11 Jun 14
Originally posted by divegeesterI was actually referring to his stance on his own beliefs.
You understand that Kelly would rather let the girl die to protect the conscience of the parents rather than they feel compromised before their God?
But I understand that he respects JW beliefs because he expects his own beliefs to be respected in return. I also think he puts a higher relative value on belief vs life than you do. He is a genuine Christian in that he believes in life after death.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120908
11 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadKelly is not talking about his stance on his own beliefs though is he.
I was actually referring to his stance on his own beliefs.
He is talking about how he disagrees with JW beliefs but feels that because of the right to freedom of choice and that the JW parents should be permitted to exercise their belief in not taking blood even to the point of their own daughter dying - in order to protect their conscience. That he disagrees with the doctrine and yet defends their right to hold it is not in question - what is in question is that he still defends then even at the cost of a human beings life, their own daughters.
How you can find this position "perfectly reasonable" is either you revealling a side to your moral nature you have never revealed before or your are confused or you are trolling. I suspect that latter, it's a poor effort.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
11 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadi think you are giving him too much credit. when given an example of a non christian allowing a child to die for their god he claimed it was a 'sacrifice' and the government should step in and stop the parents. it seems to me that he has drawn a very strange curvy line in the sand that has little to do with belief v life and more to do with if its his god or not.
I was actually referring to his stance on his own beliefs.
But I understand that he respects JW beliefs because he expects his own beliefs to be respected in return. I also think he puts a higher relative value on belief vs life than you do. He is a genuine Christian in that he believes in life after death.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
11 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJayyou are missing the point. i said 'pretending' to think something.
Thinking about an act is akin to doing it. If you were to read scripture you
would see Jesus talking about if we look at a woman lustfully has adultery
in his heart already. Our thought life is just as real as our actions, you hate
another and so on are all important things.
Kelly
Matthew 5:27-29
New International Version (NIV)
27 “You have hear ...[text shortened]... is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
looking at a woman lustfully is not pretending to be lustfull it is actually being lustfull.
looking at a woman and not feeling lust but saying we do feel lust is pretending. no lust has occured, it is a lust free zone, lust is off the menu.
do you see the difference?
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by divegeesterKelly is not talking about his stance on his own beliefs though is he.
Kelly is not talking about his stance on his own beliefs though is he.
He is talking about how he disagrees with JW beliefs but feels that because of the right to freedom of choice and that the JW parents should be permitted to exercise their belief in not taking blood even to the point of their own daughter dying - in order to protect their conscie ...[text shortened]... aled before or your are confused or you are trolling. I suspect that latter, it's a poor effort.
Not talking about my own beliefs though I am, uh okay!
I am talking about my beliefs, to sin or not to sin.
It is a simple point, in this life we make choices, you want to sin or not.
I will not be apart of causing someone else to sin by force, I respect their
right to live out their lives before God. I'm sure if you actually read about
sin you'd see it is something God frowns on.
Kelly
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by stellspalfieYes I see the difference and to deny Christ to save my life means I would
you are missing the point. i said 'pretending' to think something.
looking at a woman lustfully is not pretending to be lustfull it is actually being lustfull.
looking at a woman and not feeling lust but saying we do feel lust is pretending. no lust has occured, it is a lust free zone, lust is off the menu.
do you see the difference?
deny Christ to save my life. You want to suggest that I can, deny Christ
to save my life, while not denying Christ, as I deny Christ to save my life?
How could that be confusing?
Kelly
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat's wrong with lying to a psychopathic murderer or to a genocidal Nazi?
Yes I see the difference and to deny Christ to save my life means I would
deny Christ to save my life. You want to suggest that I can, deny Christ
to save my life, while not denying Christ, as I deny Christ to save my life?
How could that be confusing?
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJayDoes this respect [and determination to not compel them to do certain things] extend to other people's concept of "sin" when their concept is the complete opposite of your own concept of "sin"?
I will not be apart of causing someone else to sin by force, I respect their
right to live out their lives before God.
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by FMFWho cares what you do, lie your only concern is your life in the here and
What's wrong with lying to a psychopathic murderer or to a genocidal Nazi?
now. What comes after isn't something that matters so you can pretty
much do what you will. If there is Hell to pay, well your life here may take
on new meaning along with the things you say and do, but of course it will
be to late to change your ways.
Kelly
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by FMFIf I do anything I believe is wrong, than it is wrong, and I did sin due to my
Does this respect [and determination to not compel them to do certain things] extend to other people's concept of "sin" when their concept is the complete opposite of your own concept of "sin"?
lack of faith. If I make another do that, I cause another to sin as well. If
you have any memory of scripture you'd know that God frowns on sin and
He will call them least in the kingdom at best, the worst is far worse. Since
your perspective is purely this world all of that will be meaningless to you.
Kelly
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by FMFI also shared that one may do something that is not sin for them, but
Does this respect [and determination to not compel them to do certain things] extend to other people's concept of "sin" when their concept is the complete opposite of your own concept of "sin"?
the next guy would feel weaker meaning if he did it, it would be sin. The
strong are suppose to help the weak avoid sin.
Kelly
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJayWould you lie to a psychopathic murderer or to a genocidal Nazi in order to save your children from being murdered?
Who cares what you do, lie your only concern is your life in the here and
now. What comes after isn't something that matters so you can pretty
much do what you will. If there is Hell to pay, well your life here may take
on new meaning along with the things you say and do, but of course it will
be to late to change your ways.
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJayYou have sidestepped the question,which was:
I also shared that one may do something that is not sin for them, but
the next guy would feel weaker meaning if he did it, it would be sin. The
strong are suppose to help the weak avoid sin.
Kelly
Does this respect [and determination to not compel them to do certain things] extend to other people's concept of "sin" when their concept is the complete opposite of your own concept of "sin"?
In other words, if someone else frames their action as "avoiding sin" even when ~ for you ~ their action is grotesquely immoral and it harms people, you would not support intervention because the perpetrator has the right to decide for himself what is and is not "sin", is that what you are saying?