact alone proves the innate misdirection and fallacy of all religions.

All religions are trying to enlighten a person spiritually, and yet the irony is that this can only truly come about after one casts off the preconceptions of what some one else thinks God is. Religions are only a starting point in this spiritual quest, not the end of it. Either God works the same way for ALL of us, or God does not exist for ANY of us. But good luck trying to convey that concept to some crazy religion brainwashed suicide bomber.

 

[Auggie]

Don't worry. With Obama's Freedom of Choice Act due to be signed in within hours of his inauguration, there's still plenty of government-sanctioned immorality to be had! Fret not! The Choice is yours! Yes you can!

Besides, without a doubt I believe the Courts will overrule what the majority of the people in the state voted for. After all, I'm sure the Courts know what's best for us... and how to extrapolate the issue of homosexual marriages from the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Against my better judgement I'm going to contribute some comments to this necromanced thread.

Originally posted by: Auggie

Besides, without a doubt I believe the Courts will overrule what the majority of the people in the state voted for.

As a matter of fact I think this will likely be the case. Someone with the proper standing will challenge this proposition in the Supreme Court, where it will be reversed -- assuming properly forumlated arguments.

After all, I'm sure the Courts know what's best for us... and how to extrapolate the issue of homosexual marriages from the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is in reality a Constitutional issue. The fourteenth amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, which means that if John can marry Jane, so can Jill. Anything less is unconstitutional.

Of course, all of the loudly trumpeting self-righteous "patriots" on the right secretly regret that rather "unfortunate" part of our Constitution.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Against my better judgement I'm going to contribute some comments to this necromanced thread.

Originally posted by: Auggie

Besides, without a doubt I believe the Courts will overrule what the majority of the people in the state voted for.

As a matter of fact I think this will likely be the case. Someone with the proper standing will challenge this proposition in the Supreme Court, where it will be reversed -- assuming properly forumlated arguments.

After all, I'm sure the Courts know what's best for us... and how to extrapolate the issue of homosexual marriages from the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is in reality a Constitutional issue. The fourteenth amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, which means that if John can marry Jane, so can Jill. Anything less is unconstitutional.

Of course, all of the loudly trumpeting self-righteous "patriots" on the right secretly regret that rather "unfortunate" part of our Constitution.

Exactly, interpreting the constitutions is part of the job of the courts. I don't care if 99% of the state voted in favor of prop 8, you don't get to legislate bigotry... anymore... much...

 

[Auggie]

I'm not a bigot. Let churches marry people. Let the government establish a legal situation, as is its job. I submit that Italy's model is approaching some kind of rational solution.

Gays can already find churches to marry into - what they're really interested in is social benefits (Edit: which I am very much in favor of them possessing).

I like how people call each other bigots. It's so insulting... but for some reason, it's still politically correct, even though it's insulting. Probably because (by definition?) calling someone a bigot is pointing the PC finger at them preemptively.

*Points the cool guy finger (like Obama at his victory speech) at Aardvark and makes a cocky/yuppy smile*

 

[Homerboy]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Great, I see that one of the biggest troll thread on AT has been revived.

Thanks jonks. :disgust:

I don't see how the OP was troll on any level. He posted some videos to what he (and many others likely) thought was a powerful and meaningful message.

Its the people that can't obviously co-exist with differentiating opinions that have turned into int the troll-fest/argument that it has become.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Great, I see that one of the biggest troll thread on AT has been revived.

Thanks jonks. :disgust:

I don't see how the OP was troll on any level. He posted some videos to what he (and many others likely) thought was a powerful and meaningful message.

Its the people that can't obviously co-exist with differentiating opinions that have turned into int the troll-fest/argument that it has become.

The part that makes it a troll thread is that it was posted in a place where it is very well known that it would turn into what it has become. Very few religiously oriented threads on AT have managed to avoid such a fate.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Great, I see that one of the biggest troll thread on AT has been revived.

Thanks jonks. :disgust:

I don't see how the OP was troll on any level. He posted some videos to what he (and many others likely) thought was a powerful and meaningful message.

Its the people that can't obviously co-exist with differentiating opinions that have turned into int the troll-fest/argument that it has become.

The part that makes it a troll thread is that it was posted in a place where it is very well known that it would turn into what it has become. Very few religiously oriented threads on AT have managed to avoid such a fate.

Exactly. Regardless what the original intent of the OP was, it's still a troll thread.

 

[Beev]

Good god... fuck this thread

*walks out*

 

[BZeto]

We had a traveling group come and do that very skit for us at my church a few weeks ago. It was awesome. Praise Jesus, we owe him everything!

 

[ryan256]

Originally posted by: tealk
http://www.godtube.com/view_vi...y=ee73e63418003b47d7d5

http://www.godtube.com/view_vi...y=d14827b8c55d8411d821

Bless you all

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God". 1 Corinthians 1:18

First video was a little strange but I liked the second. Very symbolic. Plus this is a song I've always enjoyed. Never thought of it in this light though.
I haven't read this whole thread and don't care to. I'm sure the trolls are trashing it left & right. Hating and vilifying Christians seems to be very popular now.... especially on ATOT.

 

[dquan97]

Love that video! :thumbsup:

 

[mageslayer]

Originally posted by: Nik
god... tube? GODtube? :Q

Same Reaction. Utter Disbelief.....

 

[SlickSnake]

I still love GOD in this God-banned place.

Does anyone else?

 

[sandorski]

I choose not to "Love" an imaginary Being. I certainly don't Love this Necro.

 

[TridenT]

I choose not to "Love" an imaginary Being. I certainly don't Love this Necro.

I choose not to think there is such an imaginary being. AND I HATE THIS FUCKING NECRO.

 

[QueBert]

I still love GOD in this God-banned place.

Does anyone else?

I do, and always will, I think I love him even more because he can make the retarded virgin trolls on here scream in anger because they lack faith. Even if I didn't believe in him (which I do) for the point I brought up alone I could do nothing but love him.

 

[Locut0s]

Edit: Stupid fucking necro threads.

 

[TridenT]

I do, and always will, I think I love him even more because he can make the retarded virgin trolls on here scream in anger because they lack faith. Even if I didn't believe in him (which I do) for the point I brought up alone I could do nothing but love him.

Pretty sure there are plenty of god-believin' virgin(You know; the whole no-sex before marriage thing?) trolls too. >_> :thumbsdown:

Anyway, where is our mod who locks these threadz, yo?!

 

[QueBert]

Pretty sure there are plenty of god-believin' virgin(You know; the whole no-sex before marriage thing?) trolls too. >_> :thumbsdown:

Anyway, where is our mod who locks these threadz, yo?!

True, but they generally don't get bent of shape like the faithless ones do. Watching the ATOTers who compare God to the Tooth Fairy rant about how much they fucking hate religion always makes my day. When something doesn't even concern a person, yet can still upset them to such a high level, it's a thing of beauty.

 

[El Guaraguao]

After reading the first couple pages of this thread Ive come to the conclusions that there were a lot more crazies back in the day. You know who you are. :awe:

 

[JEDIYoda]

if god loved my gf he wouldn't have given her polymyositis, fibromyalgia, arthritis, and a host of other diseases before the age of 9.


bastard.

Your an idiot......
God did Love your gf...he gave her you fool....