A wife Led Marriage

[kronus]

mocking people and discrimination are very, very different. Don't cheapen one by comparing it to the other.

[cale]

^That has nothing to do with it. There is no picking and choosing. It's an "old deal" to "new deal" type of situation, all the rules(The Law) for the old generations no longer apply, now it's One rule, not all sorts of "Laws". The old stuff is an example of how impossible the old "Law" was, and why Jesus came, to fulfill the otherwise impossible laws. So now the only rule is believing in Him.

Care to explain Matthew 5:17 then? There's reason it is still central to the debate as to whether or not OT law still holds true. If you can read this and claim there is no uncertainty, then you're being dishonest.

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18For truly I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one stroke or one pronunciation mark shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. …

[Thizzelle]

You guys need to stop putting the pu$$y on a pedestal.

I have a good friend who constantly puts the pu$$y on a pedestal, and it has led to one terrible relationship after another. I keep telling him to man up, but no matter what I or other friends say, he always becomes the "women" on the relationship. I think some guys just don't have the balls to control a relationship.

How did this thread become about religion anyways, who the waffleswaffleswaffleswaffles goes to church still??

it's dudes who don't know how to talk to women. Also only people I know that go to church is 1 grandma and my mormon friend. Had to wait outside one time because I'm not allowed in a temple, it was fine by me I was in waffleswaffleswaffleswafflesing Hawaii and just walked around taking dope pictures.

[nando]

I never stated such claims, nor is it right for your to force feed me an answer. Mockery gets you very little respect in the subject of debate. All I gave was my opinion and statement of facts as I have found them to be true. Unless you have any substantial evidence against me, you have no argument


Unless of course... Youre only here to publically mock me for my beliefs.. Which is.. Wait a minute! Discrimination?

discrimination? mockery?

you make a mockery of yourself, because you're claiming what is in the bible as fact. the only proof you have is because it's in the bible. it doesn't exactly give a date in there, either.. you made the claim without any way to prove it, not me.

there is plenty of proof that the earth is a lot older than 5000 years and that modern humans have been around for tens of thousands of years.

I don't care if you want to believe in god or not but it *always* gets rammed down the throats of those who do not. It's sad that we're still arguing about this over 200 years after the founding fathers laid down a hard rule of the separation of church and state.

[Cletonius]

But....the bible is filled with true stories.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Care to explain Matthew 5:17 then? There's reason it is still central to the debate as to whether or not OT law still holds true. If you can read this and claim there is no uncertainty, then you're being dishonest.

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18For truly I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one stroke or one pronunciation mark shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. …

ful·fill
/fo͝olˈfil/
Verb
Bring to completion or reality; achieve or realize (something desired, promised, or predicted).
Gain happiness or satisfaction by fully developing one's abilities or character.
Synonyms
fulfil - accomplish - carry out - perform - execute

I think you are focused on the wrong focal point of that passage. Once He fulfills it, it is completed, and move right along to the next 'deal'. What you quoted is prior to his fulfillment of the law. So, yes, He would refer to the present to Him state of the law still needing to be 'completed'.

Examples in other translations...

New Living Translation (©2007)
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Do not think that I have come to revoke The Written Law or The Prophets; I am not come to revoke but to fulfill.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"Don't ever think that I came to set aside Moses' Teachings or the Prophets. I didn't come to set them aside but to make them come true.

Weymouth New Testament
"Do not for a moment suppose that I have come to abrogate the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abrogate them but to give them their completion.

[BraveUlysses]

discrimination? mockery?

you make a mockery of yourself, because you're claiming what is in the bible as fact. the only proof you have is because it's in the bible. it doesn't exactly give a date in there, either.. you made the claim without any way to prove it, not me.

there is plenty of proof that the earth is a lot older than 5000 years and that modern humans have been around for tens of thousands of years.

I don't care if you want to believe in god or not but it *always* gets rammed down the throats of those who do not. It's sad that we're still arguing about this over 200 years after the founding fathers laid down a hard rule of the separation of church and state.

If you read his original statement literally, he only states that the story of adam and eve was created ~3800BC.

[bimma360]

Care to explain Matthew 5:17 then? There's reason it is still central to the debate as to whether or not OT law still holds true. If you can read this and claim there is no uncertainty, then you're being dishonest.

But you only quote the first few verses. If you continue to read the rest of that passage it describes the "law" as that of the Law of Moses (think 10 commandments) and not the entire OT as a whole.

Christianity isn't about "Believe in Jesus and do whatever you want."

The overall idea of the Christian faith is fairly simple. There is a God, the only way for you to be worthy to be in his presence after death is to be perfect. In the OT there were laws to follow to achieve that and sacrifices were made for the times those laws were broken. But as it turns out, we are not perfect and no amount of sacrifice we could offer would make us worthy. So one ultimate sacrifice was given, Jesus, for us by God. He was the perfect sacrifice to make us worthy of his presence. Without diving into the details any further. The only prerequisite to being worthy of God's presence after death is that you believe in who Jesus was, and why his sacrifice was important. The rest is about your personal relationship with God, based on faith and hope.

The NT is about Jesus and his teachings (including all of Matthew 5), and is what Christianity spawns from.

This Christian faith, is really no different than the faith of any other type in the sense that there is a God or some sort of overall enlightenment or nirvana, and there are ways (written in old books) to get to him or those overall states of being.

And hey faith wouldn't be meaningful, if it is not challenged by individuals or events in one's own life. Just like anything else in the world, faith is what you make of it.

Cale, I am curious, and I am really not trying to elude to anything although it can come across that way. I know there have been plenty of threads on this forum about Islam (perhaps Hinduism or Budhism), where certain individuals have expressed pretty bold opinions on that religion. I take you to be against religion as a whole, which is fine... do your thing. I am only assuming you must have participated in those threads, and am curious what your responses must have been. I'd like to think, based on your responses here that you quoted the Quran to depict it in the same light as you depict the Christian faith here. I am just curious if your actions follow your view (assuming you are against all religion in general). Do you try to challenge the doctrine of every religion that is mentioned in your presence, or do you have favorites?

[bimma360]

hahahahahaha! seriously?

so, how old is the Earth again? roughly 5000 years, right? :|



I'm sorry your life as a man sucks so much but that doesn't mean it does for the rest of us..

But... he didn't start this thread, and as far as I am aware I don't think he was complaining about his own personal marriage like in the OP. Was that last statement warranted?

I never stated such claims, nor is it right for your to force feed me an answer. Mockery gets you very little respect in the subject of debate. All I gave was my opinion and statement of facts as I have found them to be true. Unless you have any substantial evidence against me, you have no argument


Unless of course... Youre only here to publically mock me for my beliefs.. Which is.. Wait a minute! Discrimination?

discrimination? mockery?

you make a mockery of yourself, because you're claiming what is in the bible as fact. the only proof you have is because it's in the bible. it doesn't exactly give a date in there, either.. you made the claim without any way to prove it, not me.

there is plenty of proof that the earth is a lot older than 5000 years and that modern humans have been around for tens of thousands of years.

I don't care if you want to believe in god or not but it *always* gets rammed down the throats of those who do not. It's sad that we're still arguing about this over 200 years after the founding fathers laid down a hard rule of the separation of church and state.

Well considering how the topic of creation was brought in by you, and the way that you did it. It looks to be mocking in nature.

There is also a good bit of historical fact, in the timeline of when these stories first came to be.

In your last statement. I don't understand the separation of church and state remark. Has this thread been a discussion of law and the involvement of religion, or are you just making a statement in general?

Also, I agree with you... I hate when people try to force their faith on others. But it goes both ways too. This thread is a good example I think. Also, I read what you wrote about your family. I think its great... good for you guys. I'm sure at one point in your life someone has tried to ram God down your throats, in the same sense that i've had people call me an idiot for being a Christian. Both things are in and of the same thing. We aren't so different, we both believe what we believe. Should I view you as one of those people that is intolerant of my beliefs b/c you don't believe in God like the people that have mocked me for my beliefs?

Frankly, I really don't see this thread as people trying to ram God down peoples throats. In fact, its mostly a few individuals expressing their beliefs and others trying to discredit them in reflection of their own beliefs.

If you read his original statement literally, he only states that the story of adam and eve was created ~3800BC.

Thats what I thought too.

[JinormusJ]

^^^^^^^^^^^^



Nando, I think we're similar aswell; you can even see in my very FIRST post on this topic, I even stated I wasn't here to "convert", or preach, or shove God down people's throats, I was simply stating my beliefs, made mention to the Word, and then people blew it all up out of proportions and started fighting with me, at which point I defended my personal belief systems. Frankly I denounced bible-badgers and turn-or-burners; American "Christianity" which is just another ponzy scheme for businessment to cash in on the cash-cow

I really don't think you can blame me, unless of course, I came in pretentious on picking a fight, which I didn't, and even stated that during my first post.


It's MY opinion, it's MY personal skier; if you want to see the logic in it, fine, if not; your free to believe what you want

I think this is the third time I am posting this in this very thread, but it'll be no skin off my nose

[eur04lif3]

I don't believe in God nor does the wife.

So why do we give money to charity, donate our time for community dinners for the less fortunate, etc?

Like marriage, being a good person existed before religion.

Ok, so you believe in good deeds. So in other words you strive to be a "good person".

What do you think motivates you to be a good person? Better yet, what do you think motivates others to do evil?

There must be some sort of moral law, would you agree? Something that would differentiate between good and evil. There must be a Creator of this moral law. Also, leads me to believe that there must be two different forces in the world. Forces of good and forces of evil. Both the actions of good and the actions of evil cannot come from same source...

That is something that science cannot prove, and as Dawson put it..."that we're dancing to our own DNA" also makes no sense. Reason being, we make choices to do good or evil. Which leads me to ask, what influences us to make those decisions?

[kronus]

ok. I'm going to try this.

Ok, so you believe in good deeds. So in other words you strive to be a "good person".

What do you think motivates you to be a good person? Better yet, what do you think motivates others to do evil?

"good": personal gain. "being a good person" as a personal trait puts you in a favorable position, presumably leading to other people doing good things for you because they expect you to continue being a "good person" to them as a result.

"evil": personal gain. "doing evil" generally gets you something in return.

I've strategically placed air quotes around concepts created by people.

It's also interesting that you say "be a good person," but "do evil". What happened to "do good things" and "be an evil person"?

There must be some sort of moral law, would you agree? Something that would differentiate between good and evil.

no, not really. "good" and "evil" are social constructs. is honor killing good or evil? It's extremely context-dependent..

There must be a Creator of this moral law.

spoiler: it's people.

Also, leads me to believe that there must be two different forces in the world. Forces of good and forces of evil. Both the actions of good and the actions of evil cannot come from same source...

I have no idea what this means. Can you provide any logical justification for what "forces" are, or why there are exactly two of them? Why can't they come from the same source?

That is something that science cannot prove, and as Dawson put it..."that we're dancing to our own DNA" also makes no sense.

if something makes no sense to you, it doesn't mean science can't prove it. it means you don't understand it.

Reason being, we make choices to do good or evil. Which leads me to ask, what influences us to make those decisions?

Did you put clothes on this morning before you went outside? What influenced you to make that decision?

[Wh33lhop]

There must be some sort of moral law, would you agree? Something that would differentiate between good and evil. There must be a Creator of this moral law. Also, leads me to believe that there must be two different forces in the world. Forces of good and forces of evil. Both the actions of good and the actions of evil cannot come from same source...

Sigh... It's like you are just making shit up as you go along.

I don't even have anything consctructive to say here. I am just in disbelief sometimes.

[cale]

Do you try to challenge the doctrine of every religion that is mentioned in your presence, or do you have favorites?

I disagree with the fundamental premise of any and all religions. They all possess the same central theme of a deity (deities) and do not hold up to the type of scrutiny necessary to make such wild propositions.

I'd actually consider myself more critical of Islam, mainly because it presently includes large and potentially dangerous groups of individuals who seem unwilling to evolve their societies to a standard which you and I would call civil or moral. Christianity has long since moved past this sort of barbaric extremism, it has since shifted towards modern morality.

This thread is a good example I think.

This discussion was religious in nature as soon as the OP made it clear that his Christianity played a huge role in the topic. That opened the floodgate for opinions on the matter, this is a forum designed specifically for the purpose of discussion is it not? No one is shoving an opinion down anyone else's throat, we all voluntarily click on links to bring ourselves into discussions.

There must be some sort of moral law, would you agree? Something that would differentiate between good and evil. There must be a Creator of this moral law. Also, leads me to believe that there must be two different forces in the world. Forces of good and forces of evil. Both the actions of good and the actions of evil cannot come from same source...

You went from B, to D, to F here without starting with A and then stopping at C and E in your explanations.

Morality fluctuates based on the society exhibiting said behavior, laws are steadfast and do not change with the times. It's evident you refer to the creator necessary as a god, but if that were the case would morality not have been steadfast since the birth of man? As our society has evolved, so has our moralitym, we're the creating force behind it.

[kronus]

No one is shoving an opinion down anyone else's throat, we all voluntarily click on links to bring ourselves into discussions.

you're infringing on my right to not have my opinions questioned!