Islam, is it a religion of peace or war?

[ClearwaterVol]

Because it's legitimate. It's a pretty ****** tactic to ignore the culture and common practice of the times.

But an unchanging God has to accept the culture and common practice of the times? So, he bends?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I have never seen you take a concrete position on the topic. You enjoy poking holes in positions others take.

He has. In great detail. And has even given a lot of energy to do so without referring to "'cause God said". It was a good read.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I like the way you resort to personal insults when you get angry. Either your God condones slavery or he does not. Which is it?

Roust just answered that and went as far as to specify which sort He condoned without the equivocation you seem to be insisting on--i.e. he showed what sort of slavery God condoned as opposed to what sort He doesn't.

The funny thing to me is that you are making this argument to poison the well and infer that God is evil if He condones slavery, yet you'll be unable to establish an objective evil from your worldview. So, all you're working toward is that you dislike God's opinion on the matter.

That about sum up where this is going?

Again... By the way. Where it's going again.

 

[Orange_Crush]

But an unchanging God has to accept the culture and common practice of the times? So, he bends?

Roust just explained how the doctrine of immutability works. You're ignoring his posts.

 

[lawgator1]

But it's alright to brand every white Southerner (like myself) who owns a Confederate flag a white supremacist and/or KKK member after some nutjob shoots up a church and they find an old picture of the guy with a rebel flag or blame all NRA members (like myself) for what someone does illegally with a gun and brand them terrorists despite not one NRA member ever being accused.

Well, first, there is a difference between being a member of a very broadly defined race or religious group versus identifying with a specific cause or social or political group within that. For example, you describe yourself as a Southerner with a confederate flag but that is quite a bit more specific than a general descriptor, such as white. Or Christian.

Same with the reverse. To describe oneself as Arabic, or Muslim, is very general, versus calling oneself a member of ISIS, or Al-Qaeda.

So as a threshold matter your point is premised on a pretty inapt comparison.

Second, you are actually proving my point. Just because a person describes himself as Muslim does not make it right to label him a terrorist any more than a it is correct to label a person who is Christian as necessarily a white supremacist.

But see, that is what the extremists on both sides believe, and want others to believe. Radical Islamic terrorists think all Christians are the enemy. Guys like the NZ shooter think all Muslims are terrorists and need to be killed. They act in part knowing that it will cause a reaction and convince others in their all-too-simplistic view of the world.

You are engaging in the very thinking he and the Muslim terrorists want you to believe -- that there are two distinct sides, and only that, so pick and fight.

 

[rjd970]

Roust just answered that and went as far as to specify which sort He condoned without the equivocation you seem to be insisting on--i.e. he showed what sort of slavery God condoned as opposed to what sort He doesn't.

The funny thing to me is that you are making this argument to poison the well and infer that God is evil if He condones slavery, yet you'll be unable to establish an objective evil from your worldview. So, all you're working toward is that you dislike God's opinion on the matter.

That about sum up where this is going?

Again... By the way. Where it's going again.

Yep, and thats good enough for me, and given what is in any holy texts I'm more than willing to stand on that position on a number of moral topics. Slavery is bad in any context, God got it wrong. Killing somebody for disobeying the Sabbath is wrong, God got it wrong. If you disagree and explain it away with context within time periods and definitions that is fine but we shouldn't accept that simply believing God is all powerful makes it any more objective.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yep, and thats good enough for me, and given what is in any holy texts I'm more than willing to stand on that position on a number of moral topics. Slavery is bad in any context, God got it wrong. Killing somebody for disobeying the Sabbath is wrong, God got it wrong. If you disagree and explain it away with context within time periods and definitions that is fine but we shouldn't accept that simply believing God is all powerful makes it any more objective.

Paint me amazed that you disagree with God. No. Wait. Don't, because I'm not amazed at all.

Now that you've had your chance to express your personal opinion, is there anywhere else you want to go with it? Maybe you also want an opportunity to say that people who prefer chocolate ice cream are evil as well?

 

[vol445]

The green horse

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Roust just explained how the doctrine of immutability works. You're ignoring his posts.

I have not ignored it at all. Immutability = unchanging. If God condoned slavery then, he condones it now.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Roust just answered that and went as far as to specify which sort He condoned without the equivocation you seem to be insisting on--i.e. he showed what sort of slavery God condoned as opposed to what sort He doesn't.

The funny thing to me is that you are making this argument to poison the well and infer that God is evil if He condones slavery, yet you'll be unable to establish an objective evil from your worldview. So, all you're working toward is that you dislike God's opinion on the matter.

That about sum up where this is going?

Again... By the way. Where it's going again.

So, in your moral view, owning another human is defensible?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I have not ignored it at all. Immutability = unchanging. If God condoned slavery then, he condones it now.

You've obviously ignored it, else you wouldn't keep making this same tired argument.

The Doctrine of Immutability in no way says that God is unvarying. It merely states that in ways that he varies, he does so according to His unchanging nature and attributes. It agrees with scriptural revelation that God deals with humanity in various ways, according to His own divine plan, and for His own glory.

You're trying to posture using theology without knowing the theology.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

You've obviously ignored it, else you wouldn't keep making this same tired argument.

The Doctrine of Immutability in no way says that God is unvarying. It merely states that in ways that he varies, he does so according to His unchanging nature and attributes. It agrees with scriptural revelation that God deals with humanity in various ways, according to His own divine plan, and for His own glory.

You're trying to posture using theology without knowing the theology.

No, you guys like to say your theology is all buttoned up and then say stuff like god is unchanging except when he decides to be. That is a piss poor argument.

Is there any evidence that God no longer approves of slavery?

 

[Orange_Crush]

So, in your moral view, owning another human is defensible?

You and I have had this conversation before. I have defended Biblical slavery, therefore I see Biblical slavery as defensible.

Now, as an atheist, where do you want to take the conversation? Do you want to establish some absolute morality that would make God and I wrong? Or do you want to just trade opinions while saying there's really no true "evil", but I'm "evil" for defending Biblical slavery?

And while you do that, will you do like @rjd970 and entirely miss the point that, as an atheist, you can't even really make that argument in an intellectually consistent way because, as an atheist, you have to smuggle inherent human worth and value in from someone else's belief system in order to state the opinion that a person shouldn't have another person as a slave?

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, you guys like to say your theology is all buttoned up and then say stuff like god is unchanging except when he decides to be. That is a piss poor argument.

When did we say He's unvarying?

I just explained the doctrine to you. Don't hold me responsible for the fact that you never studied it.

Immutability means unchangeable. It is the divine attribute of unchangeableness. God said in Exodus 3:14, "I AM that I AM," signifying His eternal sameness and His sovereignty. He cannot change His moral character, His love, His omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, etc. God is "From everlasting to everlasting," (Psalm 90:2).

Immutability does not mean that God does not vary. The incarnation is an example of variation. Also, God's attitude toward a person is changed when the person becomes a Christian. For example, the enmity between God and man is removed (Rom. 5:10).

Mormonism denies the immutability of God. It says that God was not always God and that he was a man on another planet who became a God (Mormon Doctrine by Bruce McConkie, p. 321).

Immutability | CARM.org

 

[Septic]

I always thought Christians followed the teachings of Jesus.

My mistake.

Lol. You don't many Christians then, I know lots that identify as Christian. None of them follow his teachings.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

You and I have had this conversation before. I have defended Biblical slavery, therefore I see Biblical slavery as defensible.

Now, as an atheist, where do you want to take the conversation? Do you want to establish some absolute morality that would make God and I wrong? Or do you want to just trade opinions while saying there's really no true "evil", but I'm "evil" for defending Biblical slavery?

And while you do that, will you do like @rjd970 and entirely miss the point that, as an atheist, you can't even really make that argument in an intellectually consistent way because, as an atheist, you have to smuggle inherent human worth and value in from someone else's belief system in order to state the opinion that a person shouldn't have another person as a slave?

Where does your inherent worth and value originate?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Where does your inherent worth and value originate?

I believe it is based in our being created in the image of God.

Now, without smuggling in the concept from outside atheism, please tell me why a sack of particles that evolved by the process of the survival of the fittest has such inarguable value that another sack of particles that evolved by the process of survival of the fittest shouldn't "own" it. I recently read about a parasite that attaches to an ant's brain and uses it as a slave zombie. Is that absolutely evil as well?

 

[marcusluvsvols]

You've obviously ignored it, else you wouldn't keep making this same tired argument.

The Doctrine of Immutability in no way says that God is unvarying. It merely states that in ways that he varies, he does so according to His unchanging nature and attributes. It agrees with scriptural revelation that God deals with humanity in various ways, according to His own divine plan, and for His own glory.




You're trying to posture using theology without knowing the theology.

To the last part: arguing from ignorance. Not stupidity, i am not insulting anyone. From ignorance, as in a lack of knowledge. Cw mocked me in his appeal to authority just yesterday for not being like him and letting a muslim tell me that i should ignore all the suras in the quran that tell them to lie to and kill the infidel...to believe that the dude wasnt just lying like his god supposedly told them to. How dare I? So arrogant.

Yet he will gladly try to school you, a pastor, on scripture that he knows little about. Guess thats arrogance and hypocrisy. Nice.

Got any law cases or established law you feel like schooling Clearwater on? I mean, that is supposedly his job, and what he went to college to study, but eye for eye, right?

Or do you not like to argue from ignorance?

 

[Orange_Crush]

To the last part: arguing from ignorance. Not stupidity, i am not insulting anyone. From ignorance, as in a lack of knowledge. Cw mocked me in his appeal to authority just yesterday for not being like him and letting a muslim tell me that i should ignore all the suras in the quran that tell them to lie to and kill the infidel...to believe that the dude wasnt just lying like his god supposedly told them to. How dare I? So arrogant.

Yet he will gladly try to school you, a pastor, on scripture that he knows little about. Guess thats arrogance and hypocrisy. Nice.

Got any law cases or established law you feel like schooling Clearwater on? I mean, that is supposedly his job, and what he went to college to study, but eye for eye, right?

Or do you not like to argue from ignorance?

It's not because I'm a pastor. And it's not because of anyone's MDiv. It's because this is what the doctrine of immutability has said for 2000 years. The doctrine has never claimed that there is no variance in God, His thoughts, His actions, etc. That form of immutability would make the concept of god to be an impersonal force. But Christianity has always taught a personal God that changes His mind, dealings, attitude, etc... The doctrine just says that God's nature/attributes are unchanging, so any of His various thoughts, plans, actions, attitudes, etc will be in accordance to His unchanging nature/attributes.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Can you link videos of a Baptist, Pentecostal, etc. telling their congregation to go out and kill gay people? Yesterday was Sunday, surely there's a fresh video?

What, you've never heard of westboro baptist church?

What pastors preach and what the Bible actually says are often at odds with one another so I dont see this as much of an objection. Case in point being the recent vote in the Methodist church over gay clergy members.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Argument from silence.
You are trying to paint the OT as if there was some concentrated effort to spotlight homosexuality. Actually, very little is said on the matter. In fact there are two verses, that’s it. And that is in the context of a myriad of prohibited behaviors. It’s also in the context of being directed specifically to Israel. Lev 18:1.

Period, end of story.
What’s funny is you seem to have no consideration that homosexual behavior might actually be wrong.

Argument from silence? I think the burden of proof is on you here. If you want to say that this problem is obviated by Jesus that's fine, but I dont see how you can still hold that homosexuality is wrong without a lot of tap dancing. If it's still wrong then why did only the punishment change because of Jesus? It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Wafflestomper]

When did we say He's unvarying?

I just explained the doctrine to you. Don't hold me responsible for the fact that you never studied it.

Unvarying and unchanging are synonyms...

So he changes in ways that aren't actual changes? Hmm.

 

[T-TownVol]

Argument from silence? I think the burden of proof is on you here. If you want to say that this problem is obviated by Jesus that's fine, but I dont see how you can still hold that homosexuality is wrong without a lot of tap dancing. If it's still wrong then why did only the punishment change because of Jesus? It doesn't make any sense.

I am beginning to think this issue has a personal attachment for you.

 

[Wafflestomper]

I am beginning to think this issue has a personal attachment for you.

Is that supposed to be a subtle way of calling me gay? The people most adamantly against gays are often the ones on their knees in airport bathrooms.

 

[BigO95]

It does teach murder. It also teaches peace. Just like the Quran. Have you even read the Bible?

Apparently you have not or you don't understand what you reading.