VIOLENCE VS SEX

[crash]

God won't be happy until this thread winds up at poop.

Sex > violence > religion> argument > god > argument > poop.

[sally]

I've never understood 'Godly' to mean 'Those who believe in God the most.' I've always considered it as 'Those who reflect God's principles the best.'

The moderate Christians maintain that the bible is the perfect word of God, so if that's the case the Westboro Baptist are the godliest of them all. God's principles include persecuting homosexuals, sending non believers to the pits of hell even if they're "good" people and requiring his son to be tortured so sinners can drink his blood like cannibals. He sounds like a fucking maniac, but hey that's the written word.

[crash]

[crash]

It's not really a subjective matter if your definition of Godly is 'like god.' Saying: Moral people are inherently moral. - is not a blanket statement.

But there's that impossible human if. It's like saying Art is not subjective if you all have the same taste in art. That if is never going to happen.

[HairOfTheDog]

It's subjective; that was my point. Not everybody thinks and feels about it as you do (and I respect some of their thoughts/feeling about it too).

Right. I mean, if you wanna debate about atheists hating Christians for the hate they say Christians have... and how utterly hypocritical that is... we can argue all day. For people like MS getting uppity about saying not all 'godly' people are good people, tho, I feel like it's more a semantic argument than a theological one.

I totally get that if to you, Godly means people who want to out-believe other people, then they're not inherently good people. Then saying they are all good people is as much a blanket statement as saying they're all bad people. It's not really a subjective matter if your definition of Godly is 'like god.' Saying: Moral people are inherently moral. - is not a blanket statement.

I've never stated nor have I ever believed --and therefore would not be interested in debating -- that all Christians hate atheists or that all atheists hate Christians. If those are blanket statements and claims that you profess to be true, then sure, I'd argue against your contention. I myself am neither an atheist or a Christian, but there's plenty of evidence that contradicts those blanket statements.

I also never stated nor do I believe that "Godliness" means people who want to out-believe other people. That was something that you introduced into the discussion and frankly I don't know why, but it doesn't matter.

You are correct that I am not arguing theology. I also was not arguing semantics. I was pointing out a fact -- "Godly" is not defined consistently in religious documents nor in dictionaries nor in literature nor in people's personal perspectives. It does indeed vary and it is, in fact, subjective. I don't understand why you're arguing against that fact, but I'll try to be more clear.

Please check out the definitions of "pious" and "devout", which is how you defined a "godly person" upthread. You will see that those are adjectives that describe someones beliefs or devotions in relation to a particular religion or deism and the definitions include "God-fearing" in various sources. (I know for a fact that many Christians view God as an entity not to be feared -- that too varies and is subjective.)

"Devout" and "pious" are not universally defined as people who are God-like; that's your personal definition and that's fine. Of course, if you say that "godly people are godly people" that's true and that's equivalent to saying that "moral people are more people" (I took the liberty of removing "inherently" because not all people who are moral are inherently so). However, neither of those equivalent statements is comparable to saying that "godly people are inherently (or not inherently) good people" because "godly" does not mean "good" by definition.

I do respect that to you being a godly person equates to being god-like and therefore good. I wouldn't argue against your personal beliefs and understandings -- no matter where they originate. However, when you or any person claims that people who don't see, view or define the subjective the same way as you do are wrong by definition, I'm gonna disagree (unless the person is a dipshit and not worth the words or keystrokes).

[sally]

I believe MS only said that christians can have an opinion to not support same sex marriage. I didn't see his comments where same sex couples are an abomination.

MS and I have been going 'round & 'round about this for years. My comment wasn't exactly on topic with this thread, I was referring to things he's said in the past.

MS's opinion is the same as the church. Organized religion is big business, so they have to get with the times and jazz it up a little bit. Modernize it. They're pretty much saying " Most of the congregation feels they have the right to vote on what you do with your life and think you're going to burn in hell, but hey we'll welcome you and pray for you anyway".

[FAHQTOO]

Jesus wept....

[crash]

They're pretty much saying "hey, most of the congregation feels they have the right to vote on what you do with your life and think you're going to burn in hell, but we welcome and love ya money anyway".

FTFY

[sally]

They're pretty much saying "hey, most of the congregation feels they have the right to vote on what you do with your life and think you're going to burn in hell, but we welcome and love ya money anyway".

FTFY

I don't know why I didn't think of that.

[crash]

Godly Christians are not good peoplel.

Godly people are by nature good people

Horseshit. That's just as big of a blanket statement as ^

Horseshit, Crash.

So theyre just phonies?

Apparently you haven't been around many good, simple folk, who'd give you their last five bucks if they could to help you out.

Those are not the folks who are bible-banging, preaching fire and brimstone. They're mainly people who believe in putting in a hard days work, spending time with family and yes, supporting their church.

You should try meeting some of them.

You'd be less cynical.

Oh, I meant to add earlier..

I know plenty of hard working people, who would probably give me their last five bucks, who look after their kids and their extended family. They don't need God to do it either. Maybe you should try and open your blinkered eyes and narrow mind a little further and you wouldn't be so cynical, or so tunnel visioned about a lot of things.

[Midwest Spy]

They're pretty much saying "hey, most of the congregation feels they have the right to vote on what you do with your life and think you're going to burn in hell, but we welcome and love ya money anyway".

FTFY

I understand the 'big business' part of church being a real turn-off to some people. I really do.

Passing around the offering plate at times still feels tacky to me. If you feel like giving to your church (and I personally do, because I know where just about all of the money goes) then you should be able to give privately.

Televised services where someone is asking 'folks at home' to give is super tacky.

In short, yes, if your church means a lot to you and you want to support their charitable activities, by all means, give what you can.

[crash]

In short, yes, if your church means a lot to you and you want to support their charitable activities, by all means, give what you can.

I really have no problem with that side of it, if it's unsolicited. It's your money, you earned it and it's your business what you do with it.

The people who go on with the hogwash of thou will never be healed or find salvation if you don't contribute annoy me though. They pick on the weak and gullible.

[Midwest Spy]

^ that's exactly what they've done over the millennia. Prey on those who are weak-minded, gullible, etc.

Like I've contended all along, those people (and there are thousands) have ruined 'church' or 'religion' or whatever you want to refer to it as for many, many people.

When I was young, our Baptist church was all fire and brimstone.

'you're going to hell if you're not born-again'.

I was away a long time, as that turned me off as much as turns just about everybody else off.

My current church is just the opposite. We welcome anybody and everybody who'll come. There's no pressure anywhere. There's no weekly calling to those that haven't been saved to come down and confess in front of everybody, etc.

It's all about community. What can we do or how can we help locally? Packing meals, getting food to food shelves, getting clothes or school supplies to those that need it, etc.

And, I'm not saying someone has to be Christian to do those things, it just happens to be what our church does.

[HairOfTheDog]

Say a pastor believes, worships, and devotes his life to God and his religion. He follows all of the rules and/or commandments strictly. He is, by definition, devout and he is pious.

Many in his community regard him to be a "godly person", a good person.

However, at age 50, he is no longer able to control his urges to molest children, though he still believes in God and is religiously devout and pious. Is he still a godly person at age 50? Was he ever a godly person? Is he still a good person? Was he ever a good person?

If he's viewed now as ungodly and bad by his congregation -- based on his conduct rather than his religious beliefs and devotion -- can he repent and ask forgiveness and again become godly and good in the eyes of his congregation?

I'd guess if you asked 20 people of the same faith (or different faiths) that there would be a variety of different answers, but that's just a guess. I'd be interested in the answers and reasoning, in any case.

[Midwest Spy]

I'd say he'd never be able to regain anyone's trust, however , I'd stop short of saying he couldn't obtain forgiveness or redemption. That would not be for me personally to judge, and I'd expect him to face the full consequences of the law.

After that, it's all between him and God.

[HairOfTheDog]

Would you say that he is a godly person and/or a good person because of his belief and worship of god and his religious devotion?

Would you instead say he is not a godly person and not a good person because of his conduct, regardless of his religious beliefs and devotion (and efforts to resist the temptation for 50 years)?

[crash]

My current church is just the opposite. We welcome anybody and everybody who'll come. There's no pressure anywhere. There's no weekly calling to those that haven't been saved to come down and confess in front of everybody, etc.

It's all about community. What can we do or how can we help locally? Packing meals, getting food to food shelves, getting clothes or school supplies to those that need it, etc.

And, I'm not saying someone has to be Christian to do those things, it just happens to be what our church does.

And that's a good thing. I have no problem with faith per se; I think it's helped a lot of people, directly and indirectly.

I think you're a decent stand up family guy, MS, from how you portray yourself here at least anyway. I don't see you have any reason to lie about it. Do I think you'd be that same person if you didn't have your faith? I think you probably would. I'm not sure you believe you would, so if that's what you think you need to keep yourself in check, that's your business. You don't tell me how to think, well mostly anyway.

[Duchess]

I think you're a decent stand up family guy, MS,

That's how I see him too.

[sally]

Would you say that he is a godly person and/or a good person because of his belief and worship of god and his religious devotion?

Would you instead say he is not a godly person and not a good person because of his conduct, regardless of his religious beliefs and devotion (and efforts to resist the temptation for 50 years)?

You would think you wouldn't have to ask this again. He's always beating around the bush like a fucking politician. Other than that I think MS is a nice family guy too.

[crash]

Would you say that he is a godly person and/or a good person because of his belief and worship of god and his religious devotion?

This is where the whole semantics argument comes into it..

I would see him as not a good person. Anyone who can molest a child, is not a good person in my opinion.

I would be conflicted between thinking he used being godly as a mask to hide his true desire, or being godly was something he felt he had to do to balance out the scales for his bad temptations, you know, it's ok if I'm sorry type of thing. Either way, I wouldn't see him as being truly righteous, just that he was a godly (as in aligned himself with god, or hid behind him) scumbag.

What I think Cutz's argument is, is that if the guy can molest a child, then he is not like God, therefore he is not godly.