12 Sep 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI guess if they do not believe what they are espousing for the sole purpose of pleasing the masses, then it would be sinful. In addition, even if they did believe what they were saying came directly from God when it did not come directly from God this would be sinful as well.
What do you think of those who use God as a weapon to further their politics? What do you think of those who use God as a weapon to "justify" the unjust?
Now in terms of Palin, I saw an interview where she said that she did not say it was God's will that the US was in Iraq. In fact, she said she did not know 100% for sure what God's will on the matter was and no one could say as much. However, she then said that her goal, and the goal of her son who is serving over there, is to protect life, liberty, etc, which she said was her perception of what God's will would be.
Now if she is being truthful about what she is saying then I don't see how this is sinful because she is merely stating what she perceives the will of God to be for herself nor is she saying what God's will on the matter is for everyone else. However, if she is saying these things to please the religious right then it is sinful for her to be saying these things.
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAnd that's where we differ. There are plenty of flies in the ointment to your interpretation of Jesus but what's the point in contesting them? You would either duck and dive or call me a liar.
Jesus teaches that there is no salvation until the transformation is complete. Jesus teaches that there is no salvation until one IS righteous. From what I can tell, this is not what you believe.
12 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThat interview sounds like spin-control to me.
I guess if they do not believe what they are espousing for the sole purpose of pleasing the masses, then it would be sinful. In addition, even if they did believe what they were saying came directly from God when it did not come directly from God this would be sinful as well.
Now in terms of Palin, I saw an interview where she said that she did not say it e things to please the religious right then it is sinful for her to be saying these things.
Here's the quote from her speech:
"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
For not knowing God's will for sure, she sure seems to like to speak for Him:
Palin told graduating students of the church's School of Ministry, "What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys." As they preached the love of Jesus throughout Alaska, she said, she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.
"God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.
Here's the article that served as the source for the above:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNulPSqaP1eyysv8ENJWhk0ZSrPgD92VJ0D00
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI call you a liar because that's what you are. As I've pointed out once again on this thread and dozens of times before. You repeatedly and intentionally misrepresent my position despite having been corrected dozens of times before.
And that's where we differ. There are plenty of flies in the ointment to your interpretation of Jesus but what's the point in contesting them? You would either duck and dive or call me a liar.
Even though I've corrected you dozens of times as to what I believe you persist in misrepresenting my position.
Your actions show that you do not follow / believe in the God of Jesus. Your actions show that you do not follow / believe in the God of truth.
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLet me try to save us both some time. For the most part, the words attributed to Jesus ring true to me. If people were to actually follow the teachings of Jesus the world would be a much better place. From what I can tell, the vast majority of "Christians" do not follow the teachings of Jesus largely because "Christianity" has all but abandoned His teachings for the teachings of Paul and others. There is much in the Bible that does not reflect the teachings of Jesus. This includes both the Old and New Testaments.
I see. Did God actually destroy nearly all of a mankind in a worldwide flood?
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneEven though I've corrected you dozens of times as to what I believe you persist in misrepresenting my position.---------ToO-----------
I call you a liar because that's what you are. As I've pointed out once again on this thread and dozens of times before. You repeatedly and intentionally misrepresent my position despite having been corrected dozens of times before.
Even though I've corrected you dozens of times as to what I believe you persist in misrepresenting my position.
Your ...[text shortened]... in the God of Jesus. Your actions show that you do not follow / believe in the God of truth.
It's happening all over this forum. I am always being misrepresented and misunderstood. You just get used to it.
I basically think that you don't understand the implications of what your position as you present it. The other problem is that unless you are explicit and clear about where you stand on certain things then others are forced to make educated guesses. When those guesses are wrong or misrepresentative then are you surprised?
The truth is I don't even know what it is I am supposed to be misrepresenting. For example I still don't know to this day whether you believe that the active , living God (Jesus's Father) actually exists or not. I have not seen you clarify this with anyone. I get the impression that even those who you deem not to be liars would not be able to get this out of you.
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDid God actually destroy nearly all of a mankind in a worldwide flood?
Let me try to save us both some time. For the most part, the words attributed to Jesus ring true to me. If people were to actually follow the teachings of Jesus the world would be a much better place. From what I can tell, the vast majority of "Christians" do not follow the teachings of Jesus largely because "Christianity" has all but abandoned His teachi ...[text shortened]... that does not reflect the teachings of Jesus. This includes both the Old and New Testaments.
12 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister"The truth is I don't even know what it is I am supposed to be misrepresenting. For example I still don't know to this day whether you believe that the active , living God (Jesus's Father) actually exists or not. I have not seen you clarify this with anyone."
Even though I've corrected you dozens of times as to what I believe you persist in misrepresenting my position.---------ToO-----------
It's happening all over this forum. I am always being misrepresented and misunderstood. You just get used to it.
I basically think that you don't understand the implications of what your position as you present ion that even those who you deem not to be liars would not be able to get this out of you.
Yet another ridiculous assertion. What does your example have to do with anything? Have I ever accused you of misrepresenting me on that topic?
Like I've said many times before, it doesn't bother me when I'm misunderstood. With most everyone else, I make a clarification and they understand and no longer misrepresent what I've said. With you, I've made the same clarifications dozens of times, yet you persist with the same misrepresentations. It's ridiculous that you try to use the defense that "I don't even know what it is I am supposed to be misrepresenting." I don't think that you're really that dense. I don't think that there are many people on the planet that are that dense. That makes you either a liar or that dense. Have I overestimatedd your intelligence?
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou have yet to clarify whether you actually believe in the active , living Father God that Jesus clearly talked about.
[b]"The truth is I don't even know what it is I am supposed to be misrepresenting. For example I still don't know to this day whether you believe that the active , living God (Jesus's Father) actually exists or not. I have not seen you clarify this with anyone."
Yet another ridiculous assertion. What does your example have to do with anything? Have ...[text shortened]... makes you either a liar or that dense. Have I overestimatedd your intelligence?[/b]
You know you haven't made this clear in any way to anybody.
You can't possibly think that you have.
Do you have any honour? Do you have any simple honesty?
I could come up with a whole list of key things you have not clarified if I didn't think you would just avoid them all.
You were a slippery customer long before we fell out. Dodging and ducking like a politician with ambiguous language and diversions. Never quite revealing enough of yourself so that people would be not be able to challenge your position.
The irony is I'm just a bunch of words on a screen to you. It's you that has to work this out for yourself. You're only cheating yourself in the end. It's just you and ToO.
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterUnbelievable. Maybe you are that dense.
You have yet to clarify whether you actually believe in the active , living Father God that Jesus clearly talked about.
You know you haven't made this clear in any way to anybody.
You can't possibly think that you have.
Do you have any honour? Do you have any simple honesty?
I could come up with a whole list of key things you have not c ...[text shortened]... k this out for yourself. You're only cheating yourself in the end. It's just you and ToO.
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWell I did not hear her say that. The interview I heard she said that the Iraqi war was NOT a holy war nor does she necessarily believe it is God's will.
That interview sounds like spin-control to me.
Here's the quote from her speech:
[b]"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
My gut feeling is that if she said that it was God's plan it was before a group of religious right folks and she was trying to connect with them. However, now she has been called on it and must do a bit of back talking.
Having said that, it is just sad for people to equate religious folk with acting on God's will. If they say that are not acting on God's will they are still pictured as doing so because they are religious. The simple truth of the matter is that they have sworn an oath to uphold and protect the United States. Therefore, it is the interest of the United States that they are to uphold. In your opinion, can they do this and still be religious?
The ironic thing about religion and politics is the difference it plays around the world. For example, ANYONE in American politics who comes out and say they are going to war because it is "God's will" will be tarred and feathered on the spot. However, someone in a radical Islamic country who does not say that a war is being waged because God wills it will probably face a worse fate that their American counterpart.
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyWell in this speech she did say it was "a task that is from God" and "that plan is God's plan."
Well I did not hear her say that. The interview I heard she said that the Iraqi war was NOT a holy war nor does she necessarily believe it is God's will.
My gut feeling is that if she said that it was God's plan it was before a group of religious right folks and she was trying to connect with them. However, now she has been called on it and must do a bit ...[text shortened]... ged because God wills it will probably face a worse fate that their American counterpart.
This shows she did use God as a weapon to "justify" the unjust.
If your recollection of the interview is accurate, it shows a lack of integrity.
Wasn't Bush quoted as saying that God told him to invade Iraq?
Did I miss the tar and feather party?
Is there going to be one for Palin?