Achristian wrote on Dec 4, 2008 1:58 PM:
" I agree with you on that. Not all will come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. Its sad but true. God gave us all free will and to truely have free will one has the option of choice. Even in the New Testament, Jesus never once forced anyone to accept him. He simple spoke and lived the truth and for doing that was crucified. There is no differences today in the followers of Jesus Christ will continue to be attacked for following his teachings, and some will actually loose their lives for it.
I do respect your choices and what you believe, I simple don't accept them as the truth. I have listened and read many Atheists and their arguments, which make no sense to me. I pointed a few of these out on the other blog and ask for clarification, but so far the silence is deafening. "
coffee wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:40 AM:
" I AM NOT SAYING THAT!!! im saying all people on earth are never going to belive what you belive or what i belive. nomatter what that belife is. "
Achristian wrote on Dec 2, 2008 5:36 PM:
" By each beholder having their own truth is another way of saying there is no absolute truth. An absolute truth means there is but just one truth. There can not be more then one or its not absolute. Dan Barker from the FFRF, is just one of the many who have stated that there is no absolute truth. "
coffee wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:20 AM:
" thats not what im saying. im saying truth is in the eye of the beholder. "
Achristian wrote on Dec 1, 2008 2:37 AM:
" I read on these blogs that some say there is no absolute truth. That statement in itself is an absolute statement, which contradicts the original statement. So from a logical stand point using sound reasoning, those that believe there is no absolute truth are contradicting themselves. "
coffee wrote on Nov 29, 2008 3:03 PM:
" as for people taking my "top prize", if i had the chance to make people live better and happier at my expense i would do it as i think, or at least hope, anyone would. besides the "top prize" it think your referring to is also hinged on a what if. im not someone that gets bent out of shape because of some religious fundamentalist and wants to prove them wrong, i just want to try to make them live better for themselves and for other people. i offer to them my opinions and i will hear out theirs and not discard it.
anyway, im just trying to help. if that makes any sense at all. "
coffee wrote on Nov 29, 2008 2:57 PM:
" to double a, i understand what you are saying. the thing about "heaven" and "hell" is that NOBODY can say if they do or do not exist. so why should i or anybody else base my life off a what if? in my opinion (only my truth) i think the people who assembled the bible as a whole where trying sincerely to make a good thing, but overlooked many things. these overlooked things have been taken advantage of by men and their greed. whats the most lavish building in any community? a church. who dresses in the most eye catching manor? people who run churches. who has the most power? heads of religions. "
Double A wrote on Nov 28, 2008 1:08 PM:
" the raw, down-and-dirty teachings of the church, if followed, would yield more sacrifices than any of us are prepared to give. think about the astounding nature of heaven if it is indeed real. why would anyone suspect passage into a place such as heaven would be simple, easy, or at all worldly? why would anyone of us be able to explain it, or explain it away? "
Double A wrote on Nov 28, 2008 1:02 PM:
" coffee: if there is a God, and if there is a heaven which dwarfs the earth in its greatness, would it not be troublingly appropriate that the key to gaining entrance was a deep abiding faith in a great mystery? All of your arguments are so easy to agree with. You make sense, and I mean that. But should a lake of fire exist, would not it's keeper be a master of deception? I'm not saying all the Christians telling you what to believe are good and righteous. As far as I know they may be kooks. But why should their interpretation of the great mystery jade you on it? Why should a fundamentalist wack-job terrorist steal your shot at the top prize? "
coffee wrote on Nov 28, 2008 11:43 AM:
" to achristian
you fail to even try to look at things from a different perspective. Hitler and Mussalini were right in there own minds. you are right in your own mind. did you see everything they had seen through their eyes that led them to their "truth"? have you ever even tried to understand it?
as for you working in the science community, im surprised the whole world already isnt in chaos. oh yeah, it is. i wonder why? maybe because people are willing to die and KILL for entity they have never EXPERIENCED.
(this is only my truth) "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 28, 2008 9:57 AM:
" No, Possum, I'm not mad. Sadden, but not mad. I did all I could do to stand for the truth, so I have no personal feelings of loss. The elections are a national thing, and this last one just showed that most of the voters didn't see things my way. That's fine. That's the American way. What's sad, is (if my notions are correct) America has choosen a faster path to destruction. Hopefully, I'll be proven wrong, but if not, I can still stand before my Maker one day, knowing I did all I could to stand for what was right.
Have a happy holiday. "
possom133 wrote on Nov 28, 2008 8:36 AM:
" I think Phil is still mad about the Nov 4 thing! "
Achristian wrote on Nov 28, 2008 8:27 AM:
" Your correct, this isn't the forum for a debate on the reliability of the Bible. I do disagree with you on truth being someone's perspective. By that thinking it would mean that Hitler, Mussalini, Truman were all correct, which is impossible. Nor would any of our laws hold true. I work in the science field by profession, taking that kind of outlook would lead to complete chaos. "
coffee wrote on Nov 27, 2008 4:21 PM:
" i dont think either one of us could try to convince each other through text comments anymore. the last point i want to make is that truth is just someones perspective. put yourself in other peoples shoes and try to think WHY they believe what they believe. there is always a reason.
(p.s. happy celebration of mass genocide) "
Achristian wrote on Nov 27, 2008 8:36 AM:
" To Coffee: Have a happy Thanksgiving. Even though we will probably continue to disagree thanks for the dialgue. "
Achristian wrote on Nov 27, 2008 8:34 AM:
" To Coffee: There is absolutely no question the Bible points people in the right direction. But as fallible, sinful humans we can get off track very easily. As for moral contradictions in the Bible, there are none. The God of the Old Testament is the same as the New Testament and is the same in 2008. All God wants us to do is trust in Him and accept the sacrifice His Son made on the cross for us. But he also gave us free will to choose to follow or not. As far as Hell is concerned, it is just a place without God. Thus, if that is the path you so choose, then you should be happy he allows you to live in eternity without Him, as that is the way you want it. I on the other hand choose to live with Him. "
coffee wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:58 PM:
" *possitive direction for the rest of the wold*
(add to end of last comment) "
coffee wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:54 PM:
" to achristian there is a difference between reading something and understanding it. i have read it and understood that beside its uncredibility, its outlandishnes, and its morral contradictions, it is impossible for me to belive in this "god" that will send me to hell for not "glorifying" him even if i live a selfless life of helping others. i dont like to bash people for their beliefs but when it can get destructive, such as on a topic such as this, i feel something has to be done. i think many people use this book as a healthy morral guide to live a good life but the authors of this book left too many loose ends that are open to inturpretation. i would urge every christian to change the perspective of there thinking and try to think if the direction that this book points them is a positive direction for "
Achristian wrote on Nov 26, 2008 11:11 AM:
" To:Coffee: There is a big differences between reading something and fully understanding it. I was raised in a church that "read" the Bible, but for a very long time never understood it and that particular church did a very poor job of making it understandable. I later learned that that church wasn't truely a Bible based church. Once I saught out a Bible believing church it became much clearer. It is the Holy Spirit that teaches and guides us through scripture. It is for these reasons that churches who include so much secular teaching can be dangerous. The Bible never changes, but secular teaching does. I hope you can seek a church and an individual that can help you in these areas. I know I struggled for a long time. "
coffee wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:21 PM:
" "to phil O'Bates" and "achristian"
i was raised going to church. i have read those bible verses and know the context. i have also experienced first hand how destructive teaching the bible word for word can be.
as for the old testament vs. the new testament, why should they have different moral standards? ive heard it said that it was "different times". indeed it was, but the morals dont change. killing has always been bad whether it be by man or by "god".
finally about trusting an old piece of literature. many old pieces of literature are trusted, but 'the art of war' is not a holy book insisting it has the answer to what happens after death, nor do people base their lives off it. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 25, 2008 1:06 PM:
" To coffee,
I completely missed your post. I see you are filled with all kinds of misconceptions about the Bible. I'll provide you with a little guide.
Know the context of what you are reading. As an example of that is understanding Old Testament cerimonial laws verses New Testament grace.
There are many sites that can specifically address all of your misconceptions, but I personally like carm.org. Your misconceptions are nothing new and have been addressed many times over the 2000 years of Christianity.
As for trusting an old book for modern guidance, have you ever heard of The Art of War by Sun Tzu? It comes from about 600 years before Christ and is studied today for both business and military. "
Achristian wrote on Nov 25, 2008 1:04 PM:
" To Coffee: You are extracting verses in the Bible out of context. No literary source should be taken out of context, as that is when the facts become distorted and made to adhere to the what the reader wants. Literary ignorance is not a valid reason for not believing the Bible. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:56 AM:
" Double A, on the issue of judgemental Christians toward homosexuals, I think I get you. Christians tend to rank sins. While we see things like child molestation, or homosexuality, or murder, or adultery as worse sins, the Bible doesn't list them that way. In fact, the Bible ranks all sins as equally bad. Lusting in your heart as equal to adultery and so on, give us an illustration that homosexuality is no worse to God then lusting at Hooters.
One of the problems with homosexuality, is that it is alot like obesity, the signs are out where everyone can see. If I'm lusting at home on the computer, no one can see that on Sunday, so it makes me seem more pure.
Christians need to be honest about homosexuality as a sin, but equally open that they too are sinners needing the Saviors pardon. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:47 AM:
" Double A, I am confused on your "handing down a verdict" statement. Except for the Catholic Church, in which they believe excommunication from them seals your fate with God, I haven't run into a church that claims any such after life powers.
A Church can tell people about their sins, homosexual or otherwise. A Church can discipline members who commit sins, but a church can not "condemn" anyone. What condemns people is the punishment required for their sins. The only one who can pardon that punishment is Jesus, but we have to ask for it. When those who have not asked for Jesus's forgiveness face God, God will judge the full weight of their sin, and then hand down the just sentence for that sin, eternal separation from God. If anyone confesses their sins to Jesus, He will forgive you, and you SHALL be saved. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:39 AM:
" Double A, I think I can find some common ground with you. About talking facts verses talking theology, I know that you can present many great factual arguments against homosexuality without using the Bible as your sole (soul) guide.
NARTH has a great website that presents all kinds of scientific facts about the dangers of homosexuality. For instance, studys found suicide attempts among homosexuals were six times greater than the average. Or, a Netherlands study which showed a higher level of mental-health problems among homosexuals. Or, that homosexuals have a significantly higher risk of contracting STDs. Or the life span of homosexuals is about 20 below that of heterosexuals. All in all, a homosexual life style is 100's of times more dangerous than celibacy or a heterosexual lifestyle. "
county resident wrote on Nov 25, 2008 11:23 AM:
" I thought Joe went to work somewhere else. Why is he still writing articles that promote the liberal extreme of the faith tradition of our region? Secondly the majority of churches in this region are failing our youth by not teaching the truth about what the bible actually says. If you spend time talking with teens in the region that say they were baptized in a mainline church they have a limited understanding of scripture. Something needs to be done when that most extreme churches get more article space in our papers and our teens or illiterate about the truth. "
Double A wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:18 AM:
" By 'teaching acceptance', I mean NOT handing down a verdict to someone that they're going to burn in hell. If I come to your church, full of sin as I am, I would be welcomed and not singled out. If an openly gay group of folks came there would be an elephant in the room because of the hateful teaching against their 'sin'. I'm not saying the church should condone and celebrate homosexuality. I'm saying the rhetoric should not be so combative. It does not fuel love. "
Double A wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:14 AM:
" Phil-O - I anticipated my position being pointed out as problematic by someone wise with the spirit such as yourself. I am torn about promoting this contradiction of faith. You are right. Faith should not be watered down. However, I tend to think logically about actions and results. The actions of a true believer and unyielding practitioner of faith often yield very good results - so if some of these actions (i.e. wedded sexual relations) could be promoted to more hardened hearts by sticking to the facts and not getting all theological, why not? Would it demean our Lord and Savior? Or would it crack open a door, perhaps, to soften hearts, potentially opening them to more specific testimony of Jesus? "
coffee wrote on Nov 25, 2008 9:18 AM:
" so teaching from a book that says to not let women speak in church, cut off limbs to prevent sin, embraces slavery, sympathises rape, and teaches about a selfish power hungery god, killing people that dont "glorify him". THAT makes A LOT of sense.
Most of the bible promotes good morals but to teach directly from it is absolutly scary. Would you trust any other piece of liturature that is over 2000 years old and has been translated numberous times? "
Achristian wrote on Nov 24, 2008 5:40 PM:
" A Christian church should be teaching from the Bible, not from secular principles. With this in mind I would like to know what biblcal principles this course is taught from? "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 24, 2008 5:09 PM:
" Double A, your last comment about "holier than thou" is quite strange.
First, I see no one on here claiming superior holiness. I'm a sinner just like everyone else. My righteousness is as filthy rags, but God accounts Jesus's righteousness for me and that is super beyond words. What I and others are to do is tell others of Jesus's great holiness and everyones accessability to it. That fact doesn't give me or anyone else an excuse to sin in whatever way feels "natural" to us.
Second, if people are turned off by what God calls holy, then that is their problem with God. You seem to be advocating a watered down version of Christianity which seeks to appease the world. That is quite contrary to what Jesus said in John 15:18,19. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 24, 2008 4:57 PM:
" What I found interesting was the wording "homosexuality is understood as a natural expression of sexuality." Whether or not it is a "natural" tendancy, it's still a sin. Some people may be more "naturally" inclined to theft, or murder, or adultery, or homosexuality, but they are all still sins to be avoided, not embraced.
It also reminds me of this verse:
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor 2:14
This churches program is approaching the problem of homosexuality through the lens of the "natural man" and not of the Word of God. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 24, 2008 4:48 PM:
" Double A, you asked "what is wrong with a church teaching acceptance?" I would ask "Acceptance of what?"
Churches I go to teach acceptance of Jesus as their savior and the Bible as our guide. If you accept the Bible as your guide you find a few things on what a Christian should teach others:
1)Teach the truth in Love. (Eph. 4:15)
2)Abhor that which is evil, cling to the good. (Rom. 12:9)
3)Think about things which are of virtue. (Phil. 4:8)
4)Know that the unrighteous (which includes those who embrace homosexuality) shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9)
A church that teaches the above program is endorsing a man centered doctrine and not a God centered doctrine. There is nothing stoping churches from teaching what they want, but Christians should follow the New Testament example, and not modern day philosophy. "
Double A wrote on Nov 24, 2008 2:32 PM:
" And while I'm on my rampage, what the heck is wrong with a church teaching acceptance? They are not telling the children to be gay. They are not promoting that the children go have sex and then get abortions. They are not saying that God condones these things. But they are living in reality and you aren't going to touch many lives with your own spirituality if you take the 'holier than thou' approach. "
Double A wrote on Nov 24, 2008 2:17 PM:
" Show me a pro-choice person who wants the abortion rate to increase. You can't because they don't. So let's figure out how to work together to lower the rate. But let's do it with facts. Most pro-choice people I know will argue tooth-and-nail with anything you say if it is based on your belief that it is "God's word". What are the facts? Sex can result in pregnancy. A pregnancy is a fetus. A fetus is in the process of becoming life. Aborting a fetus is preventing it from making it to life. That may not be as compelling as "it's murder!" but at least we may get our foot in the door here. My gosh, it's not all or nothing here! "
Double A wrote on Nov 24, 2008 1:58 PM:
" I conducted a study in college where I showed a large group of subjects a social advertisement. Half the ads had a Christian logo. Half had a secular logo. Other than that they were exactly the same. On the attached survey, subjects who had viewed the secular-sponsored ad talked deeply about the social issues, contributing their own ideas and thoughts. Subjects who had viewed the Christian-sponsored ad talked about how "they have no right to push their views on me". "
Double A wrote on Nov 24, 2008 1:51 PM:
" As long as people are conducting classes, I'll conduct mine on how secularists battling sectarians about moral beliefs results in children being left in the dark. Happymom's examples happen quite often in society and really would be remedied by sex being limited to married men and women. But Eddie uses rarely-occuring examples to make happymom out to be an extremist. Meanwhile, Eddie is 'in the know' and oh-so-modern, but doesn't acknowledge that the results of limiting sex to marriage would, in fact, lower STD rates and lower abortion rates. No, Eddie just focuses on how Christians are trying to force their beliefs. Are humans incapable of limiting sex to marriage? Would humans still be able to lead good lives when limiting sex to marriage? So what are we afraid of? Are we afraid of listening to Christians because they are Christians? In many cases, and sadly: yes. "
pinky wrote on Nov 22, 2008 7:00 PM:
" I don't think the thought basis of this class is that parents are boobs and too ignorant to talk to their kids about sex. But there ARE many parents who are too uncomfortable with it or don't know what to say or how to say things. Sex ed is not just about having or not having sex. It sounds like this program delves into many different aspects that would never be allowed in school or by parents comfortably. I've never heard of too much information hurting one's ability to form an opinion. "
happymom wrote on Nov 22, 2008 6:06 PM:
" Myth and superstition #1 (believed by teens and the current fad) : Oral sex is not sex. Funny how girls get gonorrhea of the throat that way. Myth #2 Parents are boobs and teaching about sex should be usurped from them because they are too ignorant, being regular parishioners of First Church of Tribal Voodoo with Filthy Uncle Ron and pastored by The Reverend Pedophile. and Myth #3, the smashing success of sex ed as taught by public schools for the past thirty some years has made all of this a moot point, cuz kiddies are now such brilliant purveyors of reasoning and judgement that they are absolutely fine handling sex, anytime, anywhere, and with anyone. "
Eddie wrote on Nov 22, 2008 5:50 PM:
" I could conduct a class on how teaching Bronze Age myths and superstitions about sex and sexuality is a recipe for disaster. Fear and ignorance are rampant among our children, as their parents won't discuss sexuality objectively and responsibly. Imagine telling a pregnant fourteen year-old that she cannot abort the fetus (fathered by her creepy uncle or local pastor) because she would burn in some imaginary firey place if she did. It's sad that a church expects the People to adhere to ancient tribal superstitions, which do nothing but promote fear, guilt, self-loathing, and sexual repression and dysfunction. If a church refuses to live in the 21st century, then who will? The rest of us, that's who. "
happymom wrote on Nov 22, 2008 5:27 PM:
" I could conduct a class on how sexuality, outside the realm of marriage, is a recipe for disaster. The end. Disaster every time. I see it every single day. STD's are rampant amoung our teens, and the kids get younger all the time. Imagine telling a thirteen year old that she has chlamydia - again. Or watch a pregnant fourteen year old try to figure out which boy is the father of her baby because there is more than one option! I'm sad that a "church" has any other stance on sex except that it ought to occur between a married man and wife. If the "church" refuses to tell the truth, who will our standard-bearers be? "
Kris wrote on Nov 22, 2008 2:22 PM:
" I know first hand that First Congregational does not believe that the Bible should be taken from a literal stand point on any given subject. When a 'church' does not all believe as one with the basic stories, then anything goes. God does not tolerate ignorance to his warnings, there will be judgment on our lifestyles. Children should be taught to read the Bible and not rely solely on the words of man. Men lie, the God of the Bible does not. I voice my thoughts to people all the time, not just via blogs. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 22, 2008 12:12 PM:
" I seriously doubt your assertions, Mack, however I haven't been to every church in this area, so I'll concede there may be a few churches like you describe.
I do know that my church and a few others I visit on occasion do not "promote war, worry about their guns being taken away, or try to control people's sexuality."
Try Cornerstone, River of Life, Rivers Harvest, Sand Lake Wesleyan, First Free, or Bethany Free as a start. These are just a few of the local churches that preach salvation through Jesus and Christian life as described in the New Testament.
About the article itself...if my church promoted this same 'sex ed' program, I would 1)not send any of my children to it, 2) have a talk with whomever decided to bring it in, and 3) depending on who decided, may leave that church. "
Michael Welch wrote on Nov 22, 2008 11:45 AM:
" Churches that preach against the slaughter of others are preaching the beatitudes and the sermon on the mount; they are TRULY saying 'LOVE YOUR ENEMIES; BLESS THEM THAT PERSECUTE YOU; PRAY FOR (not bomb) THEM THAT WISH YOU EVIL.' THEIR Jesus is VERY EXACTING indeed and really the hardest and therefore MOST unpopular Jesus of all... "
Mack wrote on Nov 22, 2008 11:41 AM:
" PO, I have and the United Church of Christ is the ONLY church I have found so far that doesn't obsess itself with the sexuality of other people, promoting the war and clinging to guns. I cannot begin tell you how disappointing it has been. "
Chatter cat wrote on Nov 22, 2008 11:38 AM:
" Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! Thank you members of First Congregational United Church of Christ for recognizing that there is more to sex education than abstinence! Yes, abstinence is the best and safest form of birth control but there is far more to sex than that. Abstinence only programs ignore the fact that most married couples will practice some form of birth control during their relationship. They ignore that there are circumstances where by choice or by force, young people will have sex before they are ready for it. Young people deserve to have the knowledge of how to protect themselves from disease and unwanted pregnancies. The one improvement I would suggest is that boys should be taking this course too. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Nov 22, 2008 11:23 AM:
" Mack,
You obviously don't go to church, if that is what you think churches are doing. I recommend that you actually attend some various churches and learn first hand what they are preaching about. "
Michael Welch wrote on Nov 22, 2008 11:10 AM:
" The KEY concept below is expressed as '[The] God of MY Bible is not liberal' (my emphasis). The commenter could just as aptly have written 'MY God is not --' as of course she is correct; HER 'God' is what she wants HER God to be. And then there is the assumption that THIS church (which one does NOT attend) is not a 'church' -- because one does not 'believe' in this one. In EVERY religion there are different interpretations or the religions can never survive into other time periods. Christianity has adapted as well as ANY other but ONLY because it is fragmented into literally HUNDREDS of different churches, ALL of whom 'know' what the Bible means by simply reading it, only NONE of them can wholly agree upon what they have 'read'!... "
Mack wrote on Nov 22, 2008 10:25 AM:
" I wonder what some churches would do if they weren't so busy trying to control other people's sexuality, promote a war or worry about their guns being taken away. "
R A wrote on Nov 22, 2008 10:17 AM:
" Unitarian Universalist is not a church. It is a liberal organization which promotes and accepts homosexuality, transgender, lesbianism. Anything goes, holistic for sure! It has become more accepted in the last few years and is very frightning to me as a Christian. Some churches are going so far left and away from the teachings of Christ, which so many are not aware of, you MUST take note. It is imparative as a Nation that we get back to the moral values most of us were raised with or we are doomed. We are so cought up with liberalism and me,me that we can't see the forrest for the trees. Wake up parents and be parents, make sure you know what your kids are listening to and who they are with. Take responsibility. Look up Unitarian Universalists on the web! Then see if that is how to live. "
Kris wrote on Nov 22, 2008 8:38 AM:
" So this is how the Church's of God are going?!!! First we are not to yoke with people who do not share in the belief of the God of our Bible, (Unitarian's) and second do not teach contrary to God's word.
Abortion is taught with "non-judgmental" information, homosexuality is " a natural expression of sexuality". PEOPLE start reading your Bibles. Get rid of the "message" so called Bible. God of my Bible is not liberal. "
Advertisement 
