Why Should Jesus Love Me?

[Catcher1]

Counter_Strike wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all, I missed your so called ideas because they were lame. This is why you believed they wooshed over my head but they didn't; I was walking on them all this time trampled in the abysmal muck.
Secondly; don't fool yourself into believing you speak proper English. You say one fish many fishes, you say one sheep many sheeps, you spell Saviour >Savior< and you spell Colour >Color<.
Thirdly, you're not more special than anyone else and your ideas are basically just replayed babble. Why don't you go to an atheist or homosexual thread where you can find common ground, or go have a heart to heart conversation with the apes at the San Fransisco zoo? I'm sure you would blend in just fine.
<quoted text>
Everyone should take a stand against you mon claire. You're bad news and even a worse influence on this Topix thread trying to change it to a Topix that suits you more. There are many in the world like me chum, unafraid and most certainly not easily intimidated. I think it best you go have a cup of tea and a slice or two of toast, go have a shower and go lay down friend. No one in here will get banned because of the likes of you, but I feel somehow that you wouldn't be so expressive in public.
Counter_Strike: So let it be done.[Quo Vadis]

Darn it.

The abysmal muck has returned.

[wilderide]

trifecta1 wrote:

<quoted text>If it was not true, you would not take it personal now would you?

I don't take it personally. I'm merely making an observation of your behavior.

your position is silly, I going to call it silly. why? you think you alone can call something silly? Secular Humanism is a cowardly hypocritical bankrupt and barren immoral philosophy. We all see that.

LOL! Now you presume to speak for everyone? Including someone you know disagrees with you? Okaaaay.

why don't you freethink how I was before Christianity :)
Its not a matter of proving God wrong, its a mater of is that person still responsible for they action and choice to run the red light, that answer is yes.

You didn't answer my question. If God knew the person would run the red light, could the person choose to do otherwise and prove God wrong?

Now there you go, you said this [I think people are responsible for their actions because I don't believe in fate]
See, now we getting somewhere. So now you can agree that you're responsible for rejecting Jesus Christ. YOU ARE.

Of course I'm responsible for my disbelief. Did I ever say otherwise? What you still don't seem to grasp is that YOU are the one who doesn't believe in free-will, at least if you believe in a God who knows the future.

You have two different words there: Fate. and Faith.
Yes I have faith in Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior.
What that have to do with fate? Fate not disqualify responsibility and accountability.

I do't know why you seem to be confusing yourself. Fate and faith are two different things, I agree. But again, if you believe God knows the future, then there is fate. If there is fate, then free-will cannot exist, as I've tried to explain to you.

People that are saved and call Jesus Christ lord and savior, are the [whosoever will] People that reject Jesus Christ as personal Lord and savior are the [whosoever wont]
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 eternal life.
[[[
You CHOSE to make yourself into the [whosoever won't]. That your responsibility, and your accountability. Fate no have anything to with that. And using that as a scapegoat, is...silly.:)

If God so loved the world, why doesn't God act like it?

[River Tam]

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
It would really make me happy if you would um...um...
Nevermind.

Again?

[Chess Jurist]

trifecta1 wrote:

<quoted text>If it was not true, you would not take it personal now would you? your position is silly, I going to call it silly. why? you think you alone can call something silly? Secular Humanism is a cowardly hypocritical bankrupt and barren immoral philosophy. We all see that.
why don't you freethink how I was before Christianity :)
Its not a matter of proving God wrong, its a mater of is that person still responsible for they action and choice to run the red light, that answer is yes.
Now there you go, you said this [I think people are responsible for their actions because I don't believe in fate]
See, now we getting somewhere. So now you can agree that you're responsible for rejecting Jesus Christ. YOU ARE.
You have two different words there: Fate. and Faith.
Yes I have faith in Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior.
What that have to do with fate? Fate not disqualify responsibility and accountability.
People that are saved and call Jesus Christ lord and savior, are the [whosoever will] People that reject Jesus Christ as personal Lord and savior are the [whosoever wont]
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 eternal life.
[[[
You CHOSE to make yourself into the [whosoever won't]. That your responsibility, and your accountability. Fate no have anything to with that. And using that as a scapegoat, is...silly.:)

Surely this is an exercise in free association, right?

[simplyput]

AnnieJ wrote:

<quoted text>
About twice a year we did an outside of school hours function...children were allowed to set up areas to represent their culture. People had the option of visiting or not visiting those specific areas.
Steve...I never said that this would solve it all. I just know that in many cases that if you allow one group...you have to allow them all. If you don't...it leaves it open to law suits or at the very least it takes up valuable time that needs to be spent in other areas.
IMO...
Schools are for education...not to further ones faith. Each religion has it's own facilities for furthering ones beliefs.
You might find this ironic but...
My son started school just a few months after his dad died. I put him in a Catholic private school because I thought they would be more sensitive to his needs at the time. Since we were not Catholic they gave me the option of whether he attended Mass. I signed the papers gladly for him to go.#1...I didn't want him to feel left out and #2 I felt as if it would be an education for him. I would have left him in that school but he asked to go to the public school the following year...mainly because that was where the neighborhood kids went. They were basically equal in quality of education.
I am not opposing Christianity with what I believe...it wouldn't matter to me what religion it was...
On as side note...
The other reason he wanted to change schools...
One day he told me that private school was not so private. Someone barged in to that bathroom while he was in there...not so private he said! I could never make him understand...he just knew...it wasn't so private!
Anyway...we just see this matter from different perspectives.

http://youtu.be/puI4pfRB0w0

You think they should take out Christmas songs and plays out of schools, because it is Christianity or religious??, but yet it is okay to teach homosexuality in schools, which is against a LOT of religions and faiths ..we should have a right to say No we don't want our child to taught this!

[mobile7]

G_O_D wrote:

<quoted text>
Please provide actual archaelogical evidence for pre-Roman structures there.
BTW, I am sure one can find websites "proving" the moon is made of cheese....and made by aliens, too.

Ok. You can see for yourself that the moon is made of cheese. Just smile real big, stick head between knees, bend over in front of big mirror.

[RiversideRedneck]

Tide with Beach wrote:

If it's on private property I don't even notice those.
If it's on public property, I would be bothered, as an American.

You'd be bothered, huh?

I don't give a shred of a shit if it makes somebody happy to have their favorite religious nonsense displayed on public property.

You don't give a shit, huh?

I accept everyone, RR. I accept that you are religious.
You can be religious wherever you want. You can pray before you eat your Big Mac. I won't bother you.

You have confused RR...

Do you "no give a shit" or would you be "bothered"? You contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next...

[RiversideRedneck]

River Tam wrote:

<quoted text>
Kissing in public isn't against federal law.

You are correct and I'm all for PDA's....

Christmas Nativity scenes aren't against Federal law, either....

[Chess Jurist]

simplyput wrote:

<quoted text>
.....we should have a right to say No we don't want our child to taught this!

Christianity, right?

[Catcher1]

trifecta1 wrote:

<quoted text>If it was not true, you would not take it personal now would you? your position is silly, I going to call it silly. why? you think you alone can call something silly? Secular Humanism is a cowardly hypocritical bankrupt and barren immoral philosophy. We all see that.
why don't you freethink how I was before Christianity :)
Its not a matter of proving God wrong, its a mater of is that person still responsible for they action and choice to run the red light, that answer is yes.
Now there you go, you said this [I think people are responsible for their actions because I don't believe in fate]
See, now we getting somewhere. So now you can agree that you're responsible for rejecting Jesus Christ. YOU ARE.
You have two different words there: Fate. and Faith.
Yes I have faith in Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior.
What that have to do with fate? Fate not disqualify responsibility and accountability.
People that are saved and call Jesus Christ lord and savior, are the [whosoever will] People that reject Jesus Christ as personal Lord and savior are the [whosoever wont]
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 eternal life.
[[[
You CHOSE to make yourself into the [whosoever won't]. That your responsibility, and your accountability. Fate no have anything to with that. And using that as a scapegoat, is...silly.:)

I no get your..........drift, writer.

[Chess Jurist]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

<quoted text>
You'd be bothered, huh?
<quoted text>
You don't give a shit, huh?
<quoted text>
You have confused RR...
Do you "no give a shit" or would you be "bothered"? You contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next...

You seem confused about whether he cares if religious nonsense makes someone happy.

[trifecta1]

wilderide wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't take it personally. I'm merely making an observation of your behavior.
<quoted text>
LOL! Now you presume to speak for everyone? Including someone you know disagrees with you? Okaaaay.
<quoted text>
You didn't answer my question. If God knew the person would run the red light, could the person choose to do otherwise and prove God wrong?
<quoted text>
Of course I'm responsible for my disbelief. Did I ever say otherwise? What you still don't seem to grasp is that YOU are the one who doesn't believe in free-will, at least if you believe in a God who knows the future.
<quoted text>
I do't know why you seem to be confusing yourself. Fate and faith are two different things, I agree. But again, if you believe God knows the future, then there is fate. If there is fate, then free-will cannot exist, as I've tried to explain to you.
<quoted text>
If God so loved the world, why doesn't God act like it?

He did way more than enough, He gave the Christ as a sacrifice. if that not enough for you, then deal with that when you soul meet God, whether you believe that or not.

Whether the person could not run the red light and prove God wrong is a non-sensical argument. You think the person before the red light say to themselves aha!, "I now going to prove God wrong and stop at the red light", lol..iyai!

That is silly. The Driver had a will to stop, and a will to run the red light. Whichever he chose, he was accountable. Either stop and waiting, or running the red light get a ticket. Either action he used his will for, there is accountability. So yes, you do have free will. And just because God knew you would be one of those that CHOSE whosoever won't, you still used your will, your free will to make that choice, therefore responsible. so stop blame God and be accountable.

I not speaking for everyone, but we all did see on the billboard proven by yourself and other freethinkers, just how corrupt your philosophy is. Whoever on the billboard can read, I not speaking for them.

[trifecta1]

Chess Jurist wrote:

<quoted text>
Surely this is an exercise in free association, right?

in what sense? the little I know from that is psychology, and Freud is the analyst. So you have to be a bit more specific.

[AnnieJ]

simplyput wrote:

<quoted text>
http://youtu.be/puI4pfRB0w0
You think they should take out Christmas songs and plays out of schools, because it is Christianity or religious??, but yet it is okay to teach homosexuality in schools, which is against a LOT of religions and faiths ..we should have a right to say No we don't want our child to taught this!

SP...when did I say that it was okay for a school to teach sexuality in school? Could you find that post for me because I don't remember ever saying that.

I am an advocate that is sex education is taught in school that it should be with parental permission. I also insisted with my own children that I be allowed to see the material taught.

I am not sure about all school systems but at the one that I worked in parents had the right to preview any materials and books that were being used to teach every subject.

Please...post a link where I said that schools should teach homosexuality or heterosexuality in schools.

BTW I have no problem with them singing Christmas carols...Frosty the Snowman doesn't bother me in the least. If however they are going to sing Christian Christmas songs...which I am not opposed to then I believe that they should also sing songs that pertain to the Jewish faith...Muslim faith...Hindu...and all the rest.

Some of my favorite Christmas songs are religious in nature...I find them beautiful...

Here is probably my most favorite Christmas song...

https://www.youtube.com/watch...

It is hauntingly beautiful and moving.

Another BTW...you do have the right to speak up...I don't live in MASS. but if you do...then you had the right to vote against or for whatever you feel is best.

No one has taken away your right to vote SP nor would I ever tell you how to vote. Each person must vote how they feel best serves the interest of this country.

BTW Voting is private...I would never ask you how you voted.

Darn...I just do not recall ever saying that someone should not have a choice if their child takes a sex education class...don't think I did.

I encourage you to be involved with your child's school...I was...

[Black Thunder 42]

Adam wrote:

S.F. Gay Rights Leader Arrested Over Child Porn:
S.F. CRIME:
Rachel Gordon:
Published 09:21 p.m., Monday, June 25, 2012:
San Francisco police have arrested veteran gay rights advocate Larry Brinkin in connection with felony possession of child pornography.
Brinkin, 66, who worked for the San Francisco Human Rights Commission before his retirement in 2010, was taken into custody Friday night. He spent the night in jail before he was released on bail, according to a spokeswoman for the sheriff's department.
The district attorney's office will decide Tuesday whether to file charges. "We're still reviewing the case," district attorney's spokeswoman Stephanie Ong Stillman said Monday.
Police say that Brinkin had pornographic images, some that appear to show children as young as 1 and 2 or 3 years old being sodomized and performing oral sex on adult men, in e-mail attachments linked to his account, according to a search warrant served by San Francisco police.
Representatives of America Online contacted authorities after coming across e-mail attachments from one of its subscriber's accounts containing what they believed to be child pornography.

One has to wonder how it was that "AOL" knew what was in this individual's Private e-mail attachments.
Do any of you know what's in your email until you open it?
If you are an AOL customer, they do, so just call your friendly AOL representative to be safe before you open any email attachments...THEY have already done that for you. WOW! These folks had better hope that garbage is stored on that mans hard drive and not just in his email, or someone is in a whole lot of shit!

[Chess Jurist]

trifecta1 wrote:

<quoted text>in what sense? the little I know from that is psychology, and Freud is the analyst. So you have to be a bit more specific.

No I don't.

[Chess Jurist]

AnnieJ wrote:

<quoted text>
SP...when did I say that it was okay for a school to teach sexuality in school? Could you find that post for me because I don't remember ever saying that.
I am an advocate that is sex education is taught in school that it should be with parental permission. I also insisted with my own children that I be allowed to see the material taught.
I am not sure about all school systems but at the one that I worked in parents had the right to preview any materials and books that were being used to teach every subject.
Please...post a link where I said that schools should teach homosexuality or heterosexuality in schools.
BTW I have no problem with them singing Christmas carols...Frosty the Snowman doesn't bother me in the least. If however they are going to sing Christian Christmas songs...which I am not opposed to then I believe that they should also sing songs that pertain to the Jewish faith...Muslim faith...Hindu...and all the rest.
Some of my favorite Christmas songs are religious in nature...I find them beautiful...
Here is probably my most favorite Christmas song...
https://www.youtube.com/watch...
It is hauntingly beautiful and moving.
Another BTW...you do have the right to speak up...I don't live in MASS. but if you do...then you had the right to vote against or for whatever you feel is best.
No one has taken away your right to vote SP nor would I ever tell you how to vote. Each person must vote how they feel best serves the interest of this country.
BTW Voting is private...I would never ask you how you voted.
Darn...I just do not recall ever saying that someone should not have a choice if their child takes a sex education class...don't think I did.
I encourage you to be involved with your child's school...I was...

That's a cute butt.

[Brother Lee Love]

wilderide wrote:

That's an interesting question. What would survive would probably largely depend on the culture of the few who survived prior to the destruction. Though things would probably morph and distort pretty quickly as the generations evolved. And I would be very surprised if cults and religions didn't evolve all over again. Every culture has myths based on their cultural values.

Fortunately, our societies have had the foresight to make time-capsules, so forth and so on, just in case. But, that's our societies. And with these time-capsules, the "elect" have had the foresight to prepare for such possibilities and built underground cities, bunkers, shelters, and so on. Of a surety, this will benefit our future. But, my initial question was based on the theories from such authors as Erich Von Daniken and the such like. They've proposed the possibility that perhaps, the peoples that we consider "primitive," some 10,000 years ago and earlier, might have been more technologically advanced than we care to imagine. In addition, they've proposed the mere possibility that maybe-- just maybe-- they might have had libraries, so forth and so on, but that any historical records of them has been lost to time with the exception of certain "scientific" mysteries that remain from the remnant that survived, ancestors of those that lived 10,000 years ago.

[Tide with Beach]

RiversideRedneck wrote:

You'd be bothered, huh?

I'd be miffed.

RiversideRedneck wrote:

You don't give a shit, huh?

It was "a shred of a shit".

I picked that up from the movie Ted. It's great.

RiversideRedneck wrote:

You have confused RR...
Do you "no give a shit" or would you be "bothered"? You contradicted yourself from one sentence to the next...

I am consistently bothered by any public endorsement for religion.

I don't give a shred of a shit about what people want, if they want the government to specifically endorse their religion. Tough luck. This isn't a theocracy.

Is that more clear? Just give me a grunt if it is.

America!!!

[It aint necessarily so]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

Without an argument to support your position, why should anybody care what you think?

trifecta1 wrote:

You're the argument.

Concession accepted, Grandmaster Pigeon.

"Debating creationists ... is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D.