Can Luciferians be Good People?

Author: Reece101

Posts

Total: 67
#31
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
When I read of other's interpretation, deeper readings into it, I don't think it's so base, as you put it.
As one person views (Isaiah 3:16–17)
"And here God is describing the judgment that is to come upon Judah and Jerusalem for their iniquity. Speaking of the proudness and of the material aspects of their lifestyles. How things are going to be changed because they didn't take God into consideration in their lives. How Judah and Jerusalem were destroyed and ravaged by Babylon."

As an atheist, it's easy enough for me to cut out God, and insert game theory, history.
A people concerned with materialism, selfishness, show and pageant, lack of concern for their people, get's a bit weak.
The French guillotined their rulers.
A fellow winning in gambling, and walking to their car alone, sometimes get's mugged.
A society that doesn't care for one another, get's invaded.

Nature of words,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

What does this mean, people argue amongst themselves.

In a debate of mine recently, I quoted
"Whoever is among the living has hope; a live dog is better than a dead lion. " - Ecclesiastes
Even though the overall message of Ecclesiastes, is 'not that.
Because I like taking quotes out of context, leastwise in using their 'sound so to speak.
Same reason I like quoting "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Even though I often misuse the quote out of context.



. . .

Still, I don't study the Bible, read it in the old languages, read enough history.
Maybe I'm talking out my a**.

Still, my opinion is you're presenting a strawman with those passages, cherrypicked out of context, as you give them.
#32
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
I reckon that every person has the ability to be good sometimes. 

 They do.     And maybe this is why we read in the Egyptian epics that it is said they  weighed the "soul " or the heart of the dead ? i.e. Did ones good outweigh their bad?  

 I should imagine that even some  serial killers loved their mothers.

Christians too believe in some kind of mythical afterlife judgement , if I remember correctly.   
That they will be taken into the presence of God and they will be judged for the deeds they have done or failed to do during their lifetime?

Quite amazing I think, how  Christians have managed to wrap  so much Egyptian imagery around the story of Jesus the man, isn't  it?  
#33
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
I reckon that every person has the ability to be good sometimes. 

 They do.     And maybe this is why we read in the Egyptian epics that it is said they  weighed the "soul " or the heart of the dead ? i.e. Did ones good outweigh their bad?  
Perhaps - but then again I have never read it.  The notion of a pair of scales seems to be in every culture. 

 I should imagine that even some  serial killers loved their mothers.
I could not comment - but it is true that some serial killers today- for instance - Martin Bryant in Tasmania, the killer in Sweden or Norway, the NZ murderer - their families disowned them - including their parents.  but is there some aspect of love by their mothers?  Hard to say when they know how evil their kids are.  

I suppose I would not rule it out though.  Surely even Adolph Hitler's mother had some kind of feeling for him? 

Christians too believe in some kind of mythical afterlife judgement , if I remember correctly.   
Not sure I see the relevance.  Every religion in the world since time began believes in some kind of after life.  


That they will be taken into the presence of God and they will be judged for the deeds they have done or failed to do during their lifetime?
This does seem to be the prevailing view. 


Quite amazing I think, how  Christians have managed to wrap  so much Egyptian imagery around the story of Jesus the man, isn't  it?  

This does strike me as odd - given that there was never any evidence that the Jews got to Egypt.  Why do they seem to gravitate towards the Egyptian religions when they clearly had nothing to do with them? 
#34
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
Christians too believe in some kind of mythical afterlife judgement , if I remember correctly.   
Not sure I see the relevance.  Every religion in the world since time began believes in some kind of after life.  


I wouldn't expect you to see the relevance. But, the relevance IS, is that IN THE Christian and Egyptian AFTERLIFE ones sins/ deeds are weighed and or  judged.



I should imagine that even some  serial killers loved their mothers.

I suppose I would not rule it out though.  Surely even Adolph Hitler's mother had some kind of feeling for him? 

You misunderstood. I said the serial killer loving his mother not the mother loving the serial killer.  ie. that EVEN  a very bad person is capable of loving someone. 



That they will be taken into the presence of God and they will be judged for the deeds they have done or failed to do during their lifetime?
This does seem to be the prevailing view. 

Christians believe it to be fact.



Quite amazing I think, how  Christians have managed to wrap  so much Egyptian imagery around the story of Jesus the man, isn't  it?  

This does strike me as odd - given that there was never any evidence that the Jews got to Egypt.


Well I was speaking the Jesus "myth" in particular.    ie. a miracle working dying and rising god of which, as you suggested above, there have been ten a penny.
Wasn't the Jesus family told to "escape" to Egypt?



  Why do they seem to gravitate towards the Egyptian religions when they clearly had nothing to do with them? 

 Good question, why indeed. But they clearly do don't they. And when there were many places that the Jesus family could have hidden nearer home? All that way on a donkey (some 500 miles approx) and  just after giving birth  when they could have simply hid out in the north of their own country. Abram// Abraham was told to go to Egypt too wasn't he? 


Maybe the Jesus family had relatives in Egypt?

 

Topic's author
#35
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
When I read of other's interpretation, deeper readings into it, I don't think it's so base, as you put it.
Base? As I put it? That’s your words.

As one person views (Isaiah 3:16–17)
"And here God is describing the judgment that is to come upon Judah and Jerusalem for their iniquity. Speaking of the proudness and of the material aspects of their lifestyles. How things are going to be changed because they didn't take God into consideration in their lives. How Judah and Jerusalem were destroyed and ravaged by Babylon."
God threatened them with rape, did he not?

Still, my opinion is you're presenting a strawman with those passages, cherrypicked out of context, as you give them.
You’re the one strawmanning. 
#36
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Reece101
Aye, base is the word 'I use, to describe my view of your interpretation of the Bible.
Low, crude.

I do not see it as God threatening them with rape,
But 'humans speaking, that not following the right path, will 'lead to ruin.

"Isaiah now gives a picture of the end of a society characterized by human self-sufficiency and self-centredness. The government collapses, resulting in a shortage of basic necessities such as food and water. Judah had previously depended for leadership on a variety of people, good and bad - statesmen, soldiers, judges, prophets, magicians - but now no one can be found to lead the country (3:1-3). Power falls into the hands of immature youths, and lawlessness results. People show no respect for former social values, but seize every opportunity to advance themselves and exploit their fellows (4-5).
In a time when food and clothing are so scarce, anyone who appears a little better off than others will be invited to take over the leadership in an effort to restore order in the chaotic city. But he will quickly make excuses and refuse the invitation, for no one will want to be leader in such a troubled time (6-7).
The people arrogantly declare themselves to be independent of God. They boast of their new-found moral freedom and are proud of their immoral acts (8-9). All the wrongdoers will suffer a fitting punishment, but the righteous will escape (10-11). The nation is almost without leadership, because the former leaders have either fled or been overthrown. Their corruption is the reason for the present crisis. They used their positions entirely for their own benefit, and now the nation has come to ruin (12-15)."

"Will discover their secret parts - "Expose their nakedness"] It was the barbarous custom of the conquerors of those times to strip their captives naked, and to make them travel in that condition, exposed to the inclemency of the weather; and the worst of all, to the intolerable heat of the sun. But this to the women was the height of cruelty and indignity; and especially to such as those here described, who had indulged themselves in all manner of delicacies of living, and all the superfluities of ornamental dress; and even whose faces had hardly ever been exposed to the sight of man. This is always mentioned as the hardest part of the lot of captives. Nahum, Isaiah 3:5; Isaiah 3:6, denouncing the fate of Nineveh, paints it in very strong colours"

I look on this site,
I see interpretation,
Isaiah ben Amoz’ Denounces the Elite
The sin denounced here (in Isaiah 3) is social injustice: "Ye grind the face of the poor." (Verse 15) The money exacted unjustly from the poor enables the upper classes to live in ostentatious luxury. (The end of the chapter, verses 3:16-26, describes in detail all the ornaments of the pampered rich women of Jerusalem.) As punishment for this the whole social order will be upturned, the young will behave insolently to the aged (Verse 3), responsibility and moral leadership will cease. (Verse 7)

I look on this site,
I see interpretation,
Will afflict the scalp - There is no reason to not interpret this prophecy of future judgment literally. It is certainly a horrible picture and the antithesis of their ostentatious, pomposity described look in Is 3:16!

Some people attribute God to everything.
Kingdom get's taken over, "God has punished us!"

For me, it's enough to recognize game theory.
Not following the right path in life, leads to a corrupt society, corrupt societies are weak and taken over by their enemies.
Enemies who throw down, those from high,
Shave their heads, divest them of their clothes, being now slaves.
Bad living conditions, and sickness.

'Maybe I'm reaching, but still seems to me that your interpreting the text as,
God is going to descend from the Heavens, give you scabs, and rape you, if you're haughty, wearing gold, and flirt with people.
Is an absurd, short, shallow, interpretation.


Topic's author
#37
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
But 'humans speaking, that not following the right path, will 'lead to ruin.
That’s an atheistic perspective. The argument wasn’t directed at you to begin with. I really can’t be bothered to debate you. 
You can debate BrotherDThomas if you’d like. We’re arguing from two different angles. 
#38
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Reece101
Fair enough, and I'll admit the conversation is far off the topic of , Can Luciferians be Good People?

I have not read deeply anything by BrotherDThomas,
I find his profile picture a bit offputting, though I suppose it could be the type of profile picture used by a troll 'or a person devoted to their religion, and strongly speaking of it on the internet. Perhaps it's meant to show humor over how ardently he speaks of his religion, or how seriously he takes it.
. . .
So perhaps I have been hasty and judged him by his cover, erroneously.

I've also only ever glanced briefly at his posts, as I recall, there was something about them I found distasteful, or wrongly put.
He gives the vibe of backwardseden | Debate.org

Though again, I may be too hasty.
Mm,
. . .

Anyway, sorry for derailing the topic,

Though I'm still leaving one last grumble about,
Reece101 said
God wants you to be happy babies are slaughtered and wives raped: (Psalm 137:8–9)


Let's actually look at Psalm 137:9 in its context

Happy will be the one who seizes your children and dashes them against the rocks. Psalm 137:9
Too often I've seen this be quoted by some to mean:
  • "Your God is terrible because he approves of smashing children on rocks"
  • "Your God/the Bible says killing children brings happiness"
But as always, it's important to actually read the psalm. So let's actually examine it:
"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat. We wept when we remembered Zion." Psalm 137:1
This first verse gives a setting and a subject. The setting is ancient Babylon. The subject is the psalmist, and he has others with him,
"...there we sat. We wept..."
The psalmist says they wept, remembering Zion. Meaning this takes place during the Babylonian exile. They are weeping remembering their homeland.
"Upon the poplar trees in her midst, We hung our harps. For there our captors asked us for a song, Those mocking us wanted amusement: “Sing for us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the song of Jehovah on foreign soil? If I should forget you, O Jerusalem,Let my right hand be forgetful." Psalm 137:2-5
The babylonians are described as "captors". Meaning the author sees them as being cruel as well as being a reference to being held by the people that took them from their home. We also see the author and other captives being forced to perform songs for the Babylonians who only want to mock them. However he doesn't feel comfortable singing the songs he used to worship God for his captors especially as they are only being mocked.
So what we've gathered so far, we have Jews who've been ripped from their homeland and taken captive. They are obviously mistreated and mocked. Now, here it's important to remember that like the rest of psalms this is a poem or song. These are some the means with which humans express their emotions and pains and troubles.
So, keeping that in mind, and trying to put ourselves in the shoes of a mistreated captive we read the ending verses of the psalm.
 "Remember, O Jehovah, What the Eʹdom·ites said on the day Jerusalem fell: “Tear it down! Tear it down to its foundations!” Psalm 137:7
Here the psalmist asks God to remember what the babylonians did to Jerusalem, but why?
"O daughter of Babylon, who is soon to be devastated, Happy will be the one who rewards you With the treatment you inflicted on us. Happy will be the one who seizes your children And dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137:8,9
Here we see the conclusion, the author asks God to do to the babylonians what the Babylonians did to them, the babylonians smashed their children, so a person who had to see this would by human nature want revenge on those who did it. Remembering that this is poetic, we can see that this is a writer expressing his feelings towards his captors who mistreat him. This is in no way God saying it's ok to kill children or that killing kids brings happiness.
#39
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@fauxlaw
It's not really that difficult of an apparent conundrum.
What is the traditional Sabbath of the JudaicTorah, based on the 10 Commandments? It is on the 7th day, Saturday in the calendar, as the day God rested from his creation labor.
What is the traditional Sabbath of the Christian New Testament?  it is on Sunday, the first day of the Calendar; the day Christ resurrected from the dead.
The change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday has to do with neither the New Testament nor the resurrection of Christ. It is strictly to do with Catholic Catechism (with Protestants following suit.) It would've been impossible for Jesus to resurrect on a Sunday since he died on Good Friday--near the evening. Even if Friday was counted as a whole day, Jesus would've resurrected earliest by Monday morning. Although the Catholic elite would deny it, the change to Sunday is pagan in origin. It's an ancient Kemetic ritual for venerating the Sun God, Amun-Ra. And although Catholics claim that "Easter" is in celebration of Jesus's resurrection (which didn't happen on a Sunday,) it's actually in celebration of Ishtar, which harkens back to her Sumerian incarnation, Inanna--the morning star, i.e the Sun.

As I said, I believe creation continues beyond the six days.
But does that take priority over the basis of God's commandment?

It is why it is called a New Testament; the old Testament having been fulfilled in Christ. It does not ignore, nor reject the original period of creation; it just recognizes a new creative event.
Where in the New Testament is Creation either contradicted or extended?
#40
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Lemming
BrotherDThomas is a anti-Christian troll. He blocked me here because I correctly identified him as 21stCenturyIconoclast from Debate.org. I think he was mad because I made him look a bit foolish over there. I really have no idea why anyone takes him seriously.
#41
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Reece101
No not bait. If the responses are thoughtful and good faith, I’ll give it respect. I’ll also joke around with moderates on the issue. 
So bait. If you don't get the answer you want, you'll mock it.

This is equivalent to frivolous litigation, where you don’t actually care about the substance of an issue, you just want them to waste their time.

God threatening molestation: (Isaiah 3:16–17)

God threatens rape and glorifies it: (Isaiah 13:9–16)

God makes people eat human flesh: (Leviticus 26:27–29)

God placed his glory above infants and wives: (Isaiah 13:9–16)

God wants you to be happy babies are slaughtered and wives raped: (Psalm 137:8–9)
None of those, with maybe one exception, even comes close to matching your descriptions. And in Leviticus, God doesn't make people eat flesh. God warns against disobeying his commandments.
#42
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
The same to the analogy of the good samaritan. There is nothing bad about being a good luciferian, except to some other religions, such as Christianity, you are believing in the wrong god.

There is literally nothing inherently bad about being a luciferian, even if some luciferians are bad. If so, some roman emperors have killed millions. Why isn't Christianity itself considered wrong?

I like what you say about the Good Samaritan.
And I think it's fair enough to point out that even when people identify as Christian, they're not necessarily good or following God perfectly.
Though I think Christianity stresses that humans are flawed, or not doing all they can, fairly often in the Bible.
. . .

Makes me think of,
Topic's author
#43
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat. We wept when we remembered Zion." Psalm 137:1

This first verse gives a setting and a subject. The setting is ancient Babylon. The subject is the psalmist, and he has others with him,
"...there we sat. We wept..."
The psalmist says they wept, remembering Zion. Meaning this takes place during the Babylonian exile. They are weeping remembering their homeland.
Then if you look at Psalm 136, it’s blatant propaganda if you know God at all. 


Trust me, I can go through all of them but I can’t be bothered. 


#44
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Reece101
If you can't be bothered, then I won't press it.
#45
Conway
Conway's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 278
1
2
5
Conway's avatar
Conway
1
2
5
That they will be taken into the presence of God and they will be judged for the deeds they have done or failed to do during their lifetime?
This does seem to be the prevailing view. 

Christians believe it to be fact.
I don't seek any reward and don't expect much in particular aside from eternal existence.  Whatever means by which we may receive blessings, I would expect of someone who teaches about the resurrection of Jesus to stress that we are saved by grace through faith, rather then a rational decision to curry favor through good works. Your time here as we know it is short.  We have not been expected to endure something you cannot handle and you are free to reject a relationship with God regardless of what you deserve.

#46
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Reece101
Out of curiosity, why the topic of Luciferians?
And why specifically the Christian perspective of their nature?
Topic's author
#47
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Athias
So bait. If you don't get the answer you want, you'll mock it.
Baiting someone is when you purposefully antagonise someone with a proposition/question in hopes of a response.
e.g. Christians are snowflakes if they get mad about answering the question “Can Luciferians be Good People?”

Do you see the difference? 

None of those, with maybe one exception, even comes close to matching your descriptions. And in Leviticus, God doesn't make people eat flesh. God warns against disobeying his commandments. 

In full context God sends plagues which resorts to people starving and turning to cannibalism. 

Topic's author
#48
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
Out of curiosity, why the topic of Luciferians?
And why specifically the Christian perspective of their nature?
Because I’m an atheist myself and I want different perspectives.
What do you mean of their nature? 
#49
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Reece101
I don't think all Luciferians are atheists or theists.

By their nature, I mean the nature of Luciferians.

If there can be said to be such a thing.
As Conway said,
good and evil are subjective - Conway
Though I hope I'm not abbreviating what he said, 'too much.

. . .

Though I suppose groups 'can be spoken of in a fashion that ignores individual and subgroup differences, still a 'bit dehumanizing.

Suppose I ask, Can Nazis be Good People?

Answer would e 'yes, I imagine.
Though the same I would not say for their creed of genocide, war expansion, human experimentation.

There were Nazi's who little but that they were soldiers,
If all Nazi's were evil for their wars, would Ulysses S. Grant be evil, for participating in the American war against Mexico?
Or his actions involving American expansion into Native American lands? (I'm fuzzy on the details)

That the South had slavery, would it mean Americans can not be good people?
Though I have to admit slavery is rather evil, especially slavery of children's, children, children.

. . .

But the 'goodness of someone, feels a bit vague.

I'm rambling a bit incoherent, 'ought go to bed, but I won't.
Going to stay up and eat.
#50
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,606
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Lemming
God is going to descend from the Heavens, give you scabs, and rape you, if you're haughty, wearing gold, and flirt with people.
OMG, Trump should really be worried.
#51
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@FLRW
God is going to descend from the Heavens, give you scabs, and rape you, if you're haughty, wearing gold, and flirt with people.
OMG, Trump should really be worried. - FLRW

Heh, haha, hahaha.
I find that funny.

The out of context piece of my statement.
And the Trump joke.
Topic's author
#52
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
I seriously didn’t consider that Christians might view Luciferians as Nazi’s when typing the question. 
Maybe because to me it doesn’t line up with reality. I don’t see how they’re related at all. 

#53
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Reece101
Eh, Nazi's are probably extreme example.

Your question was ,
Can Luciferians be Good People?

Such would 'imply that Luciferians are in general bad people,
I'd think.
But maybe that's a muddling on my part. . .

Maybe I'd take a different view, if you'd asked,
What do you think of Luciferians?
Topic's author
#54
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
That question probably would have been better.
#55
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Lemming
@Fruit_Inspector


.
Fruit_Inspector,

YOUR DECEIVING AND LAUGHABLE QUOTE IN YOUR POST #40 WITHIN THIS THREAD: "BrotherDThomas is a anti-Christian troll. He blocked me here because I correctly identified him as 21stCenturyIconoclast from Debate.org. I think he was mad because I made him look a bit foolish over there. I really have no idea why anyone takes him seriously."

Yes, I have been called an anti-christian troll many times in this forum, and that is simply because no one has seen a TRUE Christian like myself before, where I follow ALL of the inspired words of Jesus the Christ which is unheard of by Bible fools like yourself!  Conversely, you on the other hand in being a Bible inept pseudo-christian, that I can easily refute with my hands tied behind my back, are a dime-a-dozen within this forum, where your lack of Biblical knowledge is embarrassingly shown ad infinitum. Therefore if anyone is to be not taken seriously, IT IS YOU! LOL!

First thing, I NEVER BLOCK any Bible fool like you, whereas I want them to at least "try" to engage me regarding Jesus' inspired words, understood?  Your embarrassing level of assumed biblical knowledge could NEVER make me or anyone else foolish. 

Now, back up your claim that you made me allegedly look foolish at DEBATE.ORG, show the varied links that support your claim at said website.  WAITING!

When finished with your task above, then we'll play at your expense.

. 
#56
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Reece101
Baiting someone is when you purposefully antagonise someone with a proposition/question in hopes of a response.
e.g. Christians are snowflakes if they get mad about answering the question “Can Luciferians be Good People?”

Do you see the difference? 
Contrivance which gives pretext to your baiting.


In full context God sends plagues which resorts to people starving and turning to cannibalism. 
Once again, Leviticus does not at all inform your description.

#57
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
You misunderstand. I acknowledge that the Sabbath is a recognition of Creation. At issue seems to be when and how long Creation occurred. I'm saying that it makes no difference when and how long Creation occupied to acknowledge that it occurred. Does God sit on a thrown with a stopwatch to count how long we spend in worship? No. He need not do that. He will know the value of our devotion to him by the improvement we accomplish in our lives, primarily by how and why we are in service to one another as acts of appreciation for our creation. God will not strike us dead if one of us believes he created in six days, and another believes he did it in 6 billion years. The duration just doesn't matter. The fact that it happened does.
#58
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Conway
I am saying Christianity is mainstream. I am also saying my Christianity is not as mainstream considers it. For one thing, I do not believe the heavens closed and that God no longer speaks to man after Jesus left the earth. I believe in current-day revelation, and that, relative to my personal stewardship, I have the right of personal revelation from God to guide my dominion of what is mine. My home. My family. my actions in my community that relate to those things that are mine. These are my personal dominion. They guy down the road has his dominion. I may offer help, and I can ask it of him. That's service. Service to one another is service to God. I believe that the Sermon on the Mount was, certainly, Jesus' best effort to describe how we best improve ourselves, and then how best to treat one another. As such, though probably not the intent, it is the best political platform ever developed, aside of its religious implications, because following its precepts would solve every single social ill we face to today, bar none. What is politics for, presumably, but to improve ourselves and our community? As a political platform no one has ever presented a better one. So, why are we not all sermonists? Democrats? Republicans? Socialists? They all fail next to Christ's sermon.
#59
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@fauxlaw
You misunderstand. I acknowledge that the Sabbath is a recognition of Creation. At issue seems to be when and how long Creation occurred. I'm saying that it makes no difference when and how long Creation occupied to acknowledge that it occurred. Does God sit on a thrown with a stopwatch to count how long we spend in worship? No. He need not do that.
How do you know?

He will know the value of our devotion to him by the improvement we accomplish in our lives, primarily by how and why we are in service to one another as acts of appreciation for our creation.
But are you determining this by his metrics or yours? If the word of God delineates that Creation occurred in six days, then as an adherent to Christianity, is it not your obligation to sustain this as true? To do otherwise, as in rejecting or being indifferent, would be to undermine the word of God, and by extension God himself, right?

(Truth be told, I don't take issue with your sentiment. I'm only challenging the consistency of your description of your Christianity. You said, "I'm not a 6-day creation, 6,000 year-old earther Christian." If you reject the very premise of one of God's commandments, then how do you sustain the description of Christian? Was God wrong on that one?)

God will not strike us dead if one of us believes he created in six days, and another believes he did it in 6 billion years. The duration just doesn't matter. The fact that it happened does.
Again, by whose standards?
#60
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
BrotherDThomas, I can't tag you because I am blocked. Perhaps someone else will do the honors. But I kind of forgot about this little adventure of ours. It was like a trip down memory lane going back through it. These links were also from a time when I had far more free time and boredom to practice my search engine functions.

It seems like a strange coincidence that this DDO debate where I was 1_John_5.20 (where you RAN AWAY!) was dated 5/13/19. And "BrotherDThomas" on DebateArt, who uses the exact same phrasing and formatting as 21stCenturyIconoclast from DDO, joined DebateArt on 5/23/19.

Comments #62-72 show our interaction. Some of the links there don't work there so I'll repost them below.

I will also mention that comment #72 clearly shows that you did block me.