"[Republicans] don't think tolerance is a virtue," Dean said, adding: "I'm not going to have these right-wingers throw away our right to be tolerant."
And concluding his backyard speech with a litany of Democratic values, he added: "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."
Posts
20 comments:
"More than 100 people attended the Hiebert fund-raiser, where the house was festooned with a dozen "Dean for America" signs in the front yard."
Wow. Some show of power.
Hatred? I am a proud liberal/moderate (depending on the issue and your view) Democrat and I am not so proud of Dean. I long for more thoughtful dialogue on both sides of the political debate. This war mongering rhetoric is just as displeasing as the stuff on the right – and you know it is there. Whether it is Dean or Rush or whomever, we need to acknowledge one another with respect and try to get down to real issues. I will say, however, that this may be a case of chickens coming home to roost. Many Democrats have just been so abused with the hatred on the right that they just come out swinging with the same brand of hatred.
Intolerance? He has a point, although he should tone it down. It is not that many on the right have their belief system and seek to allowed to live by that belief system, but they desire to force that belief system unnecessarily on others. More frustrating, is that many take the name of Lord as their guide in doing so. In my heart, my liberal beliefs are based on my reading of the Bible, but I don’t crusade on those interpretations opening as being Biblical.
Abortion? I don’t like making a stand on this issue part of an entire party platform. I myself have complex views and the party should have flexibility here.
Gay marriage? Yea, they are using this to distract attention. This one is just the most ridiculous issue in the world. The Government simply should not be in the business of blessing marriages. There should only be domestic partners with any two cohabitants qualifying, like the French system. Leave blessing unions to the Churches and synagogues.
”You are using circular reasoning when it comes to "abused" Democrats. Even if some people are rude or whatever, that does not justify being rude back.”
Exactly. That is my point. He should NOT have been rude back. If nothing else, we can win more people back to the party by telling people why the Democratic party can help them.
The Bible is truth and we take our beliefs from that ancient text. However, I deal in evidentiary issues everyday and nothing presents more than the Bible. Where there is a matter of interpretation, you should not force your interpretation on others. You can advocate for it – maybe that is your duty, but you cannot dictate that your interpretation be applied to the lives of others. (within reason – we don’t debate whether murder should be a crime)
“The Bible is God breathed. Don't be afraid to take God literally. He means what He says. The Bible is not written in such a complicated language that man cannot understand it.”
It may be the most complicated text ever followed by a mass of men. It is a collection of works written by men. Devinly inspired by the Lord and full of truth, but still, written by men. It was written in an ancient language translated many times by people with different degrees of sincerity and motive. It continues to this day to be re-translated into “easier to understand” language. Over thousands of years, subtle alteration may change meaning”. And there is no cross-examining witnesses. Sure Paul wrote lots of letters, but we cannot questions and pin down exact meaning with nuanices of his language and specifc to his context.
When a man tells what how the Bible is to be contrued, I grow very suspicious. Very suspicious. I put my faith in the Lord, not in any man who tries to tell me what the Lord says. I listen to the man as persuasive authority, but no man (other than Jesus) is primary authority.
Example: Gay marriage. Quote scripture to me all day, but the Bible and New Testament in particular, taken as a whole does not tell me that the Government should ban State recognition of homosexual unions. Are you prepared to accept the responsibility of telling me that my interpretation is incorrect and for forcing your interpretations on me…and when I do not obey, the responsibility for punishing me in the name of the Lord?
Feetman-
I was interested to see how you were going to answer Liz. You said:
but you cannot dictate that your interpretation be applied to the lives of others. (within reason – we don’t debate whether murder should be a crime)
In your opinion, what is the the standard for morality? You mentioned murder....so I am wondering if you accept the 10 commandments as a standard of moral law?
--SB
"but you cannot dictate that your interpretation be applied to the lives of others. (within reason – we don’t debate whether murder should be a crime)"
I belive Abortion is murder. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the belief that abortion is NOT murder was forced upon me. While it may not be legally murder, it is still murder and should be a crime.
"It may be the most complicated text ever followed by a mass of men. It is a collection of works written by men. Devinly inspired by the Lord and full of truth, but still, written by men."
The most comlicated belief system ever? I don't think so. Ever looked at hinduism? Hundereds of gogs, and each must be appeased in his own way. Or you have Christianity, where Christ came to save us from our sins. Yup. Very complicated.
The bible was written by God through Man. Throughout the different translations, extream care was taken to preserve the scriptures in their original form and meaning.
"Example: Gay marriage. Quote scripture to me all day, but the Bible and New Testament in particular, taken as a whole does not tell me that the Government should ban State recognition of homosexual unions. Are you prepared to accept the responsibility of telling me that my interpretation is incorrect and for forcing your interpretations on me…and when I do not obey, the responsibility for punishing me in the name of the Lord?"
Yet again, we have the issue of "forceing" beliefs on others. The constitutional ban on gay marrige is fitting in with the intended purpose of the ammendments. The right to have marrige between 1 man and 1 woman is to be preserved, and the constitution is in place to protect the people of america from a runaway branch of government, which in this case would be the state and local governments.
I think my post got buried and I wanted to ask Feetman this:
Feetman-
I was interested to see how you were going to answer Liz. You said:
but you cannot dictate that your interpretation be applied to the lives of others. (within reason – we don’t debate whether murder should be a crime)
In your opinion, what is the the standard for morality? You mentioned murder....so I am wondering if you accept the 10 commandments as a standard of moral law?
--SB
# posted by Anonymous : 1/3/05 4:59 PM
I have a MSJ response, private sale, banrutcy plan objection all due Friday. If you can wait a few days, I will attempt a thoughtful answer.
Thank you...I will be looking forward to it. Take care,
SB
Reminds me of Isaiah 5:20 --
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
“In your opinion, what is the the standard for morality? You mentioned murder....so I am wondering if you accept the 10 commandments as a standard of moral law?”
Ten Commandments as a standard of moral law? Of course - also, a historical basis for secular law codes. (as an aside, I think we need to leave the monuments on display even though they were placed there later than most believe and by movie producers, no less) But, again, application from the burned words of the stone tablet to modern day legislation is not simple. First, not all of the commandments are not exactly clear. And don’t jump down my neck on that comment because learned scholars argue over meanings of many of them – especially 1 through 4. Another big standard is what we are told that Jesus said. There is debate and many things we cannot be clear about, bla, bla, bla…but what is reported on the sermon on the mount is powerful and should guide our morality. Most, if not all, of what he said is applicable to civilized people of any or no religion.
From the teachings of Jesus, I take a philosophy of selflessness…of working for the betterment of all man and of helping one another. Looking at the commandments 5-10, really, they are about our relationship with others and are an initial guide when thinking about living communially (I mean in cities and states…not in a hippie commune). Morality is about ourselves in relation to others. Some morality is about us as individuals in relation to society as a whole, i.e., paying taxes, not driving giant gas fuzzling SUVs that hurt others in crashes, don’t send 18 years olds to dye in an oil war while your buddies profit from it – you know, things where Bush has problems. Some morality is about us as individuals in relation to specific people, i.e., don’t kill, don’t cheat on your wife, you know, things were Clinton has problems. Some apply to both.
My socialist ideals are very much founded in the Bible. So, I am not saying the Bible is not to be considered. I just warn caution in telling others what to do and how to live in the name of the Bible. When I get on my soap box about political matters, I don’t take out my Bible and say that education should be more of a priority because of the teachings of Jesus. But, in my heart, it goes back to that.
”I belive Abortion is murder. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the belief that abortion is NOT murder was forced upon me. While it may not be legally murder, it is still murder and should be a crime.”
No. Unless you were forced to have an abortion, it was not forced on you. You illustrate my point. You have a belief that someone else should live a certain way. When you cannot get that into a law, you think that is forced upon you. No.
A state giving gays marriage benefits is forcing nothing on you at all. A state denying gays marriage benefits is forcing your view on them.
"The most comlicated belief system ever? I don't think so. Ever looked at hinduism? Hundereds of gogs, and each must be appeased in his own way. Or you have Christianity, where Christ came to save us from our sins. Yup. Very complicated.”
I said complicated text. It is difficult to apply it today. There are differing opinions as to its meaning on several issues. My point was that it is open for interpretation and that the vague and ambiguous qualities of the Bible were, at least in part, the result of it being written by several men over a period of time with many translations.
“The bible was written by God through Man. Throughout the different translations, extream care was taken to preserve the scriptures in their original form and meaning.”
Still, written by many men over many years with many translations by people with many political motivations.
“Yet again, we have the issue of "forceing" beliefs on others. The constitutional ban on gay marrige is fitting in with the intended purpose of the ammendments. The right to have marrige between 1 man and 1 woman is to be preserved, and the constitution is in place to protect the people of america from a runaway branch of government, which in this case would be the state and local governments.”
I assume that you mean commandment and not amendment?
1. No one is preventing a man and woman to marry. No one is passing a law that refuses to recognize heterosexual marriage so I don’t know what you are going on about.
2. Run away branch of government? I guess you were upset when the courts made your kids go to school with black people as well. My point is that the courts prevent legislation from denying equal protection. So stop trying to deny equal protection. If two gay guys want to live together with state benefits it has nothing to do with you. The religious aspect of any union has nothing to do with the state.
3. Again, the French model is most appropriate. The government recognition goes to cohabitation unions. It matters not about sex. Two elderly sisters get the benefits. Two old boxing bachelors can have it. A man and wife can have it. Gay boy and his boy toy can have it. All that matters to you is that they are a cohabitating unit for social purposes. What happens behind closed doors is none of your business.
4. If you did mean amendments…well, that is crazy as well.
We are governed by rule of law - not rule of people or judges. It is exactly the court's role to interpret the law: Marbury v. Madison's judicial review. The court can strike down a law if it violates equal protection. This is, in my humble view, the most important aspect of our system of government.
The majority should never effect a tyranny on the minority. That is the whole point of the Bill of Rights.
Why should the state's law be involved in dictating sexual relations between consenting adults? Homosexuality is part of civilization. Wrong or right, it is here and it has always been here. Sodom and Gamorrah, despite what your local Baptist preacher will tell you, were not destroyed because of homosexuality per se. it was liciviousness and rampant unchecked sexual promiscuity. Hetorsexual screwing around in the streets is just as bad. The fundamentalist extreme rejection of homosexuality as a minor part of society has lead to the accpetance of unchecked promiscuity in the gay community. Am I saying that the state of promiscuity in the gay culture is because of conservative Chritians? To an extent, YES I AM. These kids get rejected and told they are dirty and not part of society. They thyink they are outside of our standards and norms. That is ridiculous. They should be brought back in. We must teach them that if they must be gay, then they must follow the same decency standards as everyone else, i.e., no promiscuity, monogamy, stable long-lasting and meaningful relationships. They must pair up like heterosexuals and contribute to society in a productive manner. The constant rejection of that harms society and does great harm to these people. It is simply inhuman. I could never see jesus treating anyone that way.
Feetman, thanks for sharing so much. It sounds like you have thought on this. I was thinking about your saying "we are governed by a rule of law" and pondering what all of that may mean to me personally. I do believe there is a law that is set up that God set up for us to see examine our lives in light of. When we look at ourselves in light of that law, we see how short we fall of God's standard of perfection. (for example, when I look at the 10 commandments, I see how it gives me an idea of what I would have to do to be viewed as righteous before God and if honest, would have to admit that I am a liar. A blasphemer. I am an idolator--as I all to often put material things and things I want to do ahead of God. So, in light of that, I DON'T meet up to much. But the entire reason God gave us that law was to show us our need for Him. A need to know who Jesus is personally. You talked about those who try to cram their ideas down other's throats and force ideologies on others and I would say that "cramming" is never a good thing. A lot of people wear a label of Christianity but maybe don't really know what that is. It may be more political ideology than actually knowing Christ.
You mentioned several issues that tied in, in different ways. You said that no one "forces" ideas about abortion on anyone, unless you have physically been forced to have an abortion but later you go on to blame Christians for the state of promiscuity in the gay culture because Christians make gays feel dirty. Do you see the incongruency in that reasoning?
I think we can wander around thousands of issues but may miss the most important, if we are not careful. I am certain that I will stand before a righteous God someday (maybe soon)and have to give account for my words and actions. I look at the law, as God gave it, not as man makes laws, and know I deserve nothing but hell. God did provide a way out---faith in Christ. I personally cannot force people to treat homosexuals, drug addicts, and and other sinners like myself in a loving manner, but I will be accountable for how I treat them.
I am constantly challenged in how I will appropriate this---
--SB
There is natural law from God, but that is a little different from what goes through our legislature. Sure it impacts it a great deal.
“(for example, when I look at the 10 commandments, I see how it gives me an idea of what I would have to do to be viewed as righteous before God and if honest, would have to admit that I am a liar. A blasphemer. I am an idolator--as I all to often put material things and things I want to do ahead of God. So, in light of that, I DON'T meet up to much.”
I am more loose with the idea of perfection. Perfect is not perfect. Flaws are beautiful. Why does God love us. Is God love or is he some tyrant with unrealistic expectations. I have a problem with even personifying God because I think that naturally gets us down tangent hallways. The personification was done initially because we simply could not think abstractly. Anyway, you seem more down on yourself than God would be. Sure you are a sinner. As my daughter would say, “Duh.” But, perfection and beauty is in the struggle and you sound like you are struggling perfectly. You are trying to understand the God and goodness and all that stuff. You sound perfect to me.
But the entire reason God gave us that law was to show us our need for Him. A need to know who Jesus is personally.
Again, too much personification with little direction for me. I think there is a God and a natural law that is in harmony with God’s universe. The law is there simply because that is the way it is. It is science. It is math. We need to understand God because that is the universe that we have and God is the harmonious existence in that universe. Don’t take that as silly-new-agish as it sounds. I just never understood this deal about knowing Jesus personally. I struggle with understanding his teaching and the message he was giving us. “Jesus” exists and he is my Lord. I don’t think that I need to sit on the porch and have a whiskey with him. For me, it seems mighty presumptious to seek a personal relationship. I don’t really need a personal relationship even if it were possible. Like, to contradict myself yet again and personify things to a silly degree, I don’t need to have a relationship with my president – I just need to understand his leadership and play my role in society accordingly. I don’t need an acknowldgment of self in this lifetime. I am confident that such desires will either be satisfied after I die, or that desire will be moot.
“A lot of people wear a label of Christianity but maybe don't really know what that is. It may be more political ideology than actually knowing Christ.”
I am often unclear to others whether I am talking about those who struggle to understand Christ or those who advocate political issues under a flag of organized Christianity. I should try and be more clear.
You mentioned several issues that tied in, in different ways. You said that no one "forces" ideas about abortion on anyone, unless you have physically been forced to have an abortion but later you go on to blame Christians for the state of promiscuity in the gay culture because Christians make gays feel dirty. Do you see the incongruency in that reasoning?
No. It seems consistent to me. I am looking at an act the is put to others. If you succeed in passing an anti-abortion law and a person is prevented from having an abortion as they desire, then your view has been forced upon them. If there is no anti-abortion law and a person has an abortion that you disagree with, you have not been prevented from an act that you want to take – you just have an opinion and don’t like with the other person did. If people advocating a conservative culture against homosexuality prevent homosexuals from fitting into society, they denied the homosexuals from taking certain acts they desire – marriage.
”I look at the law, as God gave it, not as man makes laws, and know I deserve nothing but hell. God did provide a way out---faith in Christ.”
And you are struggling with that. As we all should. Beautiful. But all the hell and sin stuff is so unnecessarily depressing. If you are going to hell then why obsess on it while you are here. If you are going to heaven, was the obsession with hell and sin what got you into heaven? I like to focus on living by the teaching of Jesus as much as possible and understanding why that is important. I just don’t have time to think about what I deserve or if I will go to hell. There is just not enough time. What Jesus was teaching is kind-of hard and that takes up my time.
“I personally cannot force people to treat homosexuals, drug addicts, and and other sinners like myself in a loving manner, but I will be accountable for how I treat them.”
Don’t you like loving people? Don’t you love being self-less? Don’t you love when others treat you selflessly? If you look, there is something beautiful about everyone. I love coming to know someone different and stretching myself. I think that is how I love Jesus.
How is this related to me not liking the Republican party? Oh yea, I still really, really love Republicans and I love talking about ideas with them.
No. It seems consistent to me. I am looking at an act the is put to others. If you succeed in passing an anti-abortion law and a person is prevented from having an abortion as they desire, then your view has been forced upon them."
I do not believe murder is right. It says that its wrong in the ten commandments, and even in Genesis. But lets say that Jack the Ripper disagreed with me. Does that still give him any right to murder? Abortion is the same thing. It kills those who cannot even stand up for themselves.
This is more fun than work. Isn’t it?
(A)
Perfection? Our argument is more simantic than Biblical. I am thinking of perfection in terms of aesthetics and beauty.
“If we were perfect, then why would we need God?”
We could be perfect and need God. Jesus is perfect and I suspect he needs God, to the extent his is separate from God. I guess I think of God as the eternal framework for everything…natural law in itself. I cannot explain because I cannot understand it and I never will in this life. Discussing the nature of God is fun and educational and I think we have a duty to struggle with the question, but we could never expect to have a deep realization because, I believe, that is simply beyond us as humans.
Anyway, I love the beauty of humans and the human condition -- flaws and all. To some extent it all goes back the serpent and the apple allegory. Were we in God’s image before that taste of knowledge? Then is God the state of non-self awareness and complete harmony will all that exists? Isn’t there a beauty in struggling with self-awareness?
“It is not because of our desire for God that we are saved--our desire is not our own.”
What?
John 3:16, "For GOD so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish buy have everlasting life." Its not what we do. Its what God did. "For by Grace you have been saved, through faith, and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is the GIFT OF GOD, NOT of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9.
Yea. That is true. But I don’t know exactly what that means. It is cryptic. I just know Jesus was here with a message. He died. He did whatever sacrifice for us and it was a great sacrifice, whatever the true nature. Do I need to understand the mechanism? No. And I don’t need to listen to anyone that tells me they know. I will learn in due time. For now, I struggle to live by his teaching.
“As humans we do not naturally want good. Toddlers disobey, steal from, and hit their playmates when they are little, and they are the ones that are "innocent." ALL have missed the mark and fall short of the glory of God.”
I disagree. We do naturally want good. However, we also naturally have selfish tendencies. Toddlers don’t have evil intent. They have selfish tendencies. They still want good.
”Don't you think if He gave up heaven to die for us, He cares about you?”
He did something for me. And I am grateful. I do feel that I have value because of him. I think my answer to you is “yes”, but again…I reserve all judgment on factual occurrences and meaning until such time as I enlightened after this life.
“The Bible says that if we do not obey God, were are His enemies. We cannot serve two masters. Why would God die for His enemies, unless He loved them? Why would God die for us if we were perfect? Jesus said it is the sick that need a doctor. We are all sick. God does not have unrealistic expectations for us. We should be able to always tell the truth, never hate, always obey all of the ten commandments. Yet they have become difficult to follow because of our fallen nature. God is perfect, and we are not. We do not deserve to enter His presence. Yet He wants us to, so He gave His Son to die.”
Yea. Ok. But that is all interpretation from personification in an allegorical book. It is a lot of words putting together generalities. I want to go beyond that and examine what meaning there is. That is, essentially what we try to do…and then we check ourselves back against that book…the Bible.
(B)
“I do not believe murder is right. It says that its wrong in the ten commandments, and even in Genesis. But lets say that Jack the Ripper disagreed with me. Does that still give him any right to murder? Abortion is the same thing. It kills those who cannot even stand up for themselves.”
We are not arguing with the same definitions. I am going under the assumption (arguendo – calm down) that abortion has not been established as murder. If we assume that abortion is established as murder, then of course there must be an anti-abortion law.
CRYPTIC? I read this hours ago and had to come back and re-read it. Never in my life have I heard that John 3:16 was cryptic. It seems like if you don't really want to take something to heart, you are saying the message just isn't clear and doesn't apply to you. His message is amazingly clear : He was one of 3 things, Lord, Liar or Lunatic. After fairly extensive study, I am sure He is not the last two.
BTW, I was reading what you said earlier about homosexuality, intolerance, etc. Sadly, people may have "ranked" the behavior on a scale of sin-level. I don't know. Maybe some people think a lie is not really as bad as some other sin. All sin is sin. Plain and simple. In my reading of Scripture, I didn't see where God ever gave a ranking system, He just called it what it was to Him, sin. And being holy and righteous, He can't tolerate sin.
This is why it needs to be confessed, be it a sexual sin or any other sin.
John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
I believe that verse is absolutely true. However, if you are saying that verse, standing alone, is clear, then you are selling an agenda. There is deep interpretation that needs to go into each phrase of that verse. Where there is interpretation, there is politics. God loved the world - but what is the nature of God and of love? How did he give his sone exactly and in what way exactly is Jesus his son? How do you "believe" in Jesus? Believe in him as a historical figure? believe he is part of the holy trinity? or, as I think, you believe in his divinity, but more, you believe in his teaching and philospohy.
Yea, I have a clear idea of that verse, but with my interpretation. Just as you do. however, because my uderstanding is based on an interpretation of the words, and I know you can have a different interpretation, I will be caustious in conducting myself to as to conflict with your view. I don't put my view ahead of yours.
In that sence, it is cryptic. There are metaphoric elements. I am not saying it is false. I am not saying that it is the devine word of God. I am saying that it is what it is and you, nor anyone else, can add "value added" interpretation and claim the same sacred status as the original word.
Oh, and yea, lets stop "ranking" sin. Lets let you decide the exact manifestations of what is sin in your opinion, then we can round people up no-matter their particular belief and kill them. Mad? Of course you are. I am not ranking sin in terms of how it is to God. Some "sin" is different in the context of a plauralistic society. Sin between teo consenting adults does not impact the society like other sin where actions victimize the innocent. We should not have sentencing differences for solicitation of prostitution and killing a bus-load of kids? that is ranking sin.
And needing to stop homosexuality and passing laws denying them rights. maybe it is a sin, but it not your business to judge in that instance. Let God judge them. You have other things to do. You need to agree to disagree, and let God deal with it later. Not everything is such an issue, but homosexuality is. Now doon't stretch this so that we should promote homosexuality, but we need to accept its place in society, deal with it, and move on down the road.
Wow. Way of topic, but I suppose Dean has a way of doing this to people. YAAA!
-"Oh, and yea, lets stop "ranking" sin. Lets let you decide the exact manifestations of what is sin in your opinion, then we can round people up no-matter their particular belief and kill them. Mad? Of course you are. I am not ranking sin in terms of how it is to God. Some "sin" is different in the context of a plauralistic society. Sin between teo consenting adults does not impact the society like other sin where actions victimize the innocent. We should not have sentencing differences for solicitation of prostitution and killing a bus-load of kids? that is ranking sin."-
Sin is sin, no way around it.
-"Now doon't stretch this so that we should promote homosexuality, but we need to accept its place in society, deal with it, and move on down the road."-
Ah, but it has been accepted. When was the last time a homesexual was attacked, mearly for being homosexual?
There is however a difference between being accepted and being mainstream.
“Sin is sin, no way around it.”
But if there are themes to this, I thought that one was religious law and the interplay with the state’s law. To God’s law, I am not arguing with your “sin is sin” approach, although I think that is oversimplified. I think God has the ability to treat different sin differently. There has to be some ranking of sin as makes it to our criminal laws.
“Ah, but it has been accepted. When was the last time a homesexual was attacked, mearly for being homosexual? There is however a difference between being accepted and being mainstream.”
Accepting someone does not mean you simply refrained from beating them. I think homosexuality does have mainstream acceptance.
”If the Bible is precise enough to pierce the bone from the marrow then why should its interpretions be so vague? Is it because we are picking and choosing the verses we want to interpret? Or are we "interpreting" the Word the way we want to in order to justify our own immorality?”
People do pick and choose scripture. People use scripture for political purposes. This all goes to my point. You cannot say one person’s interpretation is false, but another person’s must be implemented into law.
”If my view is wrong, or if someone else's is, then why wouldn't you put the truth in front of their false views?”
I do put my view first in my own life. But I don’t apply my view to others.
The Bible is not an allegorical book. Allegory means it is a made up story made to be an example of a situation in real life. The "Pilgrim's Progress" is an allegory. The Bible is absolute truth.
Well, I disagree partly. Some of the Bible is an accurate historical account. Part of it is sermon. Part of it is allegory. I don’t think that you have to believe in the historical accuracy of everything in the Bible. Different parts are to be taken differently. They are written by different people at different times in different circumstances. If was to be all one homogenious text, I think God could do a better job as publishing agent and get one voice to write one piece that did not need man to vote different books in or out of God’s book. I know you disagree strongly with me and I don’t expect you to agree.
“What I wrote before can be clearly defined in Scripture. If you wish to dispute it, I can look them all up....”
You can cite scripture all day. We are arguing about the nature of scripture.
“The last time I checked, selfishness is not a characteristic of goodness.
We are shades of grey. We all have a capacity for great love and a capacity for great evil. We are not one or the other. We do have the natural desire to be all good because we are creatures of God and we have that much. It is just hard to be good sometimes. That does not mean we don’t want to be good or that we are not struggling. Lets focus on that goodness and coax more out. We are not naturally dirty and evil and full of sin only. We just are not. God is wonderful and we are wonderful as his creatures.
“It was partially out of selfishness that Eve took the fruit, because she wanted to be like God. She did not care about what the effect of her sin would be, she just wanted to be a goddess.”
Right there. Allegory.
"There is none who is understanding, there is none who is seeking after God." Romans 3:11
Don’t know that verse or its context. I will not comment on its meaning other than to withhold judgment your interpretation.
”We are not righteous.”
No we are not. But I don’t think you have to be righteous to be perfect. And I don’t think you have to be righteous to be worthy of love. I read you words and get the feeling that there is so much fear in you. Some belief that you are not worthy of love. I am so glad that Jesus loves me (whoever “he” is and whatever that means) when I am not righteous and when I am dirty and when I falter.
Post a Comment