Willfull Sinning

[jasoncran]

Our political scene has a few religious nuts creeping in.

US governing law is based on 'ethic code.' Not religious determinations.

That code is void of religion, and I thank God for that! I certainly don't want some religious slanted goofball tampering with our court and right system. There is a reason for division of church and state. I strongly hope it stays in place.

Believers who want to outlaw the rights of homosexual sinners would be well advised to rid yourselves of your own sin, but of course that is not going to happen.

In the meantime the homosexual sinner and the religious zealot sinner should be afforded the same 'ethical' treatment in the system.

I also happen to know and to also love people who are gays and lesbians.

I also don't agree with any sin, period, first and foremost my own.

Some believers are smart enough to know we all have sin. Throwing rocks at other sinners in the name of God is an unwise directive. Trying to legislate sin away is not going to work.

I hope these various forms of so called christian anti-homosexual zealotry get a good dose of the first Divine Hand in personal judgments applied to themselves and their SINS before they come riding on their pure white horses to my political door, because it will be slammed shut in their faces when they do.

s

thanks i want to be an abortionist not feel guilty about that at its a legal to abort and i want to make $$ of that industry. a baby is just a blob of tissue after all.

so we shouldnt share the gospel with the lost? we arent perfect you know.

 

[smaller]

thanks i want to be an abortionist not feel guilty about that at its a legal to abort and i want to make $$ of that industry. a baby is just a blob of tissue after all.

so we shouldnt share the gospel with the lost? we arent perfect you know.

Turnabout is 'fair play' as they say Jason.

So let me share a perspective on the subject above.

Many christians believe in both freewill and an age of accountability.

An exercise in logic then is this. IF a child dies before the age of accountability, and goes to heaven, they have a 100% chance of salvation. Growing to the age of accountability reduces their chances considerably.

So, why take the chance of salvation when there is a 100% guarantee?

Using religious yardsticks on these matters is not going to stop women from killing their babies. Do I agree with killing babies? No. I don't agree with any sin, remember? First and foremost my own.

Christians who think that they can legislate sin out of the unbelievers system should not even be involved in our legislation.

They should mind their own house and their own sins first.

Thankfully the system, bad as it can be, has afforded me an ethical position in relationships with other people who do not believe 'like me.'

s

 

[jasoncran]

Turnabout is 'fair play' as they say Jason.

So let me share a perspective on the subject above.

Many christians believe in both freewill and an age of accountability.

An exercise in logic then is this. IF a child dies before the age of accountability, and goes to heaven, they have a 100% chance of salvation. Growing to the age of accountability reduces their chances considerably.

So, why take the chance of salvation when there is a 100% guarantee?

Using religious yardsticks on these matters is not going to stop women from killing their babies. Do I agree with killing babies? No. I don't agree with any sin, remember? First and foremost my own.

Christians who think that they can legislate sin out of the unbelievers system should not even be involved in our legislation.

They should mind their own house and their own sins first.

Thankfully the system, bad as it can be, has afforded me an ethical position in relationships with other people who do not believe 'like me.'

s

for the record i neither buy into eternal security, for the most part never have.

the bible doesnt support that.

who says that the religous right isnt for freedom of religion? i am but that doesnt mean we should endorse sin.

i vote against gay rights, and well your statement of walking in their shoes need not apply. i have. i repented its a sin. i wont support it.

ethics can be made to the whim of man if Gods nature and commands arent considered. hitler made murder legal. america and the west has done the same thus abortion.

right so we shouldnt defend the unborn?

 

[reba]

Turnabout is 'fair play' as they say Jason.

So let me share a perspective on the subject above.

Many christians believe in both freewill and an age of accountability.

An exercise in logic then is this. IF a child dies before the age of accountability, and goes to heaven, they have a 100% chance of salvation. Growing to the age of accountability reduces their chances considerably.

So, why take the chance of salvation when there is a 100% guarantee?

Using religious yardsticks on these matters is not going to stop women from killing their babies. Do I agree with killing babies? No. I don't agree with any sin, remember? First and foremost my own.

Christians who think that they can legislate sin out of the unbelievers system should not even be involved in our legislation.

They should mind their own house and their own sins first.

Thankfully the system, bad as it can be, has afforded me an ethical position in relationships with other people who do not believe 'like me.'

s

With that logic we should have no laws

 

[smaller]

for the record i neither buy into eternal security, for the most part never have.

the bible doesnt support that.

who says that the religous right isnt for freedom of religion? i am but that doesnt mean we should endorse sin.

i vote against gay rights, and well your statement of walking in their shoes need not apply. i have. i repented its a sin. i wont support it.

ethics can be made to the whim of man if Gods nature and commands arent considered. hitler made murder legal. america and the west has done the same thus abortion.

right so we shouldnt defend the unborn?

Laws based on ethics which we have established in this country and laws based on religious or christian determinations are two entirely separate matters.

Do I want religious based laws?

Adamantly NOT. The ethics based determinations are far better for all walks of people. We may not from our christian perspectives agree with the ethics determinations, but our views from various religious/christian perspectives are going to vary greatly. In short I do not want your 'religious' determinations shoved down my throat in the name of your particular sect from a CHRISTIAN perspective nor for example would I want Sharia laws shoved down my throat or Hindu laws, etc etc.

The secular world should operate the way it operates and I'm fine with that. I also believe God sets up the kingdoms of men and sets in place whomever HE WILL. So I'm cool with that too. I also believe that if it gets out of hand, God directs it will end at some point.

s

 

[smaller]

With that logic we should have no laws

Christian law says do not murder.

Ethics based law says the same thing.

I have no problems with the end result. How they got there however are two different ways that should stay that way.

s

 

[jasoncran]

Laws based on ethics which we have established in this country and laws based on religious or christian determinations are two entirely separate matters.

Do I want religious based laws?

Adamantly NOT. The ethics based determinations are far better for all walks of people. We may not from our christian perspectives agree with the ethics determinations, but our views from various religious/christian perspectives are going to vary greatly. In short I do not want your 'religious' determinations shoved down my throat in the name of your particular sect from a CHRISTIAN perspective nor for example would I want Sharia laws shoved down my throat or Hindu laws, etc etc.

The secular world should operate the way it operates and I'm fine with that. I also believe God sets up the kingdoms of men and sets in place whomever HE WILL. So I'm cool with that too. I also believe that if it gets out of hand, God directs it will end at some point.

s

that doesnt negate our responsbility to vote our godly values.

i may not agree with drew on his views of christian socialism but america was founded by men who would disagree with your position.


the govt they set forth was to be influenced by men of faith.,

where do you think laws of that are agaisnt cohabation,sodomy and adultery came from? yes its true that we cant change men but at one time the country we live was pro christian in all things and VOLUNTARILY lived the life in general and passed laws that they saw and believed in the bible.

so we christians shouldnt support any effort to relieve human suffering if our own or any govt opresses its own? after its their right to kill or opress.

 

[smaller]

that doesnt negate our responsbility to vote our godly values.

Religious determinations are not practical for ethics based systems because they don't and can't address societal problems for those outside of any particular sect.

i may not agree with drew on his views of christian socialism but america was founded by men who would disagree with your position.

Those same men divided church and state for very good reasons. So everyone can practice their own religious values.

Most of them learned that lesson from their own experiences with King George and the church of England.

the govt they set forth was to be influenced by men of faith.,

Sorry, the system is not meant to be run by faith or faith determinations. Our laws [all] are set in an ethics based system. Faith is not in the equation, nor should it be.

where do you think laws of that are agaisnt cohabation,sodomy and adultery came from? yes its true that we cant change men but at one time the country we live was pro christian in all things and VOLUNTARILY lived the life in general and passed laws that they saw and believed in the bible.

Again, you may see those laws as faith laws, but they were still ethics derived. That is why many such laws are being overturned today.

so we christians shouldnt support any effort to relieve human suffering if our own or any govt opresses its own? after its their right to kill or opress.

It's just a different system jason.

s

 

[jasoncran]

Religious determinations are not practical for ethics based systems because they don't and can't address societal problems for those outside of any particular sect.


Those same men divided church and state for very good reasons. So everyone can practice their own religious values.

Most of them learned that lesson from their own experiences with King George and the church of England.


Sorry, the system is not meant to be run by faith or faith determinations. Our laws [all] are set in an ethics based system. Faith is not in the equation, nor should it be.


Again, you may see those laws as faith laws, but they were still ethics derived. That is why many such laws are being overturned today.


It's just a different system jason.

s

what part of that didnt i know. a state religion being disallowed doesnt mean we should let a moral freefall

i mean should we just let isreal be overan by islam if the whole worlds says it doenst need to exist?
after all the right of nations to determine their own will

based on what state laws or countries laws was the act of sodomy legalised? hint it wasnt even in america it was based outside of judeo christian values.

so what makes being gay ethical? what world views says that to murder is bad and where does all morality comes from? if it aint from God then you have no stance.all that is Good comes from God for he defines it not man.

if man is the source as you say then you cant ever tell me that the holocaust was wrong as that is only an opinion. or abortion or murder.

so christ isnt the source of what is good.i am not talking about a state religion so i would like you to drop that, but the founders didnt say lets have free fall of morality that is today.

in fact until the 80s' in the military it was crime to commit adultery and sodomy and charges were carried out. and in the 1800s death was on the books. and i like still was until the 1980s now we have adultery and sodomy galore in the military.

based on what world view did wilberforce force brittain to stop slavery, if not christianity what was it? should we not do the same or if such human trade or sex slavery should we then just say oh well we should ignore that too?

 

[smaller]

what part of that didnt i know. a state religion being disallowed doesnt mean we should let a moral freefall

Ethics based systems can and do derive similar positions apart from religious affiliations.

i mean should we just let isreal be overan by islam if the whole worlds says it doenst need to exist?
after all the right of nations to determine their own will

That's a state issue, not a religious issue. It is ethically in the state's best interest (termed ethical consideration/favor) to support allies.

based on what state laws or countries laws was the act of sodomy legalised? hint it wasnt even in america it was based outside of judeo christian values.

so what makes being gay ethical?

That's why religion and state need to stay separate. You may think their sin is worse than yours. I don't. We both derive that understanding from our beliefs.

But ethics considerations would and should treat this matter differently. Otherwise you end up with 'sinner favoritism.' Your sin is OK, theirs is not. Your sin goes unpunished, theirs does not. I am not in favor of such positions.

what world views says that to murder is bad and where does all morality comes from? if it aint from God then you have no stance.all that is Good comes from God for he defines it not man.

From an ethics position murder is illegal as well. It's not in societies best interest for the citizens to murder each others.

if man is the source as you say then you cant ever tell me that the holocaust was wrong as that is only an opinion. or abortion or murder.

I might suggest you spend a little time on the topic matter before taking it on. Ethics based law has been around for several centuries if not more.

so christ isnt the source of what is good.i am not talking about a state religion so i would like you to drop that, but the founders didnt say lets have free fall of morality that is today.

How I believe is irrelevant to ethics based law.

in fact until the 80s' in the military it was crime to commit adultery and sodomy and charges were carried out. and in the 1800s death was on the books. and i like still was until the 1980s now we have adultery and sodomy galore in the military.

Military law is another matter altogether, and quite different than ethics based law. Ultimately though they are hyper ethics based and not religious based.

based on what world view did wilberforce force brittain to stop slavery, if not christianity what was it? should we not do the same or if such human trade or sex slavery should we then just say oh well we should ignore that too?

Religious votes go in the ballot box. That doesn't make the laws derived from those votes religious based. Whatever law is contrived will still be based on ethics in the court systems.

I for one would have a problem laying my hand on a bible and swearing to tell the whole truth from a religious perspective. Why? Because my faith teaches me that all men are liars. From an ethics perspective it is only about observable or quantifiable facts and persuasion, so laying my hand thereon and swearing from an understanding of ethics allowed evidence and testimony is an entirely different matter and I have no problem with same.

s

 

[jasoncran]

gods word do you believe or not. adam and eve and enoch etc lived before egypt etc.

God defined what is evil not man

it doesnt matter what sin is worse or not all of it is the same. yes we have to decide what is allowable for the basic function but there are studies done that show the basic family is the best for society. i can post those studies and they are done by more neutral site narth.com

gays adapt to redifine what the basic function of a family is, its not going to stop with just that polygamy and so forth so an ounce of prevention isnt worth it too you?is well know by our govt that the lbgt male members have the highest case of stds and i can even post those facts and yet you say hey that harmless right, 44 times more likely to get aids they lead the cases of gonnorhrea.

so we should encourage that?

i cant give blood for the rest my life for my decision. i am clean but the fda has said nope. i dont agree with that but the cdc does say theres a risk.

but so if prostution should be legalised thats ok too, remember the church must clean up the sinners. divorces go up and we should and do see the church trying to heal the hurting. what you suggest is that we should play the defensive and just catch the fallen i say do both prevent the act by warning them and also preaching the gospel. if they dont listen thats on them. i prefer not to enable sin. i wont go after the sinner but i will vote my world view.

christ never said, well you can sin if you aint in the church.

 

[stovebolts]

An exercise in logic then is this. IF a child dies before the age of accountability, and goes to heaven, they have a 100% chance of salvation. Growing to the age of accountability reduces their chances considerably.

S. I know that you're only using this as an example, but that kind of example actually makes me mad... It's twisted, warped and debased while steeped within selfish desires. Life is so much more than logic, and logic is't always the best route... I believe Captain Kirk tried to explain this to Dr. Spock several times...

 

[smaller]

S. I know that you're only using this as an example, but that kind of example actually makes me mad... It's twisted, warped and debased while steeped within selfish desires. Life is so much more than logic, and logic is't always the best route... I believe Captain Kirk tried to explain this to Dr. Spock several times...

I agree with the fact that it's twisted. The logic however is fact based on these assumptions which you are welcome to challenge.

A. Children who die before the age of accountability [theological premise 1] automatically go to heaven [theological premise 2,] thereby guaranteeing their salvation odds at 100%

B. Children who reach the age of accountability have a dramatically reduced percentage of being saved.

It's simple logic. Nothing more. And it is based on the 2 premises shown.

s

 

[stovebolts]

I agree with the fact that it's twisted. The logic however is fact based on these assumptions which you are welcome to challenge.

A. Children who die before the age of accountability [theological premise 1] automatically go to heaven [theological premise 2,] thereby guaranteeing their salvation odds at 100%

B. Children who reach the age of accountability have a dramatically reduced percentage of being saved.

It's simple logic. Nothing more. And it is based on the 2 premises shown.

s

That's pretty narrow thinking... Paul addressed this type of thinking... I'm pretty sure it's posted in the opening OP ;)

Anyway, glad you understand that it's twisted and don't support that type of unhealthy thinking. As far as challenging that type of thinkng... I've got better things to do with my time.

Grace and peace.

 

[stovebolts]

Laws based on ethics which we have established in this country and laws based on religious or christian determinations are two entirely separate matters.

I agree! While the Bible sets out with some very good ethics, the work of Christ is a moral work, not an ethical work.

A law of ethics can delineate abortions, but they cannot dictate a moral compass. Laws governed by ethics reminds me of the padlock on my Dad's garage. It only keeps the honest people out.