Why Should Jesus Love Me?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#560616 Jul 21, 2013
Epiphany2 wrote:
Okay.....Group Hug?????
I left you a heart and green check-mark, but they were lost in a sea of thirty contradictory icons, so I had to tell you about them.

“I.Spirit.Son.God”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#560617 Jul 21, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I leave for a short time and come back to find you still stupid beyond my imagining.
"Far from living in a moral vacuum, secular humanists “wish to encourage wherever possible the growth of moral awareness.”(The quote comes from “A Secular Humanist Declaration,” the Council for Secular Humanism’s founding document, authored by Paul Kurtz.)
Secular humanists believe human values should express a commitment to improve human welfare in this world.(Of course, human welfare is understood in the context of our interdependence upon the environment and other living things.) Ethical principles should be evaluated by their consequences for people, not by how well they conform to preconceived ideas of right and wrong.
Secular humanism denies that meaning, values, and ethics are imposed from above. In that it echoes simple atheism. But secular humanism goes further, challenging humans to develop their own values. Secular humanism maintains that through a process of value inquiry, reflective men and women can reach rough agreement concerning values, and craft ethical systems that deliver desirable results under most circumstances.
Indeed, say secular humanists, the basic components of effective morality are universally recognized. Paul Kurtz has written of the “common moral decencies”—qualities including integrity, trustworthiness, benevolence, and fairness. These qualities are celebrated by almost every human religion, not because God ordained them, but because human beings cannot thrive in communities where these values are ignored.
Secular humanism offers a nonreligious template that may one day guide much of humanity in pursuing fulfilling and humane lives—lives that are rich intellectually, ethically, and emotionally, without reliance on religious faith."
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php...
the philosophical doctrines of your religion is irrelevant if the foundation of your religion are a roaring joke. The foundation of the Secular Humanism is so called science HA! there is no science there, its fairy tale dressed as science. and your religion deserves what it gets on this billboard, mockery and ridicule.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#560618 Jul 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Tide says that everything is natural....

I tend to agree.

You may not like homophobia, but it naturally get in people's heads.
So then why does the word "unnatural" exist if everything is natural?

That is your opinion, but by looking at what the word "natural" means, we can easily tell what is and isn't.
For example, things that aren't natural include homophobia, electronic technology, religion, glasses, et cetera.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#560619 Jul 21, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>the philosophical doctrines of your religion is irrelevant if the foundation of your religion are a roaring joke. The foundation of the Secular Humanism is so called science HA! there is no science there, its fairy tale dressed as science. and your religion deserves what it gets on this billboard, mockery and ridicule.
The fact that you keep calling humanism a religion simply adds to the fact that you are incredibly stupid.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#560620 Jul 21, 2013
I have an anagram for HL that I think River will like....

Pleas by hop

:)

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#560621 Jul 21, 2013
Here's an anagram for me that River might not like so much :(

Decreed rivers kin

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#560622 Jul 21, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
So then why does the word "unnatural" exist if everything is natural?
That is your opinion, but by looking at what the word "natural" means, we can easily tell what is and isn't.
For example, things that aren't natural include homophobia, electronic technology, religion, glasses, et cetera.
I understand your point. And somewhat agree.

But tell me, why do I find two men kissing or two women kissing to be gross?

(Note that I said "gross", not "wrong")

“I.Spirit.Son.God”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#560623 Jul 21, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you keep calling humanism a religion simply adds to the fact that you are incredibly stupid.
Secular Humanisn is a Religion. and there is nothing you can do about it homo.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#560624 Jul 21, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>If I was alive back then I probably would have thrown myself over JESUS every step of the way and done what ever I could, or what ever was in me, to prevent what happened.
If my son was in that predicament, I would do the same. If it was my daughter I would do the same, but I do not know if I would do it for someone else's child; unless my whole lifestyle as I know it changes.
Better?
Yet, Jesus would want you to do just that for Lacez..
To do what ever you could to help him..
Instead you berate him and offer DNA experiments to him to insult his very being.

I would do it for anyone's child.. That is the difference in you and me Serah.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#560625 Jul 21, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
If one believe that God tolerates anything one dies then why would one need to apologize, make amends or even acknowledge one's misdeeds ? Just downed on me how easily Christianity fuels sociopathy.
This was the point I made a few months ago that sent Skombolis and much of the rest of the thread apoplectic. I was accused of calling all Christians immoral. I said that Christianity made cheap self-forgiveness easy - the comment about talking to the air or muttering at the ceiling fan, and no further apologizing was necessary.

That was my point - how easily Christianity fuels sociopathy and lesser forms of antisocial behavior. It was a sincere observation made in good faith that got the hive buzzing. This was the basis of Skombolis' original claim that I was an anti-Christian bigot.

I tried in vain to make the distinction between criticizing a doctrine that allowed low people to be low, and calling all Christians low, but Skombolis would have none of it.[The rest of his argument supporting his claim of bigotry is based on me calling him and him alone a filthy Christian liar.]

But yes, you are right. Rather that pushing all Christians upward morally, Christianity facilitates the lowest form of ethics one cares to embrace. One of the great appeals of Christianity is that it forgives you for what you do to others even if they don't. You don't even need to find out, much less apologize.

Some will say that Christianity teaches the opposite, but that's not true. It simply gives lip service to good behavior. Certainly morals aren't taught by telling everybody to be good once a week on Sunday morning, and then singing a hymn. Nor does one learn how to be a good person reading a book full of proverbs and platitudes like the one Lil Whispers floods the thread with when she gets into a scripture jag.

How does the church teach morals? By example. You can see those examples in the news. George Bush was a great teacher of Christian morals. So is Pat Robertson. Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Jerry Falwell (deceased), Michelle Bachmann, ad other prominent Christian leaders and role models.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#560626 Jul 21, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong.
<quoted text>
You are wrong there, too.
You really don't know? I'm not giving up the poster in question, but I'm pretty sure Epi knows. In fact, I think something she posted helped me figure it out.
Why isn't trying to figure out who is anonymously leaving icons not considered "stalking" ?

Mist be an exemption clause in the Christian daffynition, there usually is.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#560627 Jul 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Very well.... It is not acceptable to tap a six-month old baby for disciplinary reasons. I'll explain what I did to my boys and ask their forgiveness and understanding.
Well done.

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#560628 Jul 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand your point. And somewhat agree.
But tell me, why do I find two men kissing or two women kissing to be gross?
(Note that I said "gross", not "wrong")
What a sily question.
Why should you ask him what " you" find gross??
lol..

That's your problem.. Not the homosexual communities.
Search your own heart..

Right?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#560629 Jul 21, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
.
Congratulations on the car show.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#560630 Jul 21, 2013
Stories grow with every telling.

Put the Gospels in Chronological order: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
Watch the changes and additions.
Most notable is that Mark tells nothing of Jesus before being baptized and nothing after Mary finds the empty tomb.

Second clue is in the opening of Luke:
"Hey Theo! We are hearing the same kind of stories here too. Here are some of the one's I've heard."

Third, you have John which begins by rewriting Genesis (a death sentence in Judaism) and has no idea about Judaism at all.

Lastly, you have Paul (who values his preaching above a messenger from God) who knows nothing of these stories, knows nothing of Jesus or Judaism (but can quite from the Septuagint) and the only thing he relates about Jesus was he believes Jesus was raised from the dead, nothing more.
Chess Jurist wrote:
The Parable of Lazarus and Dives in Longer Mark
This parable appears only in the gospel attributed to Luke.
While often called the parable of Lazarus and Dives, the rich man, Dives, is never named, though Lazarus is, which is unusual in itself, since it is the only parable in the NT to name anyone.
In Luke’s parable, a beggar named Lazarus is rewarded in the afterlife while a rich man he knew in this life finds himself in hell.
The rich man asks Abraham whether Lazarus can return to Earth to warn his brothers of what awaits them.
Abraham’s response is that, if the rich man’s brothers did not follow the law, they would not change their ways “even if someone rises from the dead.”
Luke does not give us an account of the actual raising of Lazarus, only John does that, but the parallels in the two stories are striking, if a little confusing.
For example, one evangelical writer wonders, given the possible confusion of the parable’s Lazarus with the "real" Lazarus, why Jesus used that name in this parable, especially since this is the only parable in the canonical gospels in which Jesus names anyone. The writer’s conclusion is that the parable must have an element of truth in it.
Well, it doesn't.
But backtrack to Longer Mark, also known as the Secret Gospel of Mark. If Morton Smith indeed found evidence for a longer version of Mark, and I believe he did, Longer Mark had an early version of the well-known Lazarus story in it that now is only contained in John:
<quoted text>
The above quote comes from a letter from Clement of Alexandria known as the Mar Saba Clementine Fragment. But more about Clement later.
I have always viewed Luke as a polemic against Longer Mark.
It seems to me likely Luke's author was attempting to work the rich young man’s subplot from Secret Mark (canonical Mark 10, 14, and 16) into a parable imparting much the same teachings as Secret Mark but, perhaps, without some of the sexual connotations the original story contained.
Luke’s author separated Lazarus from his miracle and converted the miracle into the raising of the widow’s son in Nain in the pericope at 7:11-18.
But note the change in an important message that removing or modifying the pieces of Secret Mark from the New Testament gospels sends. The Lazarus parable and the Rich Youth’s story together, without Secret Mark, seem to make wealth a virtual guarantee of damnation and seem to require that the wealthy shed their possessions to enter the kingdom of God.
Yet the full story of the rich young man we get from Secret Mark is not so harsh and seems only to require a change in one’s focus; one simply needs to love God over material things rather than to the exclusion of them.
Enter Clement of Alexandria and "Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?" Clement, in whose letter Morton Smith ostensibly found evidence for Longer Mark, wrote an essay containing much the same wisdom as Longer Mark.
Odd that, huh?

“Romans 8:1.”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#560631 Jul 21, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I leave for a short time and come back to find you still stupid beyond my imagining.
"Far from living in a moral vacuum, secular humanists “wish to encourage wherever possible the growth of moral awareness.”(The quote comes from “A Secular Humanist Declaration,” the Council for Secular Humanism’s founding document, authored by Paul Kurtz.)
Secular humanists believe human values should express a commitment to improve human welfare in this world.(Of course, human welfare is understood in the context of our interdependence upon the environment and other living things.) Ethical principles should be evaluated by their consequences for people, not by how well they conform to preconceived ideas of right and wrong.
Secular humanism denies that meaning, values, and ethics are imposed from above. In that it echoes simple atheism. But secular humanism goes further, challenging humans to develop their own values. Secular humanism maintains that through a process of value inquiry, reflective men and women can reach rough agreement concerning values, and craft ethical systems that deliver desirable results under most circumstances.
Indeed, say secular humanists, the basic components of effective morality are universally recognized. Paul Kurtz has written of the “common moral decencies”—qualities including integrity, trustworthiness, benevolence, and fairness. These qualities are celebrated by almost every human religion, not because God ordained them, but because human beings cannot thrive in communities where these values are ignored.
Secular humanism offers a nonreligious template that may one day guide much of humanity in pursuing fulfilling and humane lives—lives that are rich intellectually, ethically, and emotionally, without reliance on religious faith."
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php...
Religion:

Personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by.

A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.
_______

Hmm, fits secular humanism to a "T".

Judged:

11

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“~ Prince of Peace~”

Since: Apr 08

~ And the greatest is LOVE~

#560632 Jul 21, 2013
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
I read that you love the red lips (I on the other hand...). So your red lips are from me.
:-)
Good morning!
What red lips?....LOL....The Macro Man (or woman) was here...:-)

Judged:

11

11

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#560633 Jul 21, 2013
Rider on the Storm wrote:
What ians has done on facebook falls under the definition of stalking whether you want to admit it or not.
If you are right, you can and should have me prosecuted, or at least banned from Facebook, and possibly Topix too for telling it here. Give it a go. If you succeed, you will have support for your claim.

If you try and fail, you will discover that you are wrong,and you can apologize to me.

And if you don't bother to try, or just ignore the issue, then we will all know a little better what your ethics are.

I think we already know which of these is the case.

Since: May 11

UK

#560634 Jul 21, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text> Secular Humanisn is a Religion. and there is nothing you can do about it homo.
Secular Humanism may be classed as religion for charitable purposes, but beyond that it is neither a religion legally or philosophically.

It venerates nothing, worships nothing, has no rituals and eschews any supernatural/magic/woo-woo/juj u/voodoo to frame its morality.

Don't you christians EVER tire of being wrong?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#560635 Jul 21, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
Oh, I thought maybe it was because you'd seen my pic when I had it up. ;)
I did. You look like a Canada goose that OD'ed on Red Bull.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 1 min Colombo 26,431
Truth About The Term: "White Nationalists" 57 min Johnny 12
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 57 min Test 985,711
Why it's time for Donald Trump to RESIGN...in d... 1 hr Johnny 31
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 1 hr Jake999 6,449
David Duke: "We're going to take our country ba... 1 hr Johnny 70
i think that my husband is a pervert (Jan '09) 2 hr juliakk 159
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 hr Anthony MN 685,770
More from around the web