• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

talk about a hypocrite

is dis a christian

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .

memanpa

Well-known member
how many of these does my friend DIS thumb her nose at?

i see at least 3

1:: the liberal party and the L.I.F.D.
kneel and worship DIS
2: she worships the LIBERAL PARTY and the L.I.F.D
4: this is the first sundy she hasn't posted in some time, YES i konw but i have never made a statement about going to church!

9: has bore false witness agains me and several other members of the board. ME i called our fighting men cowards!! that i am a liar!!!
when asked for prood she goes into the shadows and hides
only posts what information she thinks is relivant!

1. "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the Earth beneath, or that is in the water under the Earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep My Commandments.

3. Thou shalt not take the Name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His Name in vain.

4. Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the LORD made heaven and Earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath Day, and hallowed it.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour's.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
MM&P...... Not fair!!!

And besides....who cares and why would it matter if Disagreeable is Christian, Muslim , Hindu or Jewish??


I think yer " ox"is safe!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

memanpa

Well-known member
you are right it makes no difference
but she made several statements thast she is a a christian yet she does not follow the standard set forth by a christian faith
if she proves her statements that i lied! that i called any of our fighting men cowards then i will back off not until,
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I can't participate in this poll- probably no one living that can make that judgement-- but I definitely know I'm not righteous enough to make the call...

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Going after dissenters of the pack mentality may be a little fun, but some of you people have just gone overboard.

Those who have shut out any possiblity of a different viewpoint (there are times I don't agree with Dis's take on things and see the viewpoints as a bit of a reach--but so is the opposition's) will relegate your thinking into one that denies possible truths and puts narrow human thinking as the "only truth".

Take for example the belief in God. Some on this board think that their view of God is the only "correct" one. Evolution is totally dismissed, but largely due to lumping in a lot of stuff an making it a loaded concept. The view of belief in God is wrapped into a narrow definition in the minds of a few.

These type of thoughts remind me of the middle ages when the church dogma ruled logic and people controlled and abused religion for their own ends.

God will never be proven or disproven. You either believe or do not. I will note that many, many of the major scientists had a belief in God and the more they knew, the stronger their faith (notice I said faith). Einstein believed in God and was arguably one of the smartest scientists of modern time. He was also a Jew and had a lot of reason not to believe, given the time period he lived in (Nazi Germany).

http://www.adherents.com/people/pe/Albert_Einstein.html

Some of the foremost biological evolutionists shares the view of the existence of God.

It is interesting that Einstien gave us the scientific view of relativity. Einstien believed that the answer to some questions was relative to one's viewpoint. Indeed, string theory has embraced this view with the theory of parallel universes but that the different theories all described the universe from its own perspective. Time is one of our dimensions, and constraints, but it is not God's.

I only bring up these points because we, in our narrow knowledge and capacity, tend to only focus on our own limited view of religion and the world around us. The more limited in knowledge, the more we believe our knowledge is the only one. We tend to look at those that are "smarter" than us to give us the answers.

Bottom line, if you believe in God, it is a matter of faith. If you really believed in God, and the infinite nature, you would realize that everything a strict Darwinist evolutionist may suggest could be true. But so could the fact that every second prior to the one you exist in at the moment of this thought was made up by an infinitely powerful God and didn't actually happen in the time constriants we seem to live under.

Is dis a christian? If dis isn't a christian, everyone of you people hounding dis instead of changing dis's view from dis's perspective, is guilty of not being Christian, as taught in the Bible. In fact, you are the very thing that "Christian" should not be, and are therefore the hypocrits.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Hold on a minute

People claiming their opposition has a pack mentality is doing what they are claiming, trying to silence opposition. Pack mentality theory is just like the VRWC theory.........stupid. However if you subscribe to this, you had better put the tag on the left on this board also.......look it up.

Trying to claim that people are trying to silence dis is absurd. Oh sure there are some that don't want to see dis anymore. It is not about her right to say things, it is her of ignoring any debate as she does by not answering questions. Look it up. There has been a long list of unanswered on dis's part. Look it up. She has ignored links that were presented to her. Look it up. She has called names( and yes dis was the leader in this category (passin gas, ms ding dong, coward and the list goes on) Look it up.

So dis can come on here all she wants, but it will always be the same

she will call names
ask for links of stories with common knowledge already
ignore links
ignore questions when asked
rely on her pals to defend her
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Going after dissenters of the pack mentality may be a little fun, but some of you people have just gone overboard.

Those who have shut out any possiblity of a different viewpoint

Take for example the belief in God. Some on this board think that their view of God is the only "correct" one. Evolution is totally dismissed, but largely due to lumping in a lot of stuff an making it a loaded concept. The view of belief in God is wrapped into a narrow definition in the minds of a few.

These type of thoughts remind me of the middle ages when the church dogma ruled logic and people controlled and abused religion for their own ends.
.
Econ, I didn't vote in the poll. I havn't said my view of God is the only correct one. I however fail to see how evolution (which I am the only one largly against) has anything to do with memanpa's poll. If you want to condemn me or my position on evolution or my beliefs in God or any other belief, be man enough to do it to my face. Use my name and point out my flawed beliefs. It's cowardice to say I am a middle ages thinker and say my views are wrong without showing me where. If you believe in the stupid idea of evolution, that's your right . You certainly can't defend it's merits or it's authenticity. As a matter of fact you can't even come up with a plausable origin of life or origin of the universe. More importantly why would you come on this topic to criticise me ??? Try to be more of a man in your debates from now on and start a new thread . You can title it Red Robin is a middle ages thinker and go on to explain your beliefs.
edit:
BTW econ, If you want to put forth any of your theories of how God and evolution mesh or how my anti evolution position is stupid in another thread, I will be more than happy to debate .
 

Econ101

Well-known member
passin thru said:
Hold on a minute

People claiming their opposition has a pack mentality is doing what they are claiming, trying to silence opposition. Pack mentality theory is just like the VRWC theory.........stupid. However if you subscribe to this, you had better put the tag on the left on this board also.......look it up.

Trying to claim that people are trying to silence dis is absurd. Oh sure there are some that don't want to see dis anymore. It is not about her right to say things, it is her of ignoring any debate as she does by not answering questions. Look it up. There has been a long list of unanswered on dis's part. Look it up. She has ignored links that were presented to her. Look it up. She has called names( and yes dis was the leader in this category (passin gas, ms ding dong, coward and the list goes on) Look it up.

So dis can come on here all she wants, but it will always be the same

she will call names
ask for links of stories with common knowledge already
ignore links
ignore questions when asked
rely on her pals to defend her

I'm not dis's pal. I think there is some merit to the allegation that dis provides posts that are open to interpretation and some reasonable people could come to a different conclusion. They are mere arguments that support an already made up mind. I often think about things in this context as supporting arguments, not as definitive. They could lead credence to either side depending on the interpretation. It is okay to disagree with the interpretation of these type of arguments--as long as you don't take them too far and do the same exact thing that the opponent has done. Some on this board have.

When you get to the emotional level of an argument (buddhist have an term for this) you leave out the possibility of seeing a truth that can be of use. When people are drawn to this level, the truth often gets used instead of found. This concept in buddhism (I am no buddhist, but that doesn't mean we can't be enlightened) embodies this in the concept of Shambhala as described by the buddhist nun on Bill Moyer's Faith and Reason. When we are so wrapped up in this part of the debate, we lose the ability for further self enlightenment of the "truth" and then must substitute our own limited view of it, never to expand it. It is this part of the use of religion that gets humans in trouble of never realizing the "truth".

I will give you a quick example. There was a journalist who described a little of what was going on in Iraq with the current political power vaccum being filled by religious Shia fervor on NPR this morning when I took the kids to school. One of the big things in fundamentalist Islam is that the temptations of men should be reduced. Draconian measures of justice prevail, like I mentioned before, where a man's hand is cut off if he steals. He told of some shephards who were killed in the country because they failed to cover their goat's rears with diapers. The religious reasoning was that the rears of (I am not making this stuff up, maybe the author on the subject this morning was, but I am not) the female goats had the possibility of tempting men in a society where sexuality was repressed. The goats, according to the religous zealots, should have had diapers on to not tempt men.

The commentator also told of shop owners who were killed because of the way they "suggestively" arranged their fruit for sale. The religious reasoning, again, went to the repressive nature of sexuality of the culture in order to prevent "men" from sinning. Some of the religous leaders had even gone so far as to dictate the arrangement of fruit so as not to be suggestive in a sexual sense and not to tempt men into the "sins of the flesh".

Both of these fundamentalist views of religion and the texts of religion show a fundamental flaw in the logic of certain commandments when takn too far. Temptation, in my view, is something to be overcome on a personal level, not something for one to completely hide or be protected from. It is the nature of man to be tempted, and the manifestation of God in man to resist it. Taking away the temptation (this doesn't apply to little kids or in no way is meant to make our society a "liberal" smorgasborg of anything goes) means we have little room for our souls to reach for something other than what we percieve to be in our self interest (God vs. selfish nature). It is not the way we are made and not in our nature to be subjected to this radicalism. Fundamentalist Christianity nor fundamentalist Islam that denies this truth only compounds the effects of the fallen nature of man (justifiying death to someone who doesn't put a diaper on their goats is just SILLY as is the fruit arrangement).

When arguing with your opponents, look for the truth in what they are saying rather than trying to put a diaper on a goat. Everyone comes out ahead.

I was watching a show on Ghandi some years back. Ghandi was trying to bring India out of Brittish subjecation and into its own political identity but to do it nonviolently. One of the things that became a problem was this clash of religous ideals in the country. The Muslims were killing the Indians and the Indians were killing the Muslims because of the power vacuum that was being felt in the country (the birth of Pakistan came out of this struggle). One of the men who was involved in the clash was an Indian who had killed the parents of a Muslim child. The Indian man's conscience was so distraught that he made a pilgrimage to Ghandi to ask what he should do to rectify what he had done to the child and the Muslim family. Ghandi told him----take the child into your home and raise him. To this he added--raise him as a muslim.

Until you can recognize the fallacy of an argument that is based on the Shimbhala part of it (simply means the deeper meaning of an arguent is hidden in the context and motivations of the words selected), you will never know the truth that is trying to be expressed.

If you look at Christianity, many, many of the stories Jesus told were stories where one had to think of the situation in an analogous sense in order to see the truth. This takes a little more effort of thinking than the rules of vegetable arrangement or putting a diaper on a goat but the underlying lesson of the truth is more valuable than the ways to get there. It was a fulfillment of the old testiment words into truths instead of the old testament Leviticus way of methodology being the route to enlightenment and communion with God.

It is the same reason one of the great schisms of the early church occurred. The belief that a graven image may be the thing that is focused on instead of the truth behind what the image stands for. People are prone to this fault. The problem with this thought is that it alieanates God for people other than the one conjured in the image. God is not captive to certain individuals, nor images in the minds of man. We don't learn about God to be able to control others--that is the reason for the law--we learn about God to control ourselves and help others find this control. When we find ourselves using God to do this, we are putting diapers on goats and dictating the arrangement of vegetables.

Sorry, this may be a little too philosophical for a poltical board. The diapers on goats I heard on the radio was just too interesting to leave it without comment.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Econ101 said:
Going after dissenters of the pack mentality may be a little fun, but some of you people have just gone overboard.

Those who have shut out any possiblity of a different viewpoint

Take for example the belief in God. Some on this board think that their view of God is the only "correct" one. Evolution is totally dismissed, but largely due to lumping in a lot of stuff an making it a loaded concept. The view of belief in God is wrapped into a narrow definition in the minds of a few.

These type of thoughts remind me of the middle ages when the church dogma ruled logic and people controlled and abused religion for their own ends.
.
Econ, I didn't vote in the poll. I havn't said my view of God is the only correct one. I however fail to see how evolution (which I am the only one largly against) has anything to do with memanpa's poll. If you want to condemn me or my position on evolution or my beliefs in God or any other belief, be man enough to do it to my face. Use my name and point out my flawed beliefs. It's cowardice to say I am a middle ages thinker and say my views are wrong without showing me where. If you believe in the stupid idea of evolution, that's your right . You certainly can't defend it's merits or it's authenticity. As a matter of fact you can't even come up with a plausable origin of life or origin of the universe. More importantly why would you come on this topic to criticise me ??? Try to be more of a man in your debates from now on and start a new thread . You can title it Red Robin is a middle ages thinker and go on to explain your beliefs.
edit:
BTW econ, If you want to put forth any of your theories of how God and evolution mesh or how my anti evolution position is stupid in another thread, I will be more than happy to debate .

I don't believe in evolution, but the arguments of it doesn't scare me out of being a Christian, either.

This post did not have you in mind when I wrote it. I wasn't even thinking of you personally, RR. Sorry you took it that way.

Here is a question for you, RR:

Does God grade on a scale?
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
I don't believe in evolution, but the arguments of it doesn't scare me out of being a Christian, either.
I have no idea , once again, what you are saying.
Econ101 said:
This post did not have you in mind when I wrote it. I wasn't even thinking of you personally, RR. Sorry you took it that way.
sure. Mind me asking who you had in mind?

Econ101 said:
Here is a question for you, RR:
Does God grade on a scale?
no.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Econ101 said:
I don't believe in evolution, but the arguments of it doesn't scare me out of being a Christian, either.
I have no idea , once again, what you are saying.

Econ: Act like a buddhist and Contemplate on it.
Econ101 said:
This post did not have you in mind when I wrote it. I wasn't even thinking of you personally, RR. Sorry you took it that way.
sure. Mind me asking who you had in mind?

No one in particular. Personalizing these issues tends to be judgemental on a particular person. I hope to bypass that on the political side and save that for SH on the bull session since he enjoys it.
Econ101 said:
Here is a question for you, RR:
Does God grade on a scale?
no.

If he (she--God is too big for gender) doesn't, we are all in a heap of trouble.

.....for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

The scale of the cross is individualized. No group is going to save you, no church congregation, and no amount of works. Its up to you. The rest has already been done.

Say your prayers tonight, RR. Pray for your enemies (even dis and the terrorists). That is one of the commandments.

I am.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
If he (she--God is too big for gender) doesn't, we are all in a heap of trouble.

.....for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
God calls himself a He, that's good enough for me.

If God grades on the curve and all have sinned and come short of the glory of God...what's your plan? Are you better than some? It seems to imply ALL.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Econ101 said:
If he (she--God is too big for gender) doesn't, we are all in a heap of trouble.

.....for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
God calls himself a He, that's good enough for me.

If God grades on the curve and all have sinned and come short of the glory of God...what's your plan? Are you better than some? It seems to imply ALL.

God is greater than gender. If you need the gender, use it.

My plan? I have no plan. I am no better than the worst and the greatest is no better than me. The plan is already laid out. It is pretty simple.

When Jesus spoke to the gentile at the well, did he speak to everyone or everyone through her?

When he called Mary Magdaleen on the sins she had committed, did he condemn her or save her?

When Jesus spoke to the leper, was it with judgement?

....for I have not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

We all have opinions. In the eyes of an all knowing God, our opinions are but a very small insignificant viewpoint. They only carry relevance between ourselves and God. Even at that, they are still the insignificant part.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Red Robin said:
Econ101 said:
If he (she--God is too big for gender) doesn't, we are all in a heap of trouble.

.....for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
God calls himself a He, that's good enough for me.

If God grades on the curve and all have sinned and come short of the glory of God...what's your plan? Are you better than some? It seems to imply ALL.

God is greater than gender. If you need the gender, use it.

My plan? I have no plan. I am no better than the worst and the greatest is no better than me. The plan is already laid out. It is pretty simple.

When Jesus spoke to the gentile at the well, did he speak to everyone or everyone through her?

When he called Mary Magdaleen on the sins she had committed, did he condemn her or save her?

When Jesus spoke to the leper, was it with judgement?

....for I have not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

We all have opinions. In the eyes of an all knowing God, our opinions are but a very small insignificant viewpoint. They only carry relevance between ourselves and God. Even at that, they are still the insignificant part.
Either you evaded the question or I am too stupid to understand. How are you going to get to heaven if you have sinned?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I've known many a person- some thought of themselves as almost saints- and others thought of themselves as sinners, some so unworthy that even tho they believed, they didn't think they could ever be considered worthy or Christian...And many times I found those that thought of themselves unworthy and sinners (which I agree had probably truly sinned) -- were deep down to me the truer Christian, than those that put out that false image...And I've been with many of these that with their dying breath proclaimed their belief in and asked for two things- Jesus and their mothers as they died.....

That is the reason I think the only person that lived that can make that decision died for us 2000 years ago....


Red Robin- Interesting thought you have about God being male- I guess in my mind, being a male, and from Bible teachings, I automatically pictured that too-- altho I have questions about many of the scripture writings because of the fact they were written by persons, mostly male- and some many years later- during a period when females were the subordinate, and the fact that so many writings and scriptures were left out of the Bible of today by the picking and choosing of the church leaders and scholars of the day as the whims of the daily politics went.....

I really find the readings of some of the lost scriptures to be interesting....The book of Mary raises some interesting questions- which some will call blasphemous to think of Jesus as possibly married to what some later called a prostitute- which then years later "the church" changed their opinion on...

I guess in the Jesus I want to know, I hope it was true........
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Econ101 said:
Red Robin said:
God calls himself a He, that's good enough for me.

If God grades on the curve and all have sinned and come short of the glory of God...what's your plan? Are you better than some? It seems to imply ALL.

God is greater than gender. If you need the gender, use it.

My plan? I have no plan. I am no better than the worst and the greatest is no better than me. The plan is already laid out. It is pretty simple.

When Jesus spoke to the gentile at the well, did he speak to everyone or everyone through her?

When he called Mary Magdaleen on the sins she had committed, did he condemn her or save her?

When Jesus spoke to the leper, was it with judgement?

....for I have not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

We all have opinions. In the eyes of an all knowing God, our opinions are but a very small insignificant viewpoint. They only carry relevance between ourselves and God. Even at that, they are still the insignificant part.
Either you evaded the question or I am too stupid to understand. How are you going to get to heaven if you have sinned?

Grace.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I've heard it all now.....God has testicles according to some!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Top