motionscribe

People can choose their flavor of religion and how they practice it, just like gay people can choose their partners and whether or not to abstain from sexual activity. Some may say that bisexuals absolutely have a choice. However, there is evidence suggesting that there are biological factors that predispose us toward faith. This is really all beside the point tho. Religion needed to become a protected class for a reason. Today, that protection keeps all the religious bigots we see in forums like these from acting on their hatred.

Good luck with the peer review on that one. Anecdotal stereotypes tend not to fare so well. Maybe you can submit papers on angry black women and job-stealing mexicans while you're at it.

But you've also said that this standard is not what sets the bar for the afterlife. It doesn't matter if you hit it. But you said that Christianity is an amoral religion. The quotes I posted simply show that it's not. There's clearly concern about immorality throughout the text. Does it really follow that God doesn't care about sin just because he spared us from the eternal consequences of it in the afterlife? Given the text, do really think He wouldn't care how people acted in that afterlife, either in heaven or on earth? There's also ample warnings about the destructive nature/consequences of sin in this life as well, so the idea of amoralism just doesn't fit the gap. But you've said that everybody sins, all the time. You said that even in the act of trying to believe in Christ, you sin. You said that it is only belief in God and Jesus that can counteract that and let you into heaven. So... explain to me how those two things are different? As metioned earlier in the thread, God knows one's heart. Some actually appreciate God's Grace - and tho they are free, they understand the destructive nature of their sin which is explained quite extensively throughout all of scripture. There's a sense of sincerity and personal responsibility that will limit sin in their lives. Contrast that with those who merely take advantage of God's Grace without any understanding whatsoever, using it as an excuse to sin as if they found some type of loophole. I've had my moments, but what's it to you? I'd say the conscious/deliberate sin is probably the hardest for obvious reasons. But you get up, acknowledge the problem and address those issues and move on. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." - King James Version (KJV) If it was an amoral religion, this would've been the perfect part to say something like: "If we confess our sins, who cares? God sure as hell doesn't. Cheerio". - Sir Jakee version (SJV) You can't just lie your way out of lying. It doesn't work for Trump and it won't work for you. Just be an adult and own it. I'm sorry you feel that way - that I was trying to deceive you. You said that Christianity was amoral. I felt that the quotes I posted clearly countered that specific brain fart of yours without the need for any additional commentary/context. I mean, if the religion truly was amoral, then why is the text saturated with similar quotes against immorality? Why pay it any attention in the first place? I just disagree that it's an amoral religion and that God doesn't care, especially when that saving faith will allow you to grow spiritually and cultivate some type of moralistic change in your life one way or another. I'm not hard set on any of the following, and it's not necessarily biblical, but just for the hell of it, what is "good?" Often it seems to be defined by that which mitigates the bad. For example, we say that a father being there and taking care off his family is a good thing, but why? Why is that a good thing? That should just be the way that it is, neither good nor bad. The only reason we consider it good, is because of all the deadbeats, cheaters, abusers, assholes, etc. that don't take care of their family. I once found a large sum of money on the highway and returned it to the rightful owner. A week later they wanted to hold some award ceremony and give me a key to the city or some shit like that. Really? But that's the type of world we live in, where people are expected to get rewarded for doing things they should be doing anyway. Can good even exist without the bad? If there was no bad, then everything would just be. Good wouldn't exist because there wouldn't be anything bad to compare it to. And that's how I think this world was meant to be. But we are so far gone that we can't even imagine how such a world could even be possible. Doing good is just an illusion that we've created in order to stroke our own egos. "Hey look at me, I'm a good person, I did this and I did that."

"Behind every great man, is a great woman" I think I read somewhere that Michelle was actually Obama's mentor at the law firm where they worked, and that Hillary actually approached Bill first. Anyway, I get what you're saying, but we really shouldn't be surprised that our "modern" society hasn't lived up to all the hype. People can talk online all they want about empowering women, but social media is no challenge for the natural processes that have dictated our social structure - and for the most part it actually has very little to do with misogyny, gender inequality, or any other type of discrimination. It's evolution, baby. It's how we're designed. It's what works. The height of opportunity for women today is great, and tho many women may admire that, it's not a lifestyle they're interested in pursuing. Most are happy with a traditional lifestyle. They don't mind living a modest life, taking care of two wonderful kids and a loving husband that appreciates her for everything she does. She doesn't see herself in competition with "the man's world" or her husband's paycheck. Businesses market to her because in most cases, she controls how that paycheck is spent. She doesn't worry about a bruised ego. She's better than that. She's crafty, confident and powerful, and she's raising our future. She's Perfect. Now that's something I can admire.

Ok, that one made me Chuckle.

I had to google that one, I knew there was a masturbation joke in there somewhere, but I couldn't find the pun. The funny part is "Two nuns in a bath." The rest of it's just a riddle.

Wait, so you post a bunch of religious sex jokes, one of which was deleted for being too inappropriate even for this forum, and then your wife takes a relatively innocent comment and turns it into something about ejaculation, and Christians are the ones obsessed with sex??? Ya, that's a good one! Just curious, do you stereotype other protected classes of people like that? I wonder how many hypocrites in here would be offended if there was a black joke of the day thread, or a trans-sexual joke of the day thread. . .

I don't recall that. Perhaps you could refresh my memory? "You need to look no further than the scripture that I've quoted... What I posted was rather clear.... Ok, so do you believe me? If so, would I not then try to explain the Greek passages as well to the best of my ability if they needed any additional explanation?" It was clear in the sense that it shows a standard for Christian behavior, which is what we were talking about. There seems to be this idea that Christ died so that we can sin. I find such ideas offensive and completely falls short of the mark. I know, right? I have a very hard time remembering things I didn't do. I guess I'm just weird like that. If there is absolutely no change in a persons life and they merely use God's Grace as an excuse to sin without any conviction whatsoever, then I can state with great confidence that they're probably not a christian. "Faith without works is dead." I would not feel comfortable passing judgement on someone in this regard, because I don't know and it's not my job. Generally speaking, it's up to that person to examine themselves and it's up to God to judge. That's the best I can do and can offer no absolute as it seems to limit God. "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." I suppose it's his prerogative to save whoever he wanted regardless of their faith, but I wouldn't count on it. IIRC, there will be 144,000 Jews that will be saved without having faith in Christ prior to seeing God and finally knowing the truth. But don't take my word for that as I need to reexamine that part of scripture.

Right, so when you told me the passage absolutely means what it says with no other context necessary you were lying. If you want people to understand you, it's best not to intentionally deceive them. I don't recall that. Perhaps you could refresh my memory? He's part of the story whether you like it or not. . . I absolutely, 100% understand what the word 'perhaps' means. Perhaps nothing changed, but perhaps it did, regardless of how you behave. Sounds like you agree with me now? Oh for fuck's sake dude, of course I can't be 100% sure. I'm not God. . .

Lol, who are you kidding? Practically every thread in this fucking place is nothing but a god-damned troll. . .

By the way, I will not use the term pretty sure here but, thank you for making my point! You have no data that backs any of the alarmist bullshit that is the man-made global warming Hysteria. It's amazing how many times causation has been brought up on this site. But you never bring it up when it comes to global warming. Again I thank you! But you can't deny the sudden increase, right? So any effort to mitigate that would be a good thing, right? ...and no, that doesn't mean we have to shut down the coal plants either.

Ya right, what's your definition of a "significant" part of $1.2 million dollars? Ya, well that choice wasn't given.

Yes, Ron is an inspiration to us all. . . Personally, I have no problem with using foul language as an emphasis since I'm a walking and talking adult human being. But If I were to call you a "fucking asshole," then ya, that might be a problem. . .

So what is the context? Since you're now claiming the passage above doesn't mean what it says (straight after claiming it does mean what it says), what does it actually mean? If the holy spirit is telling you that this passage "Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." really means that the sexually immoral will inherit the kingdom of god, thieves will inherit the kingdom of god, greedy people, drunkards, revilers and swindlers will inherit the kingdom of god then yes, it sounds like you do need the holy spirit (or some strong spirits) to understand it. Paul was talking to Corinthian converts. Most all of them would've likely came from a similar background. There was an instance where they were celebrating their tolerance of some guy that slept with his stepmother. They were partying and getting drunk while others were starving at the church. Pual exclaimed, "WHAT?" The point is that if you have the Spirit of God, you wouldn't boast of such evil. You would see sin for what it is and repent. Even if you sinned, you wouldn't boast about it, and you certainly wouldn't encourage others to do the same. . . If after supposedly becoming a christian you continue in the same lifestyle as if nothing ever changed then perhaps nothing ever changed. Why is that so hard to understand?

lol dude, maybe you're just paranoid? Take it with a grain of salt. I'm not worried about what you may do. But I am always on guard over what people with similar beliefs may do. And, if you or Ron had the power to make it so, I believe you would gladly turn your country into a religious based state. You people are nuts. Fuck this place. Have fun guys. . .