Blank

I hear it from a lot of people, and I won't say that I don't agree: the prospect of the government tapping the average Joe's phone is disturbing. It is one more freedom that is lost toward the cause of "national security". I'm fairly sure that phone tapping by the government without permission can help in certain terrorist cases, but most people I hear don't think it is worth the freedom that is lost. However, I'm also sure most of those people wouldn't forgive the Bush administration if another terrorist attack occurred. My immediate family wasn't directly affected by the events of 9/11, but I know a lot of people's families were. In the broken world we live in, with freedom comes risk. I hope the people who berate Bush for things like the patriot act are fully aware of the risk that comes without that extra "security". If I thought about it long and hard, I would rather not have the patriot act in place, simply because I want to be as far away from a dystopia as possible, and the patriot act is an unnecessary step toward that direction in my eyes. Although, like I mentioned earlier, my eyes are different than someone else's who has lost family due to terrorist attacks. My main point for writing this is to express my feelings that people need to understand what risks they are proposing to take when they suggest abolishing things like the patriot act (i.e. comparing the risks to the freedoms, not just looking at the freedoms, which seems to be the common thing to do).

I thought Doug Doug's dad did an excellent job with his voice and facial expressions. The ending credits look cool also.

I saw this on another forum: Fear of Girls. You've all probably seen it. It's pretty funny, about rpg pnp gamers.

YAY!

In before lock!

"My driving belief in life is to love God and love others." Just to note, nowhere in that last post did I say God was loving. Now I will say God is loving, so now your comment can apply. God has a lot to do with love. Primarily, how he died for sin on the cross. As for eternal torture, since the last time we spoke, Hades, I have thought at length about this subject. Indeed, how can a loving God put someone in eternal torture? To that I will say again that I believe God is sovreign, rightous, just, and most importantly, good. So can a good, loving God, allow that to happen? He allows free will, and there is punishment for certain choices, but will he punish eternally? On this issue, a few months ago, I decided that I won't draw a distinction, except that I know there is some kind of punishment, or else salvation would be meaningless (that is, if there is no punishment, then salvation from what?). I studied the issue, and the eternal fire and brimstone isn't completely clear in the bible. The closest I see is that the devil, the beast, and the antichrist are thrown into the lake of fire, to burn for eternity, and that anybody whos name is not found in the book of life will be thrown in also (though there is no timeframe given for those people, as it is given for the devil, the beast, and the antichrist). If the passage said that the people who aren't in the book of life will be thrown into the lake of fire for eternity, then my belief would be more concrete, but that passage gives the most detail about the economy of hell that is in the bible. Although, regardless of this, I have faith in a God that I believe is sovreign. If you believed that, it would only make sense to serve him, your soul would be at his fingertips. Moreover, I serve him by doing good. I don't see why you are adverse to a belief system that only permits you to do good. Perhaps the reason behind it? Because the reason is that it is for God? The reason is actually that it is for good, it is for the sake of good. I happen to believe that God defines good. So what he did in Egypt, was that good? I won't say. Ask him when you get to heaven. Or heck, ask him now, he might answer you.

Sure, why not. I believe he is all-powerful. Why can't he do something like that? It doesn't matter about how I believe the world was created. As you said, my driving belief in life is to love God and love others, so trying to convince people that the world was made 6000 years ago is stupid. In fact, I'll recant that earlier comment, simply because it has no bearing on my beliefs as a whole. I believe God created everything, that is all that's needed. I do give ground though. Like now when I realize that believing the world was made 6000 years ago is rather stupid to push as a point that matters.

The Christian axis of evil strikes again!

Sorry for double posting, but some people get annoyed when I edit my posts in these settings. The instances that I don't take the bible literally, I make sure to put them up to the rest of the bible, and see if my decision is right to not take the instance literally. Moreover, what I say I believe doesn't matter, because my beliefs are defined by what I do, and the heart behind what I do.

And by previous list I'll assume you mean this one: Let's see... the sun, we have documented, does not go around our planet. I don't believe it does. Therefore, that instance in the bible, I do not take literally. What passage is that from though? I think there is something like that in Psalms, a book of songs. Songs are artistic, and oftentimes scientifically unsound. I say I get heartburn, when I know that it is stomache acids pushing up my esophagus. As for the world being created 6000 years ago, I believe that is true, yes. I explain all aging of the world we find as being made by God. If I was going to make a world, and I was God, it would make sense to not make it a planet that is just coming into existence. I would create the world "aged" a bit, like good wine, in order to house people. As for carbon dating and stuff like that, I believe the atmosphere was different in the beginning of time, and that a flood occured. Pi is not exactly three. If that is in the bible, then it is simply not true, and one should look at the spirit of the passage. Where is it in the bible (just wondering)?

I will say that I don't ignore context, but I try to take the bible literally as much as it is possible for me.

Like I said, we aren't the punishers, that is reserved for his job.

I'll reply. Firstly, I believe that God is sovreign and justified in anything he does. Secondly, I do subscribe to the "do what I say, not what I do" principle in this case. The reason I do that is because God and I are different. I am a human, and my realm of dealings is with what I do, not with punishment. God's realm of dealings goes beyond imagination, but one of them is punishment. To compare me to God is flawed, because his job is immeasurably larger than mine; we are so different that it is not comparable.

Yeah, I realize that my beliefs are faith-based, so trying to logically argue some points will never make sense to somebody that doesn't believe the same thing.

One thing being the Obsidian forum community!

I do think God offed the first-born children of the Egyptians. I do think that Moses actually parted the Red Sea. I do not think that women are responsible for the fall of humanity. If you read the passage of the fall, there is a key part of a verse that people should notice: (Genesis 3:6)- "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." So, it looks like he was there with her during that time, and that he chose to eat it too. Even if he was away, he doesn't ask about it, which means he is being ignorant of the only command from God that he received. And even if I thought it was Eve's fault (which I don't), then it would be obviously flawed to blame it on all women other than Eve (as if each woman individually caused the fall of man). As for denomination, I go to an "Evangelical Conservative Baptist" church. It is really irrelevant, as my beliefs (as well as my church's) are primarily based on the bible. Ah, I just remembered your (probable) reason for asking if I believe God offed those kids. The reason might be so that you can say something like, "I don't want to believe in a God that kills little innocent children based on choices their parents make." To this I will respond: I can't change your beliefs. However, I can give you reasons as to why I still believe in this God. Firstly, He is sovreign, meaning he's the ruler of everything, so I believe that when I die, I go to him and my fate is at his fingertips. I also believe that my God is fair, and just, and good. So perhaps God knew what those kids would do if they had lived a whole life, and perhaps he found that they were as guilty as their fathers in it. I don't know what He did about those kids. Do those kids' lives mean anything to you anyway? Are you going to go out and proclaim that the Hebrew God is evil after this because he killed some kids that you think of every blue moon when you talk about religion? I doubt you will. I think that their lives, to you, are simply a part of your intellectual argument against God. If I'm wrong, I apologize for making suppositions, and I would like to know your actual reasons for asking.

Okay, that argument is flawed in those areas. I have to recant that earlier statement that whatever Jesus wasn't is not good. I'm just trying to logically think through my beliefs and represent them to you guys. If I mess up, it is good that you tell me. Thanks. I need to think more now.

Did I disregard large parts of it? No, I am saying that one passage was directly addressing an issue in one church in Corinth many years ago, and that it isn't applicable to my church based on the fact that my church is in a culture that has no divisions when it comes to allowing women liberties whereas it did in Paul's day. For the sake of rebuttal, let's say one was to take this issue (the issue of women in the church), and replace it with homosexuality. Let's pretend that one day, we lived in a society where homosexuality was very commonplace, and there were no problems with it. So let's rewrite what I said in the previous paragraph: "Did I disregard large parts of it? No, I am saying that one passage was directly addressing an issue in one church in Corinth many years ago, and that it isn't applicable to my church based on the fact that my church is in a culture that has no divisions when it comes to allowing homosexuality whereas it did in Paul's day." That paragraph becomes flawed for a few reasons. There are a few different places in the new testament where homosexuality is cited as wrong, so it would indeed be a larger portion of the bible, as opposed to one passage. Also, it would be disregarding the spirit of all the laws in the old testament, and it would bring into greater question God's choice of destroying Sodom and Gomorrah (one of the main reasons of its destruction being the prevalence of homosexuality). Despite all this, let's say I was sure of myself that homosexuality was okay for Christians. The bottom line is that God would judge me when I die. Am I willing to be judged for not silencing women in the church? Hell yes, I am 100% sure that women should be talking in the church, as equally as men. I am forced to "allow" homosexuality to exist anyway, just as we're forced to allow murder on the other side of the world. I can't stop either, but I do classify both as a sin. Murder, I easily concede, is the more egregious of the two, but they both separate a human from God. Jesus was amongst sinners, and he didn't stop them by force (with exception to his driving out of people who were buying and selling in God's holy temple). I am amongst sinners, and I won't stop them just the same. I will try to show them Jesus, I will try to persuade them to change their ways, but first and foremost, I will try to show them Jesus. I see homosexuals as sinners, but I won't stop them. I will try to show them Jesus, just like I would any other non-believer, and I would try to persuade them to change their way, based on the idea that God is glorified through the keeping of his law, which is one thing that separates Christians from the rest of the world (the other is the spreading of the salvation of Christ from our sins, our sins being the absence of adherence to the law). Also, none of the bible is silly to me, as I consider all of it to be there on purpose. Call me dumb, but I have faith in that, and I have faith that the Holy Spirit will help me to interpret it.

True, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. Therefore, I should focus more on evangalizing to homosexuals as opposed to classifying their mindsets as sinful. Jesus also wasn't homosexual though. In my eyes, Jesus has always been everything good, embodied in a human form. So also using my previous logic, homosexuality at best is not good. That is not to say that anything new after Jesus is wrong, but homosexuality was during Jesus' time, and he didn't practice it.

Unfortunately, we have a church in LaPorte, Colorado that still subscibes to this view. I don't remember that name of the church but it is run by Pete Peters ( Doin' the 'White Thing' ). Interesting character. A White Separatist in addition to his other sins. His wife Cherie ( I think ) adheres to it as well ( cheerfully, I might add ). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's people like Pete Peters that ruin Christianity. For one thing, Jesus was far from beng a white separatist, and Christianity is based on being like Christ. How stupid can people be?

I have an AMD Turion64 processor that is supposedly 1.59 GHz. I have 1 GB of RAM and an ATI Mobility Radion x700 video card. I won't be able to run NWN2 will I? :'(

Haha, I think it's funny when people judge all Christianity based on one church's weird belief system and/or actions. (When I said "funny", I meant "illogical"). If you guys were wondering what passage it was that the church took literally, it would be this one: Is it disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church? No. Did it used to be disgraceful during that day and age? Yes. Paul was writing practical rules to a Middle Eastern people 2000 years ago. Most churches understand that. I really haven't heard of anything like this before now. Paul said some other stuff that certainly doesn't make sense now, but probably totally applied back in his day: That passage doesn't make much sense. "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has a long hair, it is a disgrace to him," No, it doesn't. I mean, what the heck? I have never seen that in nature. Paul probably saw that these issues were causing division in the Corinthian church and therefore addressed them as an ex-Jewish zealot would. I guess I am not a "fundamentalist" if being a fundamentalist means taking things out of context.

Wait, can he say that here?

Is there one tyrannical leader in Africa that can be considered a main source for the millions of deaths?

Good choice, and now for the verse of the day: