Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

@Famine I believe there is nothing stronger than what the bond of a solid family can create, you should know this as you have one.

That's all well and good, but that deviates somewhat significantly from the fact you used the word "sin" to describe some forms of sex before marriage - after quite some questioning that being established, specifically, as unprotected pre-marital heterosexual sex without the desire to care for offspring.

I get that you don't like it, but calling it "sin"? Really?

Of course I am all for freedom, I have the freedom to practice my faith just as you have the freedom not to practice any faith.

That seems rather shoehorned in and irrelevant.

 

[squadops]

That's all well and good, but that deviates somewhat significantly from the fact you used the word "sin" to describe some forms of sex before marriage - after quite some questioning that being established, specifically, as unprotected pre-marital heterosexual sex without the desire to care for offspring.

I get that you don't like it, but calling it "sin"? Really?That seems rather shoehorned in and irrelevant.

Well perhaps sin is not the right word, it is to me because it cheats the kid.

The other part was shoehorned in and not exactly aimed at you, sorry for that but I wanted to say it.

 

[Famine]

Well perhaps sin is not the right word, it is to me because it cheats the kid.

Some children are considerably better off not being raised by their biological parents - whether they happen to have been originally married or not.

And that is, of course, to say nothing of people who have unprotected heterosexual sex after they're married but still without the desire to care for offspring.

In fact it rather seems like the marriage part is just a red herring - you just don't want people to knock boots carelessly. That's fine, but to be honest, I think that the AIDS epidemic in the late 1980s kinda rammed that message home already without the need for unwanted kids.

 

[squadops]

@Famine, perhaps I consider the vows of marriage as a promise to be responsible in all aspects. I'm an idealist.

I could easily make the argument that almost all children would be better off not being raised by their biological parents so, no great news there.

 

[Famine]

@Famine, perhaps I consider the vows of marriage as a promise to be responsible in all aspects. I'm an idealist.

But one assumes that as you are a proponent of freedom, it's not a promise you'd wish to make legally enforcible (beyond contract law, of course).

I could easily make the argument that almost all children would be better off not being raised by their biological parents so, no great news there.

Considering that in the Homosexuality thread you were arguing that you owned your children and no-one could tell you what to do with them or teach them, that's something of a departure - unless you believe that freedom is for yourself but few else.

 

[squadops]

But one assumes that as you are a proponent of freedom, it's not a promise you'd wish to make legally enforcible (beyond contract law, of course).

Correct.

Considering that in the Homosexuality thread you were arguing that you owned your children and no-one could tell you what to do with them or teach them, that's something of a departure - unless you believe that freedom is for yourself but few else.

Of course not, it is for everyone and I'm glad you brought that debacle up. I am quite sure that you are active in your childrens education right? So maybe you want them to learn differently then I wanted mine to, so what? We have that freedom.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere right? I don't know where that line lies, I would say any law abiding couple is entitled. To say that there isn't something better than you or I could offer though, would be down right silly.

 

[Famine]

Of course not, it is for everyone and I'm glad you brought that debacle up. I am quite sure that you are active in your childrens education right? So maybe you want them to learn differently then I wanted mine to, so what? We have that freedom.

To "make the argument that almost all children would be better off not being raised by their biological parents" you'd need to show why what parents want for their children is almost always not right - presumably excluding yourself as you'd have no doubt raised your kids the right way, hence your comments in the Homosexuality thread...

If the @squadops way is the right way and you'd like almost all kids raised by someone other than their biological parents, I imagine you've got some kind of homogenised experience in mind whereby a selection of unrelated adults learn to raise children from all over the neighbourhood in a single location - and there'd have to be centres like this in many neighbourhoods to provide a consistent experience nationwide - by your method.

Sounds almost like public schooling...

I would say any law abiding couple is entitled.

Whose law?

Societal laws can be changed by popular vote, so unless you're proposing that what the majority says is right and can take your kids off you if you disagree (and as a champion of freedom, you aren't doing that), that's a non-starter.

You've previously cited the Lord when it comes to recognising marriage, but since you've already conceded that unmarried couples who want kids aren't breaking his laws by having them, it looks like Biblical laws are out too.

So what constitutes law-abiding couples?

 

[squadops]

@Famine

Almost all children would be better off, ok you want me to make that argument? It's not one that I agree with, it's one I said I could make. I'll keep it short, no matter how good of a parent you are, there will always be a better one, there will always be someone with more money than you, more free time than you, that can afford better things than you.

I guess I'm saying the law at the time, you do know what I mean. If a parent, or hopefully two parents are doing their part acceptably then let them be. Ideally the law should not matter, you already know this don't you?

Biblical law is definity out, we are mixing two subjects here, personally I try to follow the book as it is my choice. Just as I said in the homosexuality thread with a bit added "just be nice" and do the right thing.

You and I think more alike than you might think, I know you wish I organized my thoughts a little more the way I used to, I got tired of having to figure a way to cover my ass all the damn time, my points are clear enough so if you wish to pick at them that is fine.

Is there going to be something else that I must respond to, or shall it be my choice?

 

[CodeRedR51]

@Famine

...personally I try to follow the book as it is my choice..

So do you have any slaves or is this another one of those pick and choose instances? Just curious.

 

[squadops]

Dispensationalism, I already explained that.

 

[huskeR32]

my points are clear enough

It's got to be going on a dozen people at this point who've said otherwise.

 

[squadops]

It's got to be going on a dozen people at this point who've said otherwise.

The reason being, you would like me to be so specific that you have more bullets, that is all that is.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Dispensationalism, I already explained that.

Picking and choosing. Got it.

 

[squadops]

If you say so 👍

And you wonder why people jump you in other threads? lol

 

[CodeRedR51]

If you say so 👍

And you wonder why people jump you in other threads? lol

If you say so.

 

[squadops]

I won't be so nice in the future, you sir wish to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Famine]

Almost all children would be better off, ok you want me to make that argument? It's not one that I agree with, it's one I said I could make. I'll keep it short, no matter how good of a parent you are, there will always be a better one, there will always be someone with more money than you, more free time than you, that can afford better things than you.

None of those things makes them a better parent.

I guess I'm saying the law at the time, you do know what I mean. If a parent, or hopefully two parents are doing their part acceptably then let them be.

Acceptable according to the law at the time? Really?

Biblical law is definity out, we are mixing two subjects here, personally I try to follow the book as it is my choice.

Well, this is the "Do you believe in God" thread and Biblical law is more relevant to it than legislation-by-majority-vote.

You and I think more alike than you might think, I know you wish I organized my thoughts a little more the way I used to, I got tired of having to figure a way to cover my ass all the damn time, my points are clear enough so if you wish to pick at them that is fine.

I just wish you organised your thoughts at all. They stand up to very little scrutiny and you even contradict yourself if questioned for long enough - see the rapid change from:

premarital sex is a sin because it leads to unnecessary complications.

It's like you make things up on a whim or belief and then realise that with even a moment's rational thought they're nonsensical.

It's all fine fervently believing in freedom, but without any actual thought put into it there's no substance.

Is there going to be something else that I must respond to, or shall it be my choice?

It's all your choice.

If you can't stand having your ideas questioned, feel free to not post your ideas or respond to them being questioned.
If you can, feel free to participate and everyone can learn things from each other - it's only by examination that we discover.

you sir wish to have your cake and eat it too.

That rather seems an apt description of people who quote the Bible parts they like and ignore - or pretend to be irrelevant - the ones they don't...

 

[squadops]

Have it your way, I know you have valid points, so do I, if you wish to micro everything that is your prerogative. I understand why you wish me to be clear and all that. No worries here, I find it a bit amusing though, you know I can do better but what about those who cannot communicate as well, are their voices lost? I mean, I do speak for freedom after all.

Just a thaught. Oh well

 

[Exorcet]

Define perfect.

Just the general definition.

Don't tell me, I know.
Of course I've never heard a religious person state that.

Imperfect gods might not be a common idea in Christianity, but it's not new to religion in general. What I was getting at though is that I think being open minded is better than not being such. I think I get what you were trying to say about people picking and choosing when it comes to religion. However I don't see it as a negative in general. If it's done because someone sees something wrong with their religion, then at least there is hope that the person might pick what is correct over what is said to be correct.

 

[squadops]

there is a reason I post this...



:nod:

this is the real deal if you want

 

[Famine]

There is a reason I post this...

And that is?

 

[Denur]

What I am not ok with is the slenderizing of God or anything that has to do with believing in something different than you guys.

I'm curious, when did this happen in the passed few weeks? Could you please give some of these slenderizing quotes, because I can't remember reading any (or maybe just not recognizing it as slenderizing).

 

[Scaff]

What I am not ok with is the slenderizing of God or anything that has to do with believing in something different than you guys.

To be Slander (which is what I assume you mean) it has to be a malicious untruth, what has been stated as fact that is untrue (and technically it would be libel as its written).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

I'm not being over-defensive on anything past sticking up for what I believe or telling my side and I certainly am not putting down your all's beliefs.

I don't have a belief in deities, I am however willing to convert for evidence (to a scientific standard).

 

[squadops]

And that is?

Oops the T, the reason I post that is exactly the fact that some of us believe that man has an innate tendency. I know that you don't think that way however.

 

[Famine]

the reason I post that is exactly the fact that some of us believe that man has an innate tendency.

To what?

I know that you don't think that way however.

That's odd, given that I have no idea what you're talking about to disagree with it. Please work on expressing yourself clearly before you start telling other people what they think of the things you haven't said.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I've read that last couple of pages and I really can't tell what you're on about, @squadops. You're going to have to be much clearer, as Famine said.

 

[squadops]

@Famine, sorry yet again, I will make it clear then.

The song does not simply suggest or imply, it states very clearly that man is evil by his very nature.

Oh now I need to address another? I'm doing my best mate.



Perhaps you guys need the words, I don't know;

My mother was a witch, she was burned alive
Thankless little bitch, for the tears I cried
Take her down now, don't wanna see her face
Blistered and burnt, can't hide my disgrace
27 every one was nice, gotta see them,
Make them pay the price
See their bodies out on the ice, take my time
Am I evil, yes I am
Am I evil, I admit, yes I am
As I watched my Mother die, I lost my head
Revenge now I sought, to break with my bread
Takin' no chances, you come with me
I'll split you to the bone
Help set you free.
27 every one was nice, gotta see them,
Make them pay the price
See their bodies out on the ice, take my time
Am I evil, yes I am
Am I evil, I am man
On with the action now, I'll strip your pride
I'll spread your blood around, I'll see you ride
Your face is scarred with steel, wounds deep and neat
Like a double dozen before you, smell so sweet.
27 every one was nice, gotta see them,
Make them pay the price
See their bodies out on the ice, take my time
Am I evil, yes I am
Am I evil, I am man
I'll make my residence, I'll watch your fire
You can come with me, sweet desire
My face is long forgotten, my face not my own
Sweet and timely whore, take me home

It is a great song, I cannot apologise for being rock n roll.

 

[Famine]

The song does not simply suggest or imply, it states very clearly that man is evil by his very nature.

It would have been marginally more conducive to discussion had you said that you believe man is inherently evil rather than posting a pair of videos and expecting everyone to invest their time in working out the relevance.

As someone who has had children, it's odd to see you suggesting that they're born evil. I can't imagine anything less evil than a newborn.

 

[squadops]

@Famine, it is the innocence that we love so well 👍

 

[Famine]

Perhaps you guys need the words, I don't know;

No, not really. Song lyrics - just as music videos - are not really a substitute for critical thinking.

If you take your moral cues from music you end up saying daft and contradictory things, like how you believe that man is evil by his nature but newborns are innocent.

Either newborns are evil and man is inherently evil, or evil is a learned behaviour in man.