PDA

View Full Version : "FlaGator's Rules For Debate at The Conservative Underground !"



megimoo
04-03-2009, 10:53 AM
To Quote PoliCon :
"Some people like to watch the way the morally superior twitch and squirm when you lay into them with a string of very colorful innuendos and expletives. It has nothing what ever to do with their personal honesty or their ability to discuss or debate. And I resent the implications of your post."
..........................................
I have a feeling that FlaGator would take the level of these debate on these public boards to the formal level of a debating society .Perhaps we should use Roberts Rules of Good Order and follow English Parliamentary procedures in expressing our opinions ?Perhaps even having an open two thirds majority vote to decide the winner ?

For myself I much perfer the South Korean Parliamentary procedure with its rules 'Fists,Shoes,Office Furnature and whatever weapons you are able get past the metal detectors and into the chamber are allowed !

In fact America has a long tradition of emotional debating .

"May 22, 1856,The Caning of Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner

On May 22, 1856, the "world's greatest deliberative body" became a combat zone. In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate's entire history, a member of the House of Representatives entered the Senate chamber and savagely beat a senator into unconsciousness.
................................................
Sumner verbally attacked the authors of the Kansas-Nebraska Act , Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois
Sumner said Douglas (who was present in the chamber) was a "noisome, squat, and nameless animal...not a proper model for an American senator." He also portrayed Butler as having taken "a mistress who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean, the harlot, Slavery." Not content to leave his assault on a political level, Sumner's three-hour oration took a cruel, personal turn as he mocked the 59-year-old Butler's manner of speech and physical mannerisms, both of which were impaired by a stroke that Butler had suffered earlier.

Two days later, on the afternoon of May 22, Preston Brooks, a congressman from South Carolina and Butler's nephew, confronted Sumner as he sat writing at his desk in the almost empty Senate chamber. Brooks was accompanied by Laurence M. Keitt also of South Carolina and Henry A. Edmundson of Virginia, who took no part in the assault. Brooks said "Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine." As Sumner, who was six feet and four inches tall, began to stand up, Brooks began beating Sumner severely on the head with a thick gutta-percha cane with a gold head. Sumner was trapped under the heavy desk (which was bolted to the floor), but Brooks continued to bash Sumner until he ripped the desk from the floor. By this time, Sumner was blinded by his own blood, and he staggered up the aisle and collapsed, lapsing into unconsciousness. Brooks continued to beat Sumner until he broke his cane, then quietly left the chamber. Several other senators attempted to help Sumner, but were blocked by Keitt who was holding a pistol and shouting "Let them be!" {Brooks died in 1857; Keitt was censured for his actions and was later killed in 1864 during the Civil War as a Confederate Officer}.
...........................
Let the debates rage on in their present form.The use of any credible material and suspect material until it can be proved to be false (Snopes) .Any,lowdown, dirty,'sneaky,low rent ,uncivil trick is allowed and countered with the same.Attacks on a persons race(Blacks,Chinese,Japanese and a select other few) are forbidden .Jews and Catholic attacks are ok within reason .

PoliCon
04-03-2009, 11:02 AM
Since the other thread got closed before I could post an answer about what Christ would think of my posting the portrait of Hazlnut . . . .


FLAgator - do you forget that Christ was often in the habit of calling out the Pharisees and Sadducees? That he frequently called them vipers and even satan?

Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Matthew 12:34
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Matthew 23:33
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Luke 3:7
Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Matthew 4:10
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Matthew 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Mark 8:33
But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

Luke 4:8
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

FeebMaster
04-03-2009, 11:05 AM
Politics just isn't what it used to be in the US. :(

PoliCon
04-03-2009, 11:10 AM
Politics just isn't what it used to be in the US. :(

in which way do you mean?

Gingersnap
04-03-2009, 11:15 AM
Do we need another Dome thread? Just askin' :p

PoliCon
04-03-2009, 11:16 AM
Do we need another Dome thread? Just askin' :p

Yea - you and me and the bossy boots! :p

FeebMaster
04-03-2009, 11:18 AM
in which way do you mean?

Not enough fisticuffs or canings these days.

PoliCon
04-03-2009, 11:18 AM
Not enough fisticuffs or canings.
AH! But that would require politicians that actually believed in something other than themselves and their own power. :rolleyes:

Gingersnap
04-03-2009, 11:20 AM
Yea - you and me and the bossy boots! :p

Maybe later - if you're a good boy. :D

PoliCon
04-03-2009, 11:23 AM
Maybe later - if you're a good boy. :D

but I'm not. I'm a BAD BOY! a VERY VERY bad boy!!:cool:

Gingersnap
04-03-2009, 11:29 AM
but I'm not. I'm a BAD BOY! a VERY VERY bad boy!!:cool:

*examines buggy whip*

How unfortunate for you.

*replaces buggy whip and unrolls fire hose*




:D

PoliCon
04-03-2009, 11:37 AM
*examines buggy whip*

How unfortunate for you.

*replaces buggy whip and unrolls fire hose*




:D
You are evil aren't ya! :D

hazlnut
04-03-2009, 01:48 PM
Since the other thread got closed before I could post an answer about what Christ would think of my posting the portrait of Hazlnut . . . .


FLAgator - do you forget that Christ was often in the habit of calling out the Pharisees and Sadducees? That he frequently called them vipers and even satan?


So... Let me understand, you see yourself as who exactly... in in this scenario?

Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool than of him.
Proverbs 26:12

megimoo
04-03-2009, 01:54 PM
So... Let me understand, you see yourself as who exactly... in in this scenario?

Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool than of him.
Proverbs 26:12
See, even the demon knows scripture .
Hey PollyMorph I think she means it's enema time with the fire hose !

megimoo
04-03-2009, 02:02 PM
*examines buggy whip*

How unfortunate for you.

*replaces buggy whip and unrolls fire hose*




:DCall his bluff Snapper,he'd faint in erotic asphyxiation if he saw you in your chains and red leather Torsolette !

PoliCon
04-03-2009, 05:14 PM
So... Let me understand, you see yourself as who exactly... in in this scenario?

Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool than of him.
Proverbs 26:12

rotfl - and how do you figure that that applies? I'm not Christ nor do I claim to be comparable to him. Just pointing out that I am well within his example calling a troll a troll.

PoliCon
04-03-2009, 05:15 PM
See, even the demon knows scripture .
Hey PollyMorph I think she means it's enema time with the fire hose !

OH NO. NO ENEMAS!! :eek:

PoliCon
04-03-2009, 05:18 PM
Call his bluff Snapper,he'd faint in erotic asphyxiation if he saw you in your chains and red leather Torsolette !

Faint? NAH! I see it all the time on the wife. :) ALTHOUGH my favorite outfit are the black thigh high boots and the short plaid skirt with the crisp white button down shirt tied at the navel . . . . . . . I think we're going to have to get out the flagellum tonight :cool:

hazlnut
04-03-2009, 07:52 PM
rotfl - and how do you figure that that applies? I'm not Christ nor do I claim to be comparable to him. Just pointing out that I am well within his example calling a troll a troll.

Thank you for making my point.

Nice effort on the dome challenge - btw -

FlaGator
04-03-2009, 08:20 PM
Since the other thread got closed before I could post an answer about what Christ would think of my posting the portrait of Hazlnut . . . .


FLAgator - do you forget that Christ was often in the habit of calling out the Pharisees and Sadducees? That he frequently called them vipers and even satan?

Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Matthew 12:34
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Matthew 23:33
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Luke 3:7
Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Matthew 4:10
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Matthew 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Mark 8:33
But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

Luke 4:8
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

But you are not Christ and you do not know what is in the human heart. Christ's advice to us imperfect sinners:

Matthew 5:39
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Mathew 10:16
I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

Matthew 15:11
What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ ”

Luke 6:35
But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

Luke 6:45
The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.

The Apostle Paul tells us
Ephesians 4:29
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

From Christ's Brother James
James 1:26
If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.

James 3:5-6
Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. Read

James 3:8-9
but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness.

Finally the Apostle Peter
1 Peter 3:18
For, “Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech."

FlaGator
04-03-2009, 08:25 PM
[QUOTE=FlaGator;127379]But you are not Christ and you do not know what is in the human heart. Christ's advice to us imperfect sinners:

Matthew 5:39
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Mathew 10:16
I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

Matthew 15:11
What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ ”

Luke 6:35
But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

Luke 6:45
The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.

The Apostle Paul tells us
Ephesians 4:29
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

Ephesians 5:4
Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

From Christ's Brother James
James 1:26
If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.

James 3:5-6
Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. Read

James 3:8-9
but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness.

Finally the Apostle Peter

1 Peter 3:10
For, “Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech.

QUOTE]

PoliCon
04-03-2009, 08:41 PM
[QUOTE=FlaGator;127379]But you are not Christ and you do not know what is in the human heart. Christ's advice to us imperfect sinners: No I do not - All I have to go on is their own words and actions. That being said - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck - you're pretty safe calling it a duck.


Matthew 5:39
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.It's so very sad how misunderstood and mistranslated this passage of scripture is. :(


Mathew 10:16
I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Don't forget that snakes bite.


Matthew 15:11
What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ ” and what is more unclean than lies and leftism?


Luke 6:35
But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. yes - MY enemies. MINE. Believe me - hazlnut is not worthy of making that list by a long shot. He's an amusement. Something fun to poke. :)


Luke 6:45
The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks. Well brother - pray that some day I may be perfect enough that everything in my heart and from my mouth will be all rainbows and unicorns.


The Apostle Paul tells us
Ephesians 4:29
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.And the need here is for a troll to be exposed and laid bare so that others do not follow into leftism . . . . or is it perdition . . . I so often get the two confuse being so similar and all . . . .


Ephesians 5:4
Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.
Paul really was an uptight old gaffer wasn't he . . . . Of course - the people he was talking to were weak people who had come out of sin and were falling back into it rather frequently . . . . so that puts a different light on what he said. Since what he said is for those who are weak.

From Christ's Brother James
James 1:26
If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. you do realize that my tongue has naught at all to do with what is discussed here right? I have not SAID a single word. My TONGUE is fully bridled. :p Same applies for all the rest of what you posted as well. :p

FlaGator
04-03-2009, 08:52 PM
Some how, I knew you would find a way to justify yourself. That is why it is pointless to discuss things with you. You start from the assumption that you are never wrong and never entertain the possibility that you you might be.

PoliCon
04-03-2009, 09:03 PM
Some how, I knew you would find a way to justify yourself. That is why it is pointless to discuss things with you. You start from the assumption that you are never wrong and never entertain the possibility that you you might be.Oh bullshit. :p I'm more than willing to admit I am wrong - on those rare occasions when that happens to be the case. But I'm fully capable of not taking myself so seriously that I become a stumbling block to someone. Getting all caught up in these appearances issues neglecting the substance issues is where the unbeliever is fully justified in attacking Christianity. Holiness is not in walking around pretending that life and everything is all sunshine and lollipops - or all hearts and flowers. Have you read the old testament?? Do a character study on Abraham or on Elijah - or even Moses or King David. Get to know them. Look at them and tell me if they were fine prime and proper - always speaking kind words. Don't chase an illusion gator.

FlaGator
04-03-2009, 11:20 PM
Oh bullshit. :p I'm more than willing to admit I am wrong - on those rare occasions when that happens to be the case. But I'm fully capable of not taking myself so seriously that I become a stumbling block to someone. Getting all caught up in these appearances issues neglecting the substance issues is where the unbeliever is fully justified in attacking Christianity. Holiness is not in walking around pretending that life and everything is all sunshine and lollipops - or all hearts and flowers. Have you read the old testament?? Do a character study on Abraham or on Elijah - or even Moses or King David. Get to know them. Look at them and tell me if they were fine prime and proper - always speaking kind words. Don't chase an illusion gator.

Now you are advising me on my spirituality... interesting. Do you realize how often you say things like "Have you read..." or "Have you seen..." or "Have you heard..." like you are the only one privy to some information or understand it correctly. For example: "Have you read the old testament??".

As for not getting caught up in appearances, as I said before you operate from the position that you are not wrong and that is solely for appearences. As proof of this your own words testify:
"I'm more than willing to admit I am wrong - on those rare occasions when that happens to be the case."

You are argumentative and abusive to those people who disagree with you and you insult them with comments like "Have you read..." when it is obvious they have been exposed to the material. Since you must be aware that I have read the Old Testament, we've discussed it in the past, then you must be attempting an underhanded way of questioning my understanding of it.

You are arrogant and are unable to admit that you are wrong even when facts are given to you that dispute your position. Remember the discussion on business execs having to fly on private planes? I disputed that with first hand knowledge and just like the post earlier in this thread, instead of giving credit for providing you with a better understanding, you justified your original statement.

Earlier in this thread you said you were following the example of Christ but I pointed out that Jesus commanded us to behave differently. I gave you scripture in support of my position and instead of acknowledging that my position had merit you attempted to justify yours by questioning my understanding of Biblical principles. I read the Bible, I study what Jesus asked of his disciples and I try (and often poorly) to apply those principles to my life and live them. He asked us to be an example for unbelievers and to attempt to live a life that they will find attractive. At this too, I try and fail as often as I succeed, but the point is I try. I don't name call, I try to criticize the idea not te person and if they have criticism of me, then it is me that they find fault with and my failure at living up to my standards, but don't find fault with the standards them self.

Take this for what it is worth or discard it as useless if you choose. I will just add that I understand more than you realize and the Lord has lead me to a greater understanding of my faith through the writings of others than you might imagine.

FlaGator
04-04-2009, 12:55 AM
Poli, I apologize if I overstepped my bounds with you or passed judgment on your behavior. In my defense I take things seriously when I believe my faith or knowledge of my faith is being questioned. I figure that since I made my accusations public I should apologize in the same fashion. Please forgive my behavior.

Peace,
Gary

PoliCon
04-04-2009, 01:16 AM
Now you are advising me on my spirituality... interesting. Do you realize how often you say things like "Have you read..." or "Have you seen..." or "Have you heard..." like you are the only one privy to some information or understand it correctly. For example: "Have you read the old testament??". OY VEY. Learn to lighten up. I meant no offense by anything I said - and I apologize if you felt that I was insulting you. I ask because I want to make sure or in jest. If I wanted to insult you - I'd have no qualms what ever just coming flat out and doing so. I think that it was an insult offered to one Hazlnut that prompted this discussion . . . .


As for not getting caught up in appearances, as I said before you operate from the position that you are not wrong and that is solely for appearences. As proof of this your own words testify:
"I'm more than willing to admit I am wrong - on those rare occasions when that happens to be the case." Gator - I almost bit my tongue when I typed that it was so deep in my cheek. :rolleyes:


You are argumentative and abusive to those people who disagree with you and you insult them with comments like "Have you read..." when it is obvious they have been exposed to the material. Since you must be aware that I have read the Old Testament, we've discussed it in the past, then you must be attempting an underhanded way of questioning my understanding of it. I'm hurt that you think that my abilities to insult are so feeble! Okay geeze - I'm sorry if you felt I was being insulting.


You are arrogant and are unable to admit that you are wrong even when facts are given to you that dispute your position. Remember the discussion on business execs having to fly on private planes? I disputed that with first hand knowledge and just like the post earlier in this thread, instead of giving credit for providing you with a better understanding, you justified your original statement. I honestly don't remember disputing things after you offered your insight. ANYHOW I was merely going on what a GM exec told me. I assumed that he knew what he was talking about.


Earlier in this thread you said you were following the example of Christ Those wern't my exact words - but they're close enough.


but I pointed out that Jesus commanded us to behave differently. Differently? He was perfect. Without sin. To behave differently would be to embrace sin . . . . are you sure that that is what you want to be saying?
I gave you scripture in support of my position and instead of acknowledging that my position had merit you attempted to justify yours by questioning my understanding of Biblical principles. No I challenged your interpretations and the application of the scripture you quoted as I would with any of my seminary students.


I read the Bible, I study what Jesus asked of his disciples and I try (and often poorly) to apply those principles to my life and live them. He asked us to be an example for unbelievers and to attempt to live a life that they will find attractive. At this too, I try and fail as often as I succeed, but the point is I try. I never said otherwise. You would be a Christian if you didn't at least try. :)


I don't name call, I try to criticize the idea not te person and if they have criticism of me, then it is me that they find fault with and my failure at living up to my standards, but don't find fault with the standards them self.My dispute is not with your efforts - I dispute that the pius life of someone who never lets their hair down - is well - not exactly appealing. Look at Christ. He is our perfect example. He ate with sinners. He went to the sinners. He went to happening parties! AND while at one particularly happening party - when the host ran out of drinks - he turned water into wine! He preached and taught in public places to sinners as well as saints. He walked among the people. He did not hide in the temple or behind white washed walls. And when some troll came up on him and tried to trap him with trick questions and falsehoods - He called them on it.


Take this for what it is worth or discard it as useless if you choose. I will just add that I understand more than you realize and the Lord has lead me to a greater understanding of my faith through the writings of others than you might imagine. Good for you. Have you read the screwtape letters yet?

PoliCon
04-04-2009, 01:20 AM
Poli, I apologize if I overstepped my bounds with you or passed judgment on your behavior. In my defense I take things seriously when I believe my faith or knowledge of my faith is being questioned. I figure that since I made my accusations public I should apologize in the same fashion. Please forgive my behavior.

Peace,
Gary

Gary - I don't fault you for taking your faith seriously. How can I. I take mine very seriously as well - even though at times I joke and kid - and at others play the devils advocate. Not so many years ago - I was very much like you in my beliefs. You are young in the Lord - and as you grow -you will start to see something differently. I know I did. Where once I saw things only in terms of black or white - I have learned that they is much more gray to life than either black or white.

No offense taken.

FlaGator
04-04-2009, 07:47 AM
Gary - I don't fault you for taking your faith seriously. How can I. I take mine very seriously as well - even though at times I joke and kid - and at others play the devils advocate. Not so many years ago - I was very much like you in my beliefs. You are young in the Lord - and as you grow -you will start to see something differently. I know I did. Where once I saw things only in terms of black or white - I have learned that they is much more gray to life than either black or white.

No offense taken.

I sincerely hope not. You are right about things being gray so perhaps we should say that the world is other and white. To quote a character from a Terry Pratchett novel, "gray is just white that's dirty." in which case it is no long white, it is some where between black and white. What did Christ say about being middle of the road,

Revelation 3:16

So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

I will joke about a lot of things but I will not take faith and the God of Creation lightly. When it comes to being a representative of the Lord I will not be lukewarm. Since we are suppose to be light and salt for the world and we are in every facet of our lives representing the Lord then I don't think that there is any point where I can find non white acceptable. I may live in the gray but that doesn't mean I am to tolerate it and accept it in myself. At that point I am no longer being obedient to God's will.

PoliCon
04-04-2009, 09:07 AM
I sincerely hope not. You are right about things being gray so perhaps we should say that the world is other and white. To quote a character from a Terry Pratchett novel, "gray is just white that's dirty." in which case it is no long white, it is some where between black and white. What did Christ say about being middle of the road,

Revelation 3:16


I will joke about a lot of things but I will not take faith and the God of Creation lightly. When it comes to being a representative of the Lord I will not be lukewarm. Since we are suppose to be light and salt for the world and we are in every facet of our lives representing the Lord then I don't think that there is any point where I can find non white acceptable. I may live in the gray but that doesn't mean I am to tolerate it and accept it in myself. At that point I am no longer being obedient to God's will.Let me ask you a question - can you see in total darkness?

FlaGator
04-04-2009, 09:45 AM
Let me ask you a question - can you see in total darkness?

I now live in the light. I was once blind and and had the illusion of sight but even in my blindness there existed in the distance a dim light that was the Lord. There is no total darkness until the Lord sends us away and then your question will be moot.

Sophie
04-04-2009, 12:40 PM
Kind David said, "I hate the enemies of God with a perfect hate."

FlaGator
04-04-2009, 05:30 PM
Kind David said, "I hate the enemies of God with a perfect hate."

David, dispite his love of God, was an extremely flawed individual but God's love for him does give the rest of us flawed people hope.

PoliCon
04-04-2009, 11:51 PM
I now live in the light. I was once blind and and had the illusion of sight but even in my blindness there existed in the distance a dim light that was the Lord. There is no total darkness until the Lord sends us away and then your question will be moot.

Oh lord - can't you just answer a simple question? :p

PoliCon
04-04-2009, 11:51 PM
Kind David said, "I hate the enemies of God with a perfect hate."

Yes - but that's not something fundies can accept. ;)

FlaGator
04-05-2009, 07:07 AM
Oh lord - can't you just answer a simple question? :p

Not when I know the question and the answer you're looking for and the reply :D

Besides the answer is not simply one that is black or white

PoliCon
04-05-2009, 07:28 AM
Not when I know the question and the answer you're looking for and the reply :D

Besides the answer is not simply one that is black or white

The answer is one that is black or white. The Human eye cannot see in total darkness. We are not equipped for it. NEITHER can the human eye see in total light. We are not equipped for that either. We need the contract between light and darkness to be able to see.

gator
04-05-2009, 10:42 AM
Not enough fisticuffs or canings these days.

The good old days were not exactly that good. Trust me on that one.

megimoo
04-05-2009, 11:25 AM
The good old days were not exactly that good. Trust me on that one.

Don't tell me you are starting to 'mellow' ? Where's that backbone and instinct to go for the throat ?

FlaGator
04-06-2009, 06:19 AM
The answer is one that is black or white. The Human eye cannot see in total darkness. We are not equipped for it. NEITHER can the human eye see in total light. We are not equipped for that either. We need the contract between light and darkness to be able to see.

That was way I didn't answer, I'm familiar with that analogy. The analogy is not apt to the situation because God may have not equiped us to see in total darkness or total white but he did equip us to know right from wrong. You stated earlier that you followed Jesus' example. Did not Jesus tell us to discern right from wrong? Did he not say that you are either from me or you are against me. He did not say you can be for me sort of. We need to be aware that things are black and white, that is true. If we only know one we can't conceive of the other. However, that which is tainted is no longer white and in need of spiritual bleach.

PoliCon
04-06-2009, 10:25 AM
That was way I didn't answer, I'm familiar with that analogy. The analogy is not apt to the situation because God may have not equiped us to see in total darkness or total white but he did equip us to know right from wrong. You stated earlier that you followed Jesus' example. Did not Jesus tell us to discern right from wrong? Did he not say that you are either from me or you are against me. He did not say you can be for me sort of. We need to be aware that things are black and white, that is true. If we only know one we can't conceive of the other. However, that which is tainted is no longer white and in need of spiritual bleach.

How do you know right from wrong without being able to see both sides of the choice? People all the time do things that are "sinful" and are completely ignorant of the sin they are committing. Prime example - it's a sin to lay a stumbling block before a brother. But if you do not know that brother - you could not necessarily know that you have laid a stumbling block for them. For some people a physical show of affection is a stumbling block. You have no intent to offend or to hurt them - but for some people - physical contact is not something they can handle - which is often the case with rape victims. But if you don't know that - you're guilty of a sin without the intent or the knowledge.

And as for Christ and discerning right from wrong - Mark 9:40.

FlaGator
04-06-2009, 11:12 AM
How do you know right from wrong without being able to see both sides of the choice? People all the time do things that are "sinful" and are completely ignorant of the sin they are committing. Prime example - it's a sin to lay a stumbling block before a brother. But if you do not know that brother - you could not necessarily know that you have laid a stumbling block for them. For some people a physical show of affection is a stumbling block. You have no intent to offend or to hurt them - but for some people - physical contact is not something they can handle - which is often the case with rape victims. But if you don't know that - you're guilty of a sin without the intent or the knowledge.

And as for Christ and discerning right from wrong - Mark 9:40.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I did say that there is both black and white and you need one to discern the other. On that point I feel we are in agreement. What I was disagreeing with, and perhaps I was misunderstanding you, was that I don't acknowledge that gray area's are acceptable states. I know that they are impossible to avoid (we being fallen beings and all) but that we should always be striving from the white. If white being what is right and black being what is wrong the grey is aways wrong, just to a lesser degree than black. Think of the old saying about a half truth, a half truth is a whole lie.

As for your example of sinning without knowing it, I will disagree with that. Christ spoke to us of intent. If I didn't intend to put up a stumbling block before another then I have not sinned. For example if I hug a person with the intent to comfort them and it bothers them then I didn't sin because I didn't know. But, for example, if I knew or suspected that the person might have issues with being hugged because of his ethnicity and I hugged him anyways, then yes I am guilty of sin because I did something that I suspected was improper.

The Sermon on the Mount is all about showing that the spirit of the law was as important as the letter of the law. Lust is the same as adultry and hate is the same as murder, so wouldn't my heart felt intention of compassion be love as long as I didn't know that my display of compassion was hurtful?

Paul tells us that if we do something that causes a brother sin then we have sinned. If I eat food sacrificed to an idol and I know that my brother believes that one should not eat food sacrificed to an idol but eats it because I have then I have lead him to sin and in doing so sinned my self. The eating of the food isn't sinful, it is the intention behind it. If I believe something is sinful whether it is truly sinful or not and I do that thing then I have done so and wilfully rebelled against God believing that I was wilfully sinning. (1 Corinthians 8:1-13 )

PoliCon
04-06-2009, 06:02 PM
What I was disagreeing with, and perhaps I was misunderstanding you, was that I don't acknowledge that gray area's are acceptable states. I know that they are impossible to avoid (we being fallen beings and all) but that we should always be striving from the white.But since you admit that we are fallen beings - all we can ever achieve are states of gray. :) But that's not the point I was making.


If white being what is right and black being what is wrong the grey is aways wrong, just to a lesser degree than black. Think of the old saying about a half truth, a half truth is a whole lie. You're looking at this backwards.It cannot snuff or overpower the light. Black is merely the lack of light. Blackness only increase to the degree that the light recedes. SO - gray is not less wrong - it is less RIGHT.


As for your example of sinning without knowing it, I will disagree with that. Christ spoke to us of intent. If I didn't intend to put up a stumbling block before another then I have not sinned. For example if I hug a person with the intent to comfort them and it bothers them then I didn't sin because I didn't know. But, for example, if I knew or suspected that the person might have issues with being hugged because of his ethnicity and I hugged him anyways, then yes I am guilty of sin because I did something that I suspected was improper.Then intent must be true of all sins then. Is that what you want to say? That it's only intent that makes something a sin? If I didn't intend to steal - it's not a sin. If I did not intend to covet - it's not a sin . . . .

Don't get me wrong - I do believe that intent is often the key between an action being a sin or not a sin - but there are times when something is a sin whether we intend for it to be a sin or not.

FlaGator
04-06-2009, 07:05 PM
B ut since you admit that we are fallen beings - all we can ever achieve are states of gray. :) But that's not the point I was making.

You're looking at this backwards.It cannot snuff or overpower the light. Black is merely the lack of light. Blackness only increase to the degree that the light recedes. SO - gray is not less wrong - it is less RIGHT. Then intent must be true of all sins then. Is that what you want to say? That it's only intent that makes something a sin? If I didn't intend to steal - it's not a sin. If I did not intend to covet - it's not a sin . . . .


Anything less than right is wrong.Whether you it say less white or more black what it really is, is not white. For example, you have a perfect mirror and it develops a flaw, it is no longer perfect. it may be useful but you can't say it is perfect. It is imperfect no matter the degree of being flawed.



Don't get me wrong - I do believe that intent is often the key between an action being a sin or not a sin - but there are times when something is a sin whether we intend for it to be a sin or not.

That is true... we are in agreement on that. Let me ask, how do you define sin?

megimoo
04-06-2009, 07:14 PM
Anything less than right is wrong.Whether you it say less white or more black what it really is, is not white. For example, you have a perfect mirror and it develops a flaw, it is no longer perfect. it may be useful but you can't say it is perfect. It is imperfect no matter the degree of being flawed.



That is true... we are in agreement on that. Let me ask, how do you define sin?Something against the will of GOD !

PoliCon
04-06-2009, 09:46 PM
Anything less than right is wrong. For example, you have a perfect mirror and it develops a flaw, it is no longer perfect. it may be useful but you can't say it is perfect. It is imperfect no matter the degree of being flawed.



LOL - There is right - and then there is really right. Right is that this is an internet bulletin board. Really right is that this is www.conservativeunderground.com an internet bulletin board - but even that does not fully describe this "place." So does that make either wrong? Lacking the perfect definition of what CU is does not make any definition of CU wrong unless that definition is contrary to the reality of UC. It's pretty must along the lines of the whole concept of denominationalism. More than one of us can be right with being in total agreement. Lots of Gray right there. :)




That is true... we are in agreement on that. Let me ask, how do you define sin?Sin is that which separates us from God.


Whether you it say less white or more black what it really is, is not white.I pulled this out of context because I want to deal with this separately from the rest of what was said above. Darkness is not a thing - it is a LACK of a thing. Darkness was not created. Darkness was a side effect to light. Take away light - and you have darkness. The degree of darkness is inversely proportional to the amount of light present. You cannot make something more dark - you can only make it less light - physically speaking.

PoliCon
04-06-2009, 09:48 PM
Something against the will of GOD !

Lots of things are against the will of God without being sins. The will of God is for all men to be saved. Does that make it a sin for us not to all be saved? And if so - who's? I mean after all - God alone can save us . . . .

FlaGator
04-06-2009, 10:18 PM
LOL - There is right - and then there is really right. Right is that this is an internet bulletin board. Really right is that this is www.conservativeunderground.com an internet bulletin board - but even that does not fully describe this "place." So does that make either wrong? Lacking the perfect definition of what CU is does not make any definition of CU wrong unless that definition is contrary to the reality of UC. It's pretty must along the lines of the whole concept of denominationalism. More than one of us can be right with being in total agreement. Lots of Gray right there. :)


Sin is that which separates us from God.

I pulled this out of context because I want to deal with this separately from the rest of what was said above. Darkness is not a thing - it is a LACK of a thing. Darkness was not created. Darkness was a side effect to light. Take away light - and you have darkness. The degree of darkness is inversely proportional to the amount of light present. You cannot make something more dark - you can only make it less light - physically speaking.

If darkness represents evil are you saying that evil is not a thing? Is evil merely the absence of good? You are using the old 'lack of something' metaphor that has been around for a hundreds of years like cold is the absence of heat but it is irrelevent to our current discussion and I'll explain why in a moment. My point is there are not degrees of right. Something is either right (white) or it is wrong (anything other than white).

Your definition of sin is to vague and that is what maybe confusing the issue. Sin is defiance of God's will. It does happen to separate us from God but that is an effect not a definition. Adam didn't separate from God, he defied God's will. Working from that point of reference how do you'sort of' defy God's will? You either obey God or you don't. It really is just that simple. It doesn't matter if the wrong is black or gray or dark or dim, it is still wrong.

Light and dark don't fit the discussion and you are trying to force them in to a topic where the analogy is not apt. The light and dark analogy fits best when someone is making the argument that God does not exist or there is no absolute right or wrong (moral relativity). It does not, however, represent properly the situation where we both agree that there is right and wrong. If I understand you right, you are saying that there are degrees of right and wrong and I am say that there are degree of wrong but right is absolute and if something isn't right then it is wrong.

FlaGator
04-06-2009, 10:26 PM
Lots of things are against the will of God without being sins. The will of God is for all men to be saved. Does that make it a sin for us not to all be saved? And if so - who's? I mean after all - God alone can save us . . . .

That is absolutely incorrect. You are using one of three possible definitions of the word will. In the case you cited God's will means what he would like to be. It is not a command, it is a desire. He desires for all men to be saved. Then there God's will that is absolute. God willed creation into existence. This form of will has no chance of not occuring. Finally there is God's will that is His command to his creatures. You shall not kill. Do not eat of the Tree of Knowledge. These are commands can be defied and that is the will we are using as to the nature of sin.

PoliCon
04-06-2009, 11:20 PM
If darkness represents evil are you saying that evil is not a thing? Is evil merely the absence of good? You are using the old 'lack of something' metaphor that has been around for a hundreds of years like cold is the absence of heat but it is irrelevent to our current discussion and I'll explain why in a moment. My point is there are not degrees of right. Something is either right (white) or it is wrong (anything other than white).
If there are no degrees of right - explain what Christ said to His mother at the wedding of Cannan.


Your definition of sin is to vague and that is what maybe confusing the issue. Sin is defiance of God's will. It does happen to separate us from God but that is an effect not a definition. Adam didn't separate from God, he defied God's will. Working from that point of reference how do you'sort of' defy God's will? You either obey God or you don't. It really is just that simple. It doesn't matter if the wrong is black or gray or dark or dim, it is still wrong. Nope. My definition of sin is right on the money. :p Otherwise God is a sinner since his will is that all men be saved - according to scripture and we both know that there are people who will not be saved. THEREFOR - by your reasoning - God is in defiance of His own will since He will not save those who do not repent.


Light and dark don't fit the discussion and you are trying to force them in to a topic where the analogy is not apt. The light and dark analogy fits best when someone is making the argument that God does not exist or there is no absolute right or wrong (moral relativity). It does not, however, represent properly the situation where we both agree that there is right and wrong. If I understand you right, you are saying that there are degrees of right and wrong and I am say that there are degree of wrong but right is absolute and if something isn't right then it is wrong.NOTHING save God is absolute. I really suggest that you read the screwtape letters. :)

PoliCon
04-06-2009, 11:24 PM
That is absolutely incorrect. You are using one of three possible definitions of the word will. In the case you cited God's will means what he would like to be. It is not a command, it is a desire. He desires for all men to be saved. Then there God's will that is absolute. God willed creation into existence. This form of will has no chance of not occuring. Finally there is God's will that is His command to his creatures. You shall not kill. Do not eat of the Tree of Knowledge. These are commands can be defied and that is the will we are using as to the nature of sin.

God's every desire is mitzvah - a command - and all mitzvah are his will.

FlaGator
04-06-2009, 11:57 PM
If there are no degrees of right - explain what Christ said to His mother at the wedding of Cannan.
Nope. My definition of sin is right on the money. :p Otherwise God is a sinner since his will is that all men be saved - according to scripture and we both know that there are people who will not be saved. THEREFOR - by your reasoning - God is in defiance of His own will since He will not save those who do not repent.
NOTHING save God is absolute. I really suggest that you read the screwtape letters. :)

What Jesus sasd to his mother at Cana?


On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee.a Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”


“Dear woman, why do you involve me?”d Jesus replied. “My time has not yet come.”


What am I suppose to be explaining?

Your definition of sin is not a definition. It is an effect of sin. Also your logic is poor. God is not in defiance of his own will, I explained in another post that there are 3 definition (at lest) of will. You are applying one to all three situations.

There you go with that I wish you should read stuff. I have read the Screwtape Letters. You make a lot of assumptions about other peoples faith and their exposure to Christian writtings. Of the C.S. Lewis writings I have read Mere Christianity, The Great Divorce, A Grief Observed, The Screwtape Letters (and I've listened to the John Clease readings), Reflections on the Psalms, The Weight of Glory, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, Surprised by Joy, The Abolition of Man and The Four Loves. Would you like me to list the R.C. Spourl, J.I. Packer, Jonathan Edwards, John Owens, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Blaise Pascal, Ignatious of Loyola, John of the Cross, Desiderious Erasmus writings I've read? That just scratches the surface but I think you get the point. I am very well versed in the subject we are discussion which is why my Priest is recommanding me to go to Seminary and study Theology. It has been my passion for 2 1/2 years.

FlaGator
04-07-2009, 12:01 AM
God's every desire is mitzvah - a command - and all mitzvah are his will.

We are working in English. Hebrew may have three differnent words where English uses one word with three defintions. I suppose you will argue this too.

PoliCon
04-07-2009, 12:23 AM
What Jesus sasd to his mother at Cana? WOMAN, DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT IT IS NOT YET MY TIME. So - since he performed the miracle anyhow - either there are degrees of right and degrees of His will or He lied.

PoliCon
04-07-2009, 12:24 AM
We are working in English. Hebrew may have three differnent words where English uses one word with three defintions. I suppose you will argue this too.

When understanding scripture - you need to look at it in the original languages.

FlaGator
04-07-2009, 12:26 AM
WOMAN, DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT IT IS NOT YET MY TIME. So - since he performed the miracle anyhow - either there are degrees of right and degrees of His will or He lied.

Man that is a stretch and has nothing to do with the topic.

Ok, your always right and I am wrong. I will remember that in the future it will save us both a lot of wasted time.

PoliCon
04-07-2009, 12:37 AM
Man that is a stretch and has nothing to do with the topic.

Ok, your always right and I am wrong. I will remember that in the future it will save us both a lot of wasted time.

It has everything to do with the topic. You said there are no degrees of right - no degrees of God's will and I'm saying that Scripture demonstrates otherwise. We both know that God is not a lair. So when Christ said - woman it's not yet my time - he was telling the truth. Did 2 minutes later when he performed the miracle suddenly become His time? Or did He do what she requested because there are degrees to right - and to his will?