18 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't think the question was about you, and children in bedrooms. Has human misery resulting from infant mortality been falling over the last few decades?
sorry I don't do emotive child experiences any more, after being termed a baby killer
on not a few occasions and actually having been asked inside to someone's home and
escorted to a bedroom where a little girl lay sleeping and was then told that I would let
her die, I have had my fill thank you very much.
18 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have not called you a baby killer, or used any other derogatory term about you as far as I can remember.
sorry I don't do emotive child experiences any more, after being termed a baby killer
on not a few occasions and actually having been asked inside to someone's home and
escorted to a bedroom where a little girl lay sleeping and was then told that I would let
her die, I have had my fill thank you very much.
The issue I raised is totally on topic to your post. I think success in reducing infant mortality is infinitely more important than whether I have to forgo my piece of cod with my chips on a Friday night. So do you. And the success in this has been significant.
Let's rejoice in this, and do our best to keep the trend going. Not look for selective reasons to despair.
Originally posted by Rank outsideryes of course you have not, but my 'spider sense', sensed danger. One can cite many
I have not called you a baby killer, or used any other derogatory term about you as far as I can remember.
The issue I raised is totally on topic to your post. I think success in reducing infant mortality is infinitely more important than whether I have to forgo my piece of cod with my chips on a Friday night. So do you. And the success in this h e in this, and do our best to keep the trend going. Not look for selective reasons to despair.
advancements in medical science, for sure, yet technology has been applied elsewhere
with utterly devastating consequences. Economics is a monster, does it matter that
China has 16 out of 20 of the worlds most polluted cities? do consumers in Europe and
elsewhere really care about that when they are buying Chinese products? which
country is willing to sacrifice its economy for the sake of the environment?
18 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you not think losing a child causes more human misery than there being pollution in the city in which you live and have a job?
One can cite many
advancements in medical science, for sure, yet technology has been applied elsewhere
with utterly devastating consequences. Economics is a monster, does it matter that
China has 16 out of 20 of the worlds most polluted cities? do consumers in Europe and
else products? which
country is willing to sacrifice its economy for the sake of the environment?
18 Dec 12
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo need to apologise for length. Everything you posted (well, almost) was to the point and relevant.
Christians are no longer under the mandates of the mosaic law, to cite it therefore
with reference to Christians demonstrating love to all persons has little or no
relevance and borders on being disingenuous as you are very well aware of the fact.
I have already explained in what sense the law was a 'tutor', leading towards the
Christ. It h gize for the length of the text, its simply no feasible to explain it
in any other terms.
Using my spider senses, I think you struggle with the idea of stoning someone to death for all the various offences that Mosaic Law provides. Indeed, galveston75 admitted feelings of this nature when discussing the stoning of someone for gathering sticks on the Sabbath and said that, essentially, it is his faith that gets him through this type of passage. (I am not, of course, suggesting either you or galveston75 have any doubts over the veracity of these passages.)
I suspect that the architects of the new covenant were motivated by an attempt to rationalise a belief in a compassionate God with Mosaic Law which is anything but compassionate, whilst retaining a prejudice against practices of which they personally disapproved.
I think this is a more compelling explanation of how God goes from demanding execution to demanding compassion for homosexuals than drawing fine distinctions over Mosaic Law being binding 'in principle' rather than 'in practice'.
This is not being disingenuous. It just seems a much more likely explanation to me. And definitely an improvement.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderActually its capable to rationalise almost anything, even extremes. The scenario
No need to apologise for length. Everything you posted (well, almost) was to the point and relevant.
Using my spider senses, I think you struggle with the idea of stoning someone to death for all the various offences that Mosaic Law provides. Indeed, galveston75 admitted feelings of this nature when discussing the stoning of someone for gathering genuous. It just seems a much more likely explanation to me. And definitely an improvement.
that you mentioned of gathering straw, set a precedent and broke the strict laws of
the Sabbath. Its rather interesting that they didn't quite know what to do and held
the man under restraint for some time.
Historically its rather interesting to see the attempts made to make God more
palatable, the idea of the mother of God was invented, a matriarchal figure able to
intercede on behalf of a God that was deemed judgemental.
As for the new covenant it was based not upon a rigid set of laws and regulations,
but the conscience, this in fact was a much more spiritual arrangement for the
adherent could get even closer to the loftiest ideals, not out of sense of duty or fear
of reprisal, but out of a sense of love. It was of course made only possible through
the propitiatory sacrifice of the Christ which fulfilled all things, the adherent now
being able to approach God on the value of its basis. It was able to cover
transgression, once for all time, cleanse the conscience, make a relationship with
God possible on a personal level, so many good and wonderful things. In fact its the
difference today between Islam, Judaism and Christianity, the latter providing
amble room for the exercise of the conscience the former providing no room at all.
Homosexuality is sinful, according to scripture, those who practice is cannot inherit
Gods Kingdom, they are in effect spiritually dead in their trespasses unless
they can demonstrate some act of repentance. There is no longer any covering
sacrifice left for them and Paul states that its as if they pierce the Christ again and
again and submit him to public shame. Thus being spiritually dead there is no need
for stoning. Of course ultimately it is true that all those who make a practice of
unrighteousness will be recipients of Gods wrath, including those who practice
homosexuality, but Gods is finished with no one yet and thus until he is, Christians
are under duress to extend love to all persons as people, we are under no duress to
love the things which they practice.
19 Dec 12
Originally posted by RJHindsDid you not like mine? Here they are again:
He does not like that question. 😏
You support the death penalty for murderers. You advocate the death penalty for women who have abortions. Do you not quote the 'tutor' in support of these views?
So do you advocate the death penalty for people who commit homosexual acts in line with your 'tutor's' clear views on the matter?
If not, why do you use it to justify the death penalty in other circumstances?
Any chance of a response?
19 Dec 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderNo, RJH does not have a tutor. He knows all and everything[or thinks he does,] but I did too when I was a teen.
Did you not like mine? Here they are again:
You support the death penalty for murderers. You advocate the death penalty for women who have abortions. Do you not quote the 'tutor' in support of these views?
So do you advocate the death penalty for people who commit homosexual acts in line with your 'tutor's' clear views on the matter?
...[text shortened]... t to justify the death penalty in other circumstances?
Any chance of a response?
19 Dec 12
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodythe punchline was good, but the run-up was a mite boring.
Do you need a god in order to have a moral code?
Do you not think that it is possible for rational intelligent
human beings to have a moral code for society instead of
having one imposed upon you by certain religious organizations
who don't really know what they are talking about.
Once again I ask you, can you, your organization or
any ot ...[text shortened]... ything
else to offer other than
"HERE TAKE THESE TWO TABLETS AND CALL ME IN THE MORNING!"
😀