Thor? Last night. No, really...I was re-reading the Walter Simonson run of the Thor comic book.
As for Kukulcan, I'd have to say about 5 years ago. That was the last time I watched the Star Trek animated episode, "How Sharper Than A Serpents Tooth".
Posted on 12/01/2008 9:32:30 AM PST by CardShark
Yes and no. Look at the tenses of the relevant Greek in I John, especially chapter 2. We all sin, true, but all the same a person cannot be habitual in some sin, they cannot continue in some sin without remorse and without repentance, and call his or herself a Christian. Yes, a Christian may lie or steal through weakness, but a person who habitually lies without feeling any need to repent of it and get right with God (and then doing so) cannot BIBLICALLY claim to be a Christian. A person who makes a lifestyle out of stealing things from other people and continuing in that sin cannot rightly claim to be a Christian. Likewise, homosexuality - which is an ongoing lifestyle - basically proves a person to not be a Christian. Remember, by their FRUIT ye shall know them - fruit is something that develops and grows over time. If grace has to be stretched to cover ongoing, habitual, unrepented of sin, then no grace has been had in the first place.
Without repentance, there is no salvation (Acts 3:19).
Gays can't be Bahá'í, Buddhist, Hindu, Jainist, Zoroastrian, Shinto, Pagan...?
“Gays can’t be Bahá’í, Buddhist, Hindu, Jainist, Zoroastrian, Shinto, Pagan...? “
So you think these are gods?
Legitimate gods?
LOL!
Gays claim to be “Christians” that is not feasible. They can claim whatever label they like but the reality is they are not Christians.
No, I think these are religions.
Legitimate gods?
The gods of the religions I mentioned are certainly venerated by the adherents of these religions, making them "legitimate" within their respective belief systems, just as Jehovah, Christ, and Allah are "legitimate" under Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Gays claim to be “Christians” that is not feasible. They can claim whatever label they like but the reality is they are not Christians.
You said earlier that all gays were atheists. That's simply untrue on the face of it. Even if we accept (for the sake of argument) that gays cannot be Christian, there are still gay Hindus, Pagans, Zoroastrians, etc., therefore not all gays are atheists. Q.E.D.
It follows, therefore, that it depends on the individual sinner (as indeed it should). If someone is a compulsive liar, or kleptomaniac, or alcoholic or whatever, but realises that what is being done is wrong, then they can still be in a state of grace. Succumbing to temptation means you have committed a sin, but this is not an uncommon event with any Christian. We are all, as is said, “works in progress”.
I agree, what is more dangerous is when someone sins, but does not recognise that what is being done is a sin. If this is done out of ignorance, that is not so bad. If it is done out of some desire to justify their behaviour, that is far worse. When it is a deliberate flouting of God’s commandments, that is the sin of pride and self-will. That is, actually, what is most wrong with the “gay” lifestyle - this idea that they know how to live their life better than God does.
However, as I cannot see into the heart of each and every gay, I would be wary of making a blanket statement. Sure, unreconstructed homosexuals are in a state of sinful rebellion, but then so are unreconstructed hedonists, or unreconstructed humanists. Who can say which is worse? Personally, I just pray for all of them :)
As an aside, the impression I get is that the majority of Atheists are not so much anti-God as anti-Religion, or anti-religous institutions. Would you agree? (or am I totally off-beam?)
I can't separate a believer from his God. I mean, honestly, when was the last time you gave a moment's thought to Thor or Kukulcan?
The principle objection a lot - most, maybe - of atheists have is the use of the State by believers to coerce non-believers in various ways.
It's an exaggeration, but many atheists feel like Dhimmis in America.
There are a lot of things that reinforce this perceived 'Dhimmi status' of atheists in America, but the first that comes to mind is President George H. W. Bush's (alleged) comment at a 1988 news conference in Chicago:
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."[1]
Then there's the forcing of children, by law or through coercion, to acknowledge a God during the Pledge of Allegiance.
Having In God We Trust on our money - money that even the atheist must use to engage in commerce - is a perpetual reminder of the Dhimmi status.
I can imagine it would be difficult for most FReepers, who are proudly Christian, to grasp what I just said. Absolutely understandable.
This scenario may help to illuminate the previous statements:
Imagine you were born and raised in an Islamic country, but you are a Christian. All throughout your life, in spite of the fact that you are a Christian, you are:
Your initial reaction may be to escape the country of your birth and seek refuge somewhere else. Yet, you love your country and you are proud of its history, its future.
That's the situation for most atheists in America.
The atheist community can be largely divided into two camps, based on how each camp wants to address the situation. There is, occasionally, overlap among the two camps.
The Legalistic Camp, populated with people like Michael Newdow[2], seek to force religion (specifically) and supernaturalism (generally) out of the government-supported public sphere. They are intensely focused on ridding the Western world of religion through legal machinations, yet are largely silent - or give lip service to - to the threat of Islam and Islamic terrorism or the War on Terror.
The Cultural Camp is more focused on the promotion of science and skepticism. They largely believe that with increased rationality and skepticism, the last vestiges of faith will wither away. Regarding Islamic terrorism and the War on Terror, this camp is surprisingly hawkish. This due to the fact Islamic terrorists are beyond rational dialogue. The only thing an Islamic terrorist understands is a bullet or a bomb.
The Pledge of Allegiance issue best illustrates how these two camps view the battle. The Legalistic Camp wants to force the courts to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge, while the Cultural Camp would support a voucher system - to enable them to send their children to an "atheistic" school - or choose to homeschool their children.
To build on my earlier scenario: If you were a Christian raising a child in an Islamic country and leaving wasn't an option, which would you choose?
The faithful and faithless communities only are at war with each other when the coercive power of government is involved.
I have no desire to disturb a man's faith nor do I care what he does in his church.
If he's right, I'm burning in hell. If I'm right, we're both worm food.
1. SourceWatch.
2. Wikipedia: Michael Newdow
Thor? Last night. No, really...I was re-reading the Walter Simonson run of the Thor comic book.
As for Kukulcan, I'd have to say about 5 years ago. That was the last time I watched the Star Trek animated episode, "How Sharper Than A Serpents Tooth".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.