“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#423213 Nov 28, 2012
Anti-Christ wrote:
More tidbits:
God Lied: The Serpent Told the Truth
Genesis 2:16-17(KJV):
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying,“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
I had to use the New King James Version of the bible for this passage because to scholars, this passage is so blatantly wrong that in subsequent versions it was changed to cover the fact that God lied. For instance, in the NIV the passage reads:
“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” Genesis 2:16-17(NIV)
Notice the the phrase “for in the day that you eat “was changed to “for when you eat from it “. The word “day” has been omitted because, contrary to what God said, Adam did NOT die the DAY he ate the fruit, just as the serpent said in Genesis 3:1-5:
“Has God indeed said,‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent,“We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said,‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’” Then the serpent said to the woman,“You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
First notice the woman did not relay Gods exact words. She omitted then added. She omitted by saying “God has said,‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’” when God actually said “…for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Then she added by saying “nor shall you touch it, lest you die” which God did not say. At any rate, God’s warning that “…for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” did not come to pass. Adam lived for 930 years (Genesis 5:5). So in this sense God lied because Adam did not die the day he ate of the fruit, and the serpent told the truth because not only did Adam live well beyond the day he ate, he also acquired the knowledge of good and evil just as the serpent said he would. In fact God himself later gave this same knowledge of good and evil to man in the form of the Torah.
and this passage also confirms what you say:

"The Savior laughed and said, "The snake taught them to eat from a wicked desire to sow which belongs to destruction, in order that he (Adam) would become useful to it. And it knew that he was dis­obedient to it because the light of Epinoia dwelled in him, making him more correct in his thinking than the Chief Ruler. "

“I never claimed to be Perfect”

Since: Nov 10

just better than yesterday

#423214 Nov 28, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>How can someone hide from an all-knowing deity? That's crazy stuff right there.
It seems like it was more of a test to see if they (Adam and Eve) would step forward and come clean voluntarily. As we all know that we can't hide from God according to the Bible.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#423215 Nov 28, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
you're funny! i've told you many times that it's my prerogative how i use my time when working on projects. working on-line is not like working at a vets clinic - end of story! also, my wife knows that i talk on these threads and she's very familiar with my sense of humor - end of story!
now, do the right thing by not lying and slandering me over this anymore or you're being a deceitful brat!
she thinks it funny
that you make passes at other women, but get tuned down consistently.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#423216 Nov 28, 2012
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."
Just ponder of this statement for a moment, and then apply it to the issue of contraceptives for "Christian" companies.
It is a problem with Obamacare.
Just thinking out loud. Mainly off-topic, but it is an interesting take on "the separation of church and state".
Cheers!
http://politix.topix.com/homepage/3549-obamac...
Hey New-age, long time no see

I don't think that is a law respecting one religion. It is simply saying if you are a religious organization (and this would apply to any) if your business is run solely by those int faith then it is not subject to some secular rules. Respecting it IMO would allow then not to follow legislature passed simply because they don't want to because of religious beliefs even though employees may not feel the same. If it is a private organization with just religious affiliates then I think they have the right not to be forced to do something against their beliefs. But so long as it affects other people they don't share their beliefs they have to abide by it and I think that is fair

(T) Peace

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#423217 Nov 28, 2012
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Skom - good to see ya posting.
If they are watching you, it means they "like you" - don't you know anything.
Think of your Jr. High days - guys picked on girls because they liked them; girls picked on guys, because they liked them.
So called "Christians" "watch" [future "picking ons" in the works], because they like you.
It's that simple!
:o)
Heh

One never knows!

Although I think perhaps some people simply have an over-exaggerated sense of self-importance and take Topix a wee bit too seriously. Perhaps they are projecting their own insecurities as well as I think it is hilarious not only someone would tell me people are watching and therefore judging me based on my posts but that they would think anyone would care. I can only assume it would matter to them if they think it matters to others.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#423218 Nov 28, 2012
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Well, there you go. That's what was missing from the initial "outburst", shall we say. I had no idea what your angle was so I held off waiting for further posts to illustrate what you were after. Others here responded more quickly, assuming you were resurrecting the "Christian nation for Christians" story. I think it was a fair assumption.
I hope you have a great day today.
Peace.
HipG
Well I would say if someone wasn't sure what my initial intent was they had other posts for context. After that I posted to W_N letting her know people were concerned about her son and did she have any updates to pass along. I then posted to G saying I understood he didn't post what he did out of ego but because his integrity was called into question and even his competency. I then copied a reply from Lawest to W_N. Again,those came AFTER the quotes. W_N even responded to the one about her son so I sincerely doubt she didn't she the quotes until the next day which she had to pass to get to my post about her son. She saw another poster jump on me and wanted to ride the bandwagon. There are a lot of posters like that on Topix. As there are a lot of followers in life in general.

And considering even in the quote with the posts I said I was simply providing it for background as I have since what it is they believed debated a lot and thought the quotes shed light on that. So I guess I will just agree to disagree. W-N has a history with me and quite frankly with most looking to nit-pick and fight in situations most wouldn't have even thought to try to make an issue

As for the quotes I never said it summed up their entire lives. But it spoke specifically to what they based their personal morals on and that they felt society suffered when moving away from God. 2 of the quotes had the entire text. The other i shortened from a much longer paragraph just because it was pretty much reiterating the same things. I think it is very biased to selectively decide quotes basically cherry-picked and meaningless when they say something someone doesn't like unless you never rely on quotes for this reason then I would say fair enough. Quotes generally give a good idea of how someone feels about a specific subject. I don't think we need their life's work to get a pretty good idea of how they feel based on a specific quote

As to whether or not their idea of God was the same as mine is not relevant to me. I don't need anybody else's beliefs to mirror mine. But I respect the fact that these men of power recognized their is a higher power to the universe that men should answer to and that moving away from God can negatively impact us as a society. I agree with that. Organized religion may be a different argument but not God.

I still don't see why you feel those quotes are misleading. Can you please provide me other information for context so I can see why you think that? Thanks

Hope your day has been a good one

(T) Peace
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#423219 Nov 28, 2012
There is no such thing as 'USED to be' a christian. If you're not a christian today...you were NEVER a REAL christan to begin with.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#423220 Nov 28, 2012
Doctor REALITY wrote:
There is no such thing as 'USED to be' a christian. If you're not a christian today...you were NEVER a REAL christan to begin with.
You're lying.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#423221 Nov 28, 2012
Edit New Age

Sorry, mneant to say if your business is run solely by those of faith AND all their employess are of the same faith as well. Obviously just cause the owner does or doesn't believe something he shouldn't be able to force his beliefs on others or withhold benefits from those who don't share his beliefs.

But at the same if an entire group feels a certain way for religious reasons then I don't think the government should be able to force them to do something they feel is against their beliefs. Within reason of course. Obviously someone can't say, well my religion tells me it is wrong to pay my employees their salary is something like that which is in violation of law and contract.

But if I owed a business put together for religious reasons and with people who shared my beliefs or said they did then no way would I pay for women to get ru40 or any other 'morning after' pill as I am against abortion and I think it is only fair I wouldn't have to if. But I understand why I would be opening myself up to the liability if I didn't hire based on belief but then tried not to pay for something claiming belief

(T0 Peace

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#423222 Nov 28, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
Edit New Age
Sorry, mneant to say if your business is run solely by those of faith AND all their employess are of the same faith as well. Obviously just cause the owner does or doesn't believe something he shouldn't be able to force his beliefs on others or withhold benefits from those who don't share his beliefs.
But at the same if an entire group feels a certain way for religious reasons then I don't think the government should be able to force them to do something they feel is against their beliefs. Within reason of course. Obviously someone can't say, well my religion tells me it is wrong to pay my employees their salary is something like that which is in violation of law and contract.
But if I owed a business put together for religious reasons and with people who shared my beliefs or said they did then no way would I pay for women to get ru40 or any other 'morning after' pill as I am against abortion and I think it is only fair I wouldn't have to if. But I understand why I would be opening myself up to the liability if I didn't hire based on belief but then tried not to pay for something claiming belief
(T0 Peace
Skombolis, the employer is not paying for these things. The Insurance companies are. But I agree that no one should be forced to take this action if it is against what they believe in.

I think if insurance companies and Medicare cover Viagra and other like drugs, they should cover birth control for women though. It's not either/or. It should be that they either cover both, or neither.

“Are you a Problem or Solution?”

Since: Mar 09

Ann Arbor, MI

#423223 Nov 28, 2012
Grace Walker wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello NS..Havent talked to you in a long time. How are you and how was your thanksgiving? God Bless You and your family
Hello Grace, it’s good to read you. I decided to take a week long holiday from Topix, and came back the other day to over 2k posts to read on this thread alone. So I am jumping forward and back trying to get up to speed again. Doing good here, and had a wonderful thanksgiving. I ended up with a new stove out of the deal (long story). Now it’s time for the dash to get everything ready for Christmas LOL! I hope that all is well in your slice of the world, and that your Thanksgiving was everything you wished and more. May God Bless You and yours.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#423224 Nov 28, 2012
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry about the deletion but there is never room for both of us in the same post!
many people that would hunt down homosexuals, Muslims...people of color and yes...even some that would hunt down Christians.
I posted this the other day in response to that poster on WSJLM...
First they came...
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
It saddens me somewhat to know that I have posted with people for the last few years...many have called me friend...and I am not sure which of them would "speak out".
I am passionate about this subject for more than just one reason...it is why I did not respond to your post to me on WSJLM the other day and why I said that I didn't know if I would get involved in this conversation.
Okay...almost out of those little characters...sometimes that is the only way to get me to stop!
Have a great day Steve.
LOL, yeah you and I need to ask Topix for a 'character extension' as 4000 is never enough to get both an initial post and reply with us!

I did think it would have been enough that I said I was posting it simply to provide some insight into something I have seen debated, mainly on speculation, a lot. But I didn't see your earlier exchange (the one I was talking about was on "Prove there is a God) and in fairness people do mainly post quotes that mirror their their own feelings so I didn't mind you asking for clarification.

My days or trying to brow-beat someone into acting better are over. Even rebuking someone who not only will never listen but is happy to be rebuked as their goal is to annoy people is something I almost never do any more either. instead I simply combat ignorance with the truth.

That same person you were talking about tried attacking Lee for not agreeing homosexuality was a much worse sins then others. It was east enough to show the only three times the Bible spoke to or directly implied any sin was worse than another is when God spoke to Moses, when Jesus spoke of who turned him in and to blasphemy the Holy Spirit. Which now in hindsight gives me something else to think about when it comes to the debate in WSJLM earlier about is The Holy Spirit just the spirit of God and not a third entity. Because all 3 times the greater sin was a direct sin upon God. I then showed him the Galatians verse showing all sins of the flesh are equal and asked for a rebuttal and got none.

But my point is why get all worked up trying to chastise an idiot who is never going to change and loves getting people mad so it gives them just what they want? I correct those normally that I expect better from as I hope they do the same for me. And if people are predisposed to think in a prejudiced manner because of individual bad experiences that is their problem not mine. Yes there are some vile people on Topix that claim to be believers/ But there are some vile people on Topix that claim to be agnostic or atheist that are just as vile. I would think the type of person someone is can be shown on how they react whether they still treat people as individuals or give into bigotry because of it. I have been on Topix quote a while now. I have never once generalized atheists or agnostics or those of another faith.

And one more think on the speaking out. When people have rebuked repeatedly and it has done no good, when everybody already knows what someone is about...is it really really speaking out against injustice or more like wanting a pound of flesh? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the latter but IMO that is all it is about at this point. IMHO

(T) Peace

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#423225 Nov 28, 2012
NoStress4me wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello Grace, it’s good to read you. I decided to take a week long holiday from Topix, and came back the other day to over 2k posts to read on this thread alone. So I am jumping forward and back trying to get up to speed again. Doing good here, and had a wonderful thanksgiving. I ended up with a new stove out of the deal (long story). Now it’s time for the dash to get everything ready for Christmas LOL! I hope that all is well in your slice of the world, and that your Thanksgiving was everything you wished and more. May God Bless You and yours.
I think we are going to go out for Christmas dinner this year. It's just so much easier on everyone and we get to spend more time talking and less time cooking and washing dishes/cleaning kitchen. We'll make desserts and homemade breads to make sandwiches while sitting up late watching movies.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#423226 Nov 28, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
Edit New Age
Sorry, mneant to say if your business is run solely by those of faith AND all their employess are of the same faith as well. Obviously just cause the owner does or doesn't believe something he shouldn't be able to force his beliefs on others or withhold benefits from those who don't share his beliefs.
But at the same if an entire group feels a certain way for religious reasons then I don't think the government should be able to force them to do something they feel is against their beliefs. Within reason of course. Obviously someone can't say, well my religion tells me it is wrong to pay my employees their salary is something like that which is in violation of law and contract.
But if I owed a business put together for religious reasons and with people who shared my beliefs or said they did then no way would I pay for women to get ru40 or any other 'morning after' pill as I am against abortion and I think it is only fair I wouldn't have to if. But I understand why I would be opening myself up to the liability if I didn't hire based on belief but then tried not to pay for something claiming belief
(T0 Peace
I think what you are saying is that the government needs a "compelling interest" to proscribe behavior based on well-established religious principles. And I believe that was the test historically applied -- until the 1990 US Supreme Court case that allowed states to ban the use of peyote by Native Americans in religious rituals.

It's been awhile since I paid much attention to this, so someone may have better info than I do.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#423227 Nov 28, 2012
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
....
It's been awhile since I paid much attention to this, so someone may have better info than I do.
Or a better memory.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#423228 Nov 28, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> Skombolis, the employer is not paying for these things. The Insurance companies are. But I agree that no one should be forced to take this action if it is against what they believe in.
I think if insurance companies and Medicare cover Viagra and other like drugs, they should cover birth control for women though. It's not either/or. It should be that they either cover both, or neither.
Employers pay the health-care premiums, in total or in part, for their employees. So they are paying for it too. And if they don't comply they are fined

"Church-affiliated universities, hospitals and charities would not have to provide or pay for such coverage. Instead, the White House said, coverage for birth control could be offered to women directly by their employers’ insurance companies,“with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#423230 Nov 28, 2012
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
I think what you are saying is that the government needs a "compelling interest" to proscribe behavior based on well-established religious principles. And I believe that was the test historically applied -- until the 1990 US Supreme Court case that allowed states to ban the use of peyote by Native Americans in religious rituals.
It's been awhile since I paid much attention to this, so someone may have better info than I do.
Exactly

I didn't know that was the case but definitely the principle i was referring to

(T) Peace

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#423231 Nov 28, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>As for the quotes I never said it summed up their entire lives. But it spoke specifically to what they based their personal morals on and that they felt society suffered when moving away from God. 2 of the quotes had the entire text. The other i shortened from a much longer paragraph just because it was pretty much reiterating the same things. I think it is very biased to selectively decide quotes basically cherry-picked and meaningless when they say something someone doesn't like unless you never rely on quotes for this reason then I would say fair enough. Quotes generally give a good idea of how someone feels about a specific subject. I don't think we need their life's work to get a pretty good idea of how they feel based on a specific quote

As to whether or not their idea of God was the same as mine is not relevant to me. I don't need anybody else's beliefs to mirror mine. But I respect the fact that these men of power recognized their is a higher power to the universe that men should answer to and that moving away from God can negatively impact us as a society. I agree with that. Organized religion may be a different argument but not God.

I still don't see why you feel those quotes are misleading. Can you please provide me other information for context so I can see why you think that? Thanks
Hope your day has been a good one
(T) Peace
I don't think they are misleading at all in and of themselves. I feel they are misleading in the context of what you gleaned from them based on what you expressed. You said that they showed that these people were "very religious". I could easily present opposing "quotes" that showed that many of them were suspicious, even contemptuous, of an over-reliance on religion, but as I said, I think it is fruitless to play dueling quotations. My best reply is the same as I said before - if one desires to make a per-determined point, than by all means, cherry-pick with abandon. It is the easiest thing in the world, not to say intellectually lazy.

I am certain that you could quote-mine my offerings over time on topix and depict me as a KJV-breathing evangelist. Likewise with yours - I could make you out to be whatever I desire to "prove" with careful selection. That's why I say what I've said from the start - if one >reallY< wants to know, one would look into their overall body of work. Spiritual expression in people who have given the matter any depth of study and thought at all is always a nuanced, often conflicted, and deeply personal undertaking. For instance (as I said) if you were to read Franklin's autobiography, you would be hard-pressed to call him "very religious". Likewise, to varying degrees, with Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Madison, and others. Thomas Paine was indispensable to our nation's independence, but his religious views were considered so radical that posterity has labeled him an atheist, with the slur under-scored with select "quotes", but Paine was nothing of the kind. Patrick Henry, otoh, was what you might call "very religious", yet you'll note he wasn't involved in the Constitution, and he was deeply critical of the result. Sam Adams is another - very instrumental in the nation's birth, but nowhere to be found in it's establishment.

“Are you a Problem or Solution?”

Since: Mar 09

Ann Arbor, MI

#423232 Nov 28, 2012
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you serious??? Who is we???
I have no desire to take away anyone's right to believe as they choose. The very same right that allows them to believe as they choose also affords me the same right to my beliefs.
We talk about how "ugly" some Christians are and fail to look at ourselves. Your post is just as hate filled as the one that you responded to. We complain when they don't call out their fellow believers for the things that they say and then we turn a blind eye to the other side of the fence simply because that is where we are standing.
I will stand for their right to believe as they choose even though I do not agree with some of their beliefs. It would be nice if some of them were a little kinder but that goes for both sides.
I used to think that I didn't care how someone else believed...that it didn't affect me. However in recent years I have come to believe that it does. Hatred...violence...negativity ...lack of compassion no matter what side of the fence it comes from affects us all.
I don't know who "we" is...but please...don't include me in that group.
On a side note...I am well aware that the poster (most Christians) that you responded to would not stand up for my right to believe as I choose. Obviously you wouldn't either unless I believed the same as you.
When I read your post...I couldn't help but think...if you took the words Christian and Dawkins and changed them to non-believers/agnostic/atheist and God...it would sound like the posts that many of the "Christians" that have been posting here recently.
Hatred is hatred no matter where is originates.
Beautifully stated in my opinion AnnieJ. I know that I do not tend to comment on what you say, but I always find it to be a pleasure to read what you write here. I hope that all is well in your slice of the world.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#423233 Nov 28, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly
I didn't know that was the case but definitely the principle i was referring to
(T) Peace
Thank you.

But it doesn't answer the question; it merely frames it.

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
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 4 min Rosa_Winkel 99,263
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min Ooogah Boogah 830,314
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min Robert F 585,773
I wish God would get rid of all homosexuals in ... 12 min andet1987 3
the homosexuals who are EMBARRASSMENTS to the ... 17 min andet1987 5
Why God made males UGLY but females PRETTY ? 23 min hpcaban 8
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 29 min Humm 3,936
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr Student 40,218
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 hr dr Shrink 611,943
More from around the web