you don't believe in the following things?
greed
lust
vanity
envy
pride
gluttony
wrath
and you don't see these things as an inevitable aspect of humanity as we know it?
what defines marriage?
- Thread starter Lori_7
- Start date
you don't believe in the following things?
greed
lust
vanity
envy
pride
gluttony
wrath
and you don't see these things as an inevitable aspect of humanity as we know it?
are you talking about politicians? because you can't possibly be talking about me.
i believe in law and in transgression, yes. but i don't tell you how to live or behave. i've questioned your behavior on this forum and made some suggestions, but i am not the only one who's done that, and we're not all religious. aside from that, i can voice an opinion about a behavior, but the only time i ever try to intervene is when that behavior is abusive, or victimizing someone. then i'll attempt to stop that, and i have a fairly high success rate.
i don't think it would do anyone any good to tell you how to live, or to behave, or what to believe. i value free will, and i think you have to understand why you do what you do, and want to do what you do. otherwise, it will be meaningless.
besides, you would be hard-pressed to top some of my behaviors. i'm no judge.
So sorry, Lori, but I have received a PM from JamesR who stated quite emphatically that I am no longer allowed to engage you. I have been censored by the admins here. In other words, I am being forced, as usual, to respect your beliefs. You are quite free to threaten and hate me with your religious beliefs and I can say absolutely nothing about it.
Of course, I have not broken any of the forum rules, I have attacked your ideology, but that just isn't acceptable here either. We now wonder what guidelines the admins are following if you can no longer attack ideas? We can clearly see one of our Muslim friends here attacks people all the time, calling them names in almost every post, breaking one rule after another, yet he is free to continue to do so. Curious that...
Tiassa also attacks me personally and gets away with it. I get warnings when I respond in kind to him.
Bells gave me warning for posting that 911 picture stating that I was flaming someone. Who I was flaming was never made clear. Obviously, it was a thinly veiled excuse for justifying an emotional outburst on her part.
I do understand that JamesR and the rest of the mods can say and do whatever they want, and they will, that is their prerogative. They have been given the uberpower over us all. How they use it is clearly another story though.
Happy trails, Lori. Once again, the religious mindset dominates at Sciforums, in its membership and its administration. Very sad, indeed.
@Lori.
Another waster opportunity to back up your claims with scripture. I take it as I keep asking, and you keep failing to supply to it, you can't and therefore resign the debate and admit you're just making stuff up.
Have fun in Hell.
Another waster opportunity to back up your claims with scripture. I take it as I keep asking, and you keep failing to supply to it, you can't and therefore resign the debate and admit you're just making stuff up.
Have fun in Hell.
I don't believe they are sins, no. Pride isn't a sin, if it's deserved. Lust can be fun. Envy can motivate. Wrath can motivate. Nothing wrong with vanity, fuck, I exfoliate and moisturise. I indulge in a little gluttony every now and again, but then so do most xtians, with their Xmas dinner, ain't that the irony?
Fucking hell, you DO get it. Yes, they are what make us human. I am human. I want to act like a human. I don't want to deny myself simple pleasures, if they harm nobody.
The concept of sin is utter bullshit. It's about controlling the masses, with the notion of a reward you'll never live to receive.
OK Q. I hope you are shitting us here, because this is a forum, where things are discussed, and this is the religion section, so James is way the fuck out of line if he has said that to you.
Of course, this is the religion section of a Science forum allegedly, so James should be telling Lori to substantiate her bullshit, rather then silencing those that expose it.
i'm imagining you in a robe, with your hair wrapped up in a towel, and a beauty mask on your face, and it's making me smile.
so ok, you believe these things exist, and they are an inherent part of humanity. you just don't call them "sin". there is a difference between acknowledging that these things exist, and deciding what to call them, and whether they're good or bad. right?
Of course, yet he starts threads with articles of Islamic abuse adding no comments himself. What would be the point of that if not to cause conflict with Muslims? Hypocrisy abounds.
Oh no, we are to respect Lori and her beliefs. We are not allowed to attack those beliefs for fear of reprisal. Sorry Phlo, but the religious rule us and we must abide by their rules, whatever those rules are is beyond you and me to understand.
Of course, yet he starts threads with articles of Islamic abuse adding no comments himself. What would be the point of that if not to cause conflict with Muslims? Hypocrisy abounds.
Oh no, we are to respect Lori and her beliefs. We are not allowed to attack those beliefs for fear of reprisal. Sorry Phlo, but the religious rule us and we must abide by their rules, whatever those rules are is beyond you and me to understand.
Q, i question, challenge, and disagree with the beliefs of many who share my own religion on this forum all the time, and i'm not censored. that's because there's a way to do that without "attacking". and most of the time, you're not attacking the belief, you're attacking the person who believes it.
Sorry Lori, but if I were to respond to your post pointing out that I attack your belief system and not you personally, and that believers are unable to separate themselves from their beliefs as if the beliefs were their arms and legs, I would probably get banned.
Do they have to be good or bad? Can't they just be expressions of humanity?
I'm still waiting waiting for the scriptural references that support your claims about marriage btw. Don't try to distract me.
Sorry Lori, but if I were to respond to your post pointing out that I attack your belief system and not you personally, and that believers are unable to separate themselves from their beliefs as if the beliefs were their arms and legs, I would probably get banned.
everyone believes things Q, even you. and i think that "arms and legs" are actually really good analogies for beliefs. beliefs definitely drive people...direct their path. and can enable them, or disable them.
no they don't. not if you don't believe in good or bad they don't.
and i'm still waiting for yours.
Ithink things can be good or bad, I just don't count those things amongst them
and i'm still waiting for yours.
Oh come on, scriptural references have been provided already.
why?
Already covered above:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2602686&postcount=405
Now, scriptural support for your claims pls.
seems to me like you just placed conditions on these things that made them good in your opinion. or, you were saying that they could be good or bad, not neither.
and i've already told you plenty of times, there is no scripture that either requires, or even addresses a ceremony.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
I see no reason to respect beliefs. Beliefs don't have feelings, and deserve no more respect than is fitting the quality of their foundation.
People on the other hand....
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
I proved that absence of an event being described in the bible doesn't mean it didn't happen. How many times must we go over this.
Also you added the caveat 'in the Bible', but scriptural references have been shown to you that PROVE that other sources of God's word remain authoritative, so if they mention ceremony, it's still binding.
As Jewish marriage ceremonies are well documented, and documents exist dating 600 years before Jesus, we can assume they are part of the Law Jesus said he had come to fulfil.