• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Morals and Values??

torch

Banned
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Location
Pennslyvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
On fox news during the 2004 election they blared how the christians were "people of morals and values" I dont understand what is moral or values about believing in an invisible man who (only if you obey him) will send you to heaven if not you die in hell...how is that a moral...Morals and values are things to me like honesty, wisdom, courage and UNDERSTANDING (things christian right wingers have NONE of) So any christians out there can you please explain to me what your values and morals aren't because believing in jesus, going to chruch and screaming every chance you get to say "I am a christian" that doesnt make you moral and have values to me so can you explain your morals and values without the use of jesus, god, and christianity??
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
torch said:
On fox news during the 2004 election they blared how the christians were "people of morals and values" I dont understand what is moral or values about believing in an invisible man who (only if you obey him) will send you to heaven if not you die in hell...how is that a moral...Morals and values are things to me like honesty, wisdom, courage and UNDERSTANDING (things christian right wingers have NONE of) So any christians out there can you please explain to me what your values and morals aren't because believing in jesus, going to chruch and screaming every chance you get to say "I am a christian" that doesnt make you moral and have values to me so can you explain your morals and values without the use of jesus, god, and christianity??
I'm not christian or of any religion but I can probably help you out just the same.

First off, the media portrays this attitude that "only christian fundamentalists" would be against abortion, or against stem cell research, or against schools distributing condoms and what not......The list goes on and on.

And most christians do have those values so in that respect the media is right. However many "family oriented non religious folks" hold those same values too.

Now to get on to your question -the term "moral" means to be concerned with whether or not something is good or bad.

Many "liberal" (for lack of a better word" ) views tend to promote the idea that people should be allowed to decide what is good or bad for themselves and often conclude that there is no "universal" acceptable truth that defines good from bad.

For example prochoice. Women should choose whether they want to abort or not. In a prochoicer's mind neither decision is good or bad. There is no "moral" distinction made.

Let me give you another example regarding sexuality. Many christians feel that being homosexual is "bad".

I don't personally think homosexuality is bad and I'm sure not all christians do either. I have therefore entered a more "liberal" camp on this issue. I don't place a moral judgement of good or bad on anyones sexuality. Therefore I have no "morals" regarding the issue.

Having morals does not mean you are better, smarter, more or less compassionate. It just means you have decided that something is indeed good or bad. Since Christians label many things good or bad they can be said to be very moral.

So you should think about why you might be offended when the media says you have less morals then a christian. All they are saying is that you have not made as many universal distinctions regarding what is good vs what is bad. It's not actually an insult, at least in my opinion.

Everyone has values....that's just whatever you hold worthy. So that word is probably just misused by the media.

Does that help any?
 
Last edited:

torch

Banned
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Location
Pennslyvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
talloulou said:
I'm not christian or of any religion but I can probably help you out just the same.

First off, the media portrays this attitude that "only christian fundamentalists" would be against abortion, or against stem cell research, or against schools distributing condoms and what not......The list goes on and on.

And most christians do have those values so in that respect the media is right. However many "family oriented non religious folks" hold those same values too.

Now to get on to your question -the term "moral" means to be concerned with whether or not something is good or bad.

Many "liberal" (for lack of a better word" ) views tend to promote the idea that people should be allowed to decide what is good or bad for themselves and often conclude that there is no "universal" acceptable truth that defines good from bad.

For example prochoice. Women should choose whether they want to abort or not. In a prochoicer's mind neither decision is good or bad. There is no "moral" distinction made.

Let me give you another example regarding sexuality. Many christians feel that being homosexual is "bad".

I don't personally think homosexuality is bad and I'm sure not all christians do either. I have therefore entered a more "liberal" camp on this issue. I don't place a moral judgement of good or bad on anyones sexuality. Therefore I have no "morals" regarding the issue.

Having morals does not mean you are better, smarter, more or less compassionate. It just means you have decided that something is indeed good or bad. Since Christians label many things good or bad they can be said to very moral.

Everyone has values....that's just whatever you hold worthy. So that word is probably just misused by the media.

Does that help any?
Yes it does thanks
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
On fox news during the 2004 election they blared how the christians were "people of morals and values" I dont understand what is moral or values about believing in an invisible man who (only if you obey him) will send you to heaven if not you die in hell...how is that a moral...Morals and values are things to me like honesty, wisdom, courage and UNDERSTANDING (things christian right wingers have NONE of) So any christians out there can you please explain to me what your values and morals aren't because believing in jesus, going to chruch and screaming every chance you get to say "I am a christian" that doesnt make you moral and have values to me so can you explain your morals and values without the use of jesus, god, and christianity??
There is a problem with your statement.

believing in an invisible man who (only if you obey him) will send you to heaven if not you die in hell...how is that a moral...
What makes you think this invisible being is a "MAN" much less "MALE".

Morals and values are things to me like honesty, wisdom, courage and UNDERSTANDING
Your right. Ill agree with your winger add on, but not all christians are rightwingers, infact only a small pecentage are.

MY "christian" values are based upon the teachins of Jesus, hence "Christ"ianity. Equality within the social classes. ABSOLUTELY NO VIOLENCE OF ANY SOURCE. Little or no possesions, donations towards the poor. Forgiveness of others. TREAT ONE ANOTHER THE WAY I WANT TO BE TREATED (for me that includes animals, that is why i do not eat meat). Not abuse the body (tatoos, piercing, etc). The love of all life (for me a deep sense of nature).
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
On fox news during the 2004 election they blared how the christians were "people of morals and values" I dont understand what is moral or values about believing in an invisible man who (only if you obey him) will send you to heaven if not you die in hell...how is that a moral...Morals and values are things to me like honesty, wisdom, courage and UNDERSTANDING (things christian right wingers have NONE of) So any christians out there can you please explain to me what your values and morals aren't because believing in jesus, going to chruch and screaming every chance you get to say "I am a christian" that doesnt make you moral and have values to me so can you explain your morals and values without the use of jesus, god, and christianity??
I agree totally.
What makes you think this invisible being is a "MAN" much less "MALE".
Why do you think Christains always say "God the Father" or call him the "Father"?
Your right. Ill agree with your winger add on, but not all christians are rightwingers, infact only a small pecentage are.
In the US, the majority of Christains are rightists.
Equality within the social classes.
Quite idiotic comparing that social classes have no equality with each other, if they did then there wouldn't be classes.
ABSOLUTELY NO VIOLENCE OF ANY SOURCE
Quite hard, even if you don't hurt animals, you have to kill to live, such as plants or something.
Little or no possesions, donations towards the poor.
Very few people at all follow this.
Forgiveness of others
That be excellent.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why do you think Christains always say "God the Father" or call him the "Father"?
O HERE WE GO AGAIN....lol

Lets analyze "God the Father". The voice that uses this term the most by far in the Bible is as you know: Jesus Christ. So why do you think Jesus would say that?....BECAUSE Joseph is Jesus's what we would call "step" father, Mary is his mother, and God is HIS father. This doesnt mean that we have to call God our Father. I ALREADY HAVE A FATHER and a MOTHER, You have a mother and father. God is not MY father, nor is God your father, God is biologically Jesus's father.

Quite idiotic comparing that social classes have no equality with each other, if they did then there wouldn't be classes.
What I was presenting is there SHOULD BE EQUALITY IN THE SOCIAL CLASSES, THEREFORE LEADING TO NO SOCIAL CLASSES. Sorry if i wasnt clear on that.

Quite hard, even if you don't hurt animals, you have to kill to live, such as plants or something.
Haha, well technically >I< dont have to kill the plants, other people do...but beyond that, PLANTS DO NOT FEEL PAIN (according to what we know today), because of their lack of nerve endings. Animals DO FEEL PAIN, that is why I choose not to support eating them.

Very few people at all follow this.
Very true, BUT WHY SHOULD WE NOT. That is what im TRYING to go for.

That be excellent.
true, it would, it should, and it could if we tried.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
talloulou said:
I'm not christian or of any religion but I can probably help you out just the same.

First off, the media portrays this attitude that "only christian fundamentalists" would be against abortion, or against stem cell research, or against schools distributing condoms and what not......The list goes on and on.

And most christians do have those values so in that respect the media is right. However many "family oriented non religious folks" hold those same values too.

Now to get on to your question -the term "moral" means to be concerned with whether or not something is good or bad.

Many "liberal" (for lack of a better word" ) views tend to promote the idea that people should be allowed to decide what is good or bad for themselves and often conclude that there is no "universal" acceptable truth that defines good from bad.

For example prochoice. Women should choose whether they want to abort or not. In a prochoicer's mind neither decision is good or bad. There is no "moral" distinction made.

Let me give you another example regarding sexuality. Many christians feel that being homosexual is "bad".

I don't personally think homosexuality is bad and I'm sure not all christians do either. I have therefore entered a more "liberal" camp on this issue. I don't place a moral judgement of good or bad on anyones sexuality. Therefore I have no "morals" regarding the issue.

Having morals does not mean you are better, smarter, more or less compassionate. It just means you have decided that something is indeed good or bad. Since Christians label many things good or bad they can be said to be very moral.

So you should think about why you might be offended when the media says you have less morals then a christian. All they are saying is that you have not made as many universal distinctions regarding what is good vs what is bad. It's not actually an insult, at least in my opinion.

Everyone has values....that's just whatever you hold worthy. So that word is probably just misused by the media.

Does that help any?
I have to disagree with the idea that anyone can be "very moral" even christians. If christians are moral because they want morality to be subjected upon everyone, then atheists and non christians are equally moral for realizing that subjecting beliefs upon others is immoral.
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
I have to disagree
completely acceptable :mrgreen:

with the idea that anyone can be "very moral" even christians. If christians are moral because they want morality to be subjected upon everyone, then atheists and non christians are equally moral for realizing that subjecting beliefs upon others is immoral.
Of course non-christians can be as equally moral as christians. Since "moral" is just being concerned with whether something is good or bad anyone can have morals. You could argue that Hitler was very moral. He was very concerned with labeling things as good vs bad. He definitely wasn't a live and let live kind of guy. That's why people can get into labeling moral values as high or low. Many people have morals that judge particular behaviors/races/religions/ect as bad. These are their personal "moral" judgements.

Just as morals can guide you and serve you in life they can also misguide you and mis-serve you. That's true for society as a whole.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
24,917
Reaction score
10,096
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You people are so screwed up. Why must people beat up Christians?

It doesn't take a "Christian" to be moral. It doesn't take a "Buddhist" to be moral. There are plenty of people that belong to religious groups that are not moral. They merely maintain the title. There are plenty of Muslims who claim to be good Muslims, yet they murder and terrorize. True "Muslims" would call them immoral. These (among others) are just faiths based on truth or myth. It's up to the individual to decide which. This is America. You're free to do whatever.

Morality is in the character of individuals. It doesn't take any "religion" or religious status.

(By the way, I was raised Christian. This doesn't mean that I am more moral than others or even moral at all.)
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
GySgt said:
Morality is in the character of individuals. It doesn't take any "religion" or religious status.
Quoted for truth.

It is rather unfortunate in this cultural conflict between the religious and the secular that morality has been the biggest casualty-- on both sides.
 

Crispy

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
332
Reaction score
26
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Korimyr the Rat said:
Quoted for truth.

It is rather unfortunate in this cultural conflict between the religious and the secular that morality has been the biggest casualty-- on both sides.
Agreed dude,

I don't think its worth delving into "what's moral about religious minded people" because morality in my mind is an individual measure not something reserved or endowed on a particular group. Religion is a great place to discover and explore morality which is why I see it as such a revered and important human endeavor but because of the morality encompassed in religion and the acceptance by so many as the endeavor through which morality can be realized, many have chosen to use its prescriptions to distort and "demoralize" what was intended to be a such a moral and noble endeavor to affect their own narrow and self indulgent agendas.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Crispy said:
... because morality in my mind is an individual measure not something reserved or endowed on a particular group.
Hmm. While I agree that morality is primarily individualistic because we're incapable of making decisions for others, I think that group morality-- an enforced consensus on moral values-- is absolutely essential for social function.

We need to have shared moral values and an understood definition of acceptable behavior in order to be able to live with each other.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just wondering how the 'little or no possessions' guy managed to post his response.....public library?:mrgreen:
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
O HERE WE GO AGAIN....lol

Lets analyze "God the Father". The voice that uses this term the most by far in the Bible is as you know: Jesus Christ. So why do you think Jesus would say that?....BECAUSE Joseph is Jesus's what we would call "step" father, Mary is his mother, and God is HIS father. This doesnt mean that we have to call God our Father. I ALREADY HAVE A FATHER and a MOTHER, You have a mother and father. God is not MY father, nor is God your father
Quite true.
God is biologically Jesus's father.
Wouldn't that probably make "God" male?
Haha, well technically >I< dont have to kill the plants, other people do...but beyond that, PLANTS DO NOT FEEL PAIN (according to what we know today), because of their lack of nerve endings. Animals DO FEEL PAIN, that is why I choose not to support eating them.
But plants are still living so it is technically killing them, doesn't matter what or what can't feel pain, it is still killing. Also most people don't kill animals, but certainly do eat them.
What I was presenting is there SHOULD BE EQUALITY IN THE SOCIAL CLASSES, THEREFORE LEADING TO NO SOCIAL CLASSES. Sorry if i wasnt clear on that.
Thanks for clearing that up then.
Very true, BUT WHY SHOULD WE NOT. That is what im TRYING to go for.
Nothing exactly wrong with it, but I was just pointing out that very people do this. Though its just that even the most "moral" people do not usually do it, or on a larger scale. Also it tends to be that the only real way to get people to do this individually is through control by religion, which I must say is not a good option.
 
Last edited:

Crispy

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
332
Reaction score
26
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Korimyr the Rat said:
Hmm. While I agree that morality is primarily individualistic because we're incapable of making decisions for others, I think that group morality-- an enforced consensus on moral values-- is absolutely essential for social function.

We need to have shared moral values and an understood definition of acceptable behavior in order to be able to live with each other.
Absoulutely. I definitely agree that every human endeavor beniefits and indeed thrives as a group endeavor. We're meant to be social beings. But I tend to see the "ideals" that a group congregates for, like religious focused morality, as being the compass for the group where each individual's circumstances tend to dictate which path in that direction they will choose to go. It always fascinates me the miriad of different perceptions and understandings that arise from within each group. For instance I grew up Lutheran and my church was so diverse with its congregation's understanding and perceptions of our religion that concepts like morality and the "practice" or "expression" of morality were still unique to each individual even though our general moral understanding was common.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
torch said:
On fox news during the 2004 election they blared how the christians were "people of morals and values" I dont understand what is moral or values about believing in an invisible man who (only if you obey him) will send you to heaven if not you die in hell...how is that a moral...Morals and values are things to me like honesty, wisdom, courage and UNDERSTANDING (things christian right wingers have NONE of) So any christians out there can you please explain to me what your values and morals aren't because believing in jesus, going to chruch and screaming every chance you get to say "I am a christian" that doesnt make you moral and have values to me so can you explain your morals and values without the use of jesus, god, and christianity??
All people, regardless of credo, have the capacity to do good or evil.
Romans 2:13-15;
"(13) (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. (14) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (15) Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )"

Basically, we all know the difference between good and evil. Religion, or the lack there of, does not exempt one from this consequence of eating the Fruit of Knowledge.

Likewise, declaring or denouncing a religion or title does not make one's works good or evil. Only your hand can form good or evil works, not your association.

My morals and values come from reflecting the seed of God inharent within Man into my life in all ways.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wouldn't that probably make "God" male?
To Jesus sure....but what im getting at is SINCE PEOPLE INSIST THAT GOD IS MALE....wHo iS gOdS WIFE???????......lol...since life is possible through a male and female...
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
i believe in tranquility said:
To Jesus sure....but what im getting at is SINCE PEOPLE INSIST THAT GOD IS MALE....wHo iS gOdS WIFE???????......lol...since life is possible through a male and female...
Wifes are only for men. Not angels (Nefilim) and not God.
Thouse who are not on the life-path of the common man do not take a wife. Priests, like the 144,000 pure Jews in Revelation and Jesus, did not take wifes.
Likewise, neither does God take a wife.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wifes are only for men.
Just as Husbands are only for women.....(?)

Not angels (Nefilim) and not God.
Thouse who are not on the life-path of the common man do not take a wife. Priests, like the 144,000 pure Jews in Revelation and Jesus, did not take wifes.
Likewise, neither does God take a wife.
So how did the 144,000 "pure" jews produce life...what you are saying is that whoever is "pure" supports not extending life. Well that is absurd, God made "life" and If you claim that God is "male", than God must have a wife. And until someone can convince me who that wife is, I refuse to believe in a masculine God.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
i believe in tranquility said:
Just as Husbands are only for women.....(?)
That is the way God has set things up, yes.
So how did the 144,000 "pure" Jews produce life...
I don't know why you are assuming that they need to "produce" life, or that they did, but if that is a premise that you refuse to detach yourself from, then one could argue that given their function and purpose as illustrated in Revelation, these 144,000 "produce" life by helping many, many people choose to live by choosing God over themselves.

These 144,000 act like agricultural specialists, and we are the crop.
....what you are saying is that whoever is "pure" supports not extending life.
Please quote where I said that. You are not reading what I typed, you are reading what you want to hear.
Well that is absurd, God made "life" and If you claim that God is "male", than God must have a wife.
1st. Your premise is false, as I pointed out above.
2nd. God is portrayed as male in scripture. That does not mean that God is male. I doubt that the total of God's being is something which can be quantified with the written word.

Regarding gender, creating life is the feminine quality. To that end God is "Femail". Posessing authority is the masculine quality, to that end God is "male".

To liken God to the image of Man by assigning a gender is blasphemy.

Once you look beyond the necessary evils of the English language and refer to the original ancient Hebrew and Greek of the script, you see that the names of and for God do not imply any gender at all.

God can not be accurately described by nor is He limited to any language which Man can possess.

3rd. Posessing a penis does not mandate marriage. That is a false assumption. No man is required to take a wife.

And until someone can convince me who that wife is, I refuse to believe in a masculine God.
No such wife exists. Indeed, no such wife could exist, for who could be God's equal? How could an infinite being be one in the flesh with another, when that infinite being is not of the flesh at all, but of the Spirit?

Marriage was made for Man, and no one ells, because it is Man who is bound by the flesh, and no one ells. Marriage serves a purpose to the "of the flesh" nature of Man. That being the formation of family, the maintaining of family cohesion, and to perpetuate Man's existence as a species.

As I said, God is of the Spirit, not the flesh.
Marriage does not apply to God.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't know why you are assuming that they need to "produce" life, or that they did, but if that is a premise that you refuse to detach yourself from, then one could argue that given their function and purpose as illustrated in Revelation, these 144,000 "produce" life by helping many, many people choose to live by choosing God over themselves.
Here is why I am assuming that they need to produce life.

1st: If those 144,000 thousand "pures" didnt have sex with women, then they would have no offspring, leading to an end of this 144,000.

2nd: I agree that people should help others to choose by living by God, but I dont think that everyone should just not have sex, because then there would be no future life.

1st. Your premise is false, as I pointed out above.
Just as I think your premise that God IS MALE is false.

2nd. God is portrayed as male in scripture. That does not mean that God is male. I doubt that the total of God's being is something which can be quantified with the written word.

Regarding gender, creating life is the feminine quality. To that end God is "Femail". Posessing authority is the masculine quality, to that end God is "male".

To liken God to the image of Man by assigning a gender is blasphemy.

Once you look beyond the necessary evils of the English language and refer to the original ancient Hebrew and Greek of the script, you see that the names of and for God do not imply any gender at all.

God can not be accurately described by nor is He limited to any language which Man can possess.
Ok well if you are arguing that God is NOT MALE NOR FEMALE, than i completely agree with you....although I am a little confused because before you were arguing that God IS MALE.

3rd. Posessing a penis does not mandate marriage. That is a false assumption. No man is required to take a wife.
True possessing a penis does not mandate marriage, let me rephrase my statement: If God is male, than God must have a PARTNER, Who is that partner?

No such wife exists.
Thank you. Thats all i needed. I agree comepletely. And mabye you think God is Male and mabye you dont. I dont beilve that God IS MALE and NOT FEMALE. I dont beilve that God is BOTH, I beilve that God has no gender, just as Ancient Jews beilved. God is indescribable to the human brain.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
i believe in tranquility said:
Here is why I am assuming that they need to produce life.
1st: If those 144,000 thousand "pures" didnt have sex with women, then they would have no offspring, leading to an end of this 144,000.

2nd: I agree that people should help others to choose by living by God, but I dont think that everyone should just not have sex, because then there would be no future life.

Just as I think your premise that God IS MALE is false.

Ok well if you are arguing that God is NOT MALE NOR FEMALE, than i completely agree with you....although I am a little confused because before you were arguing that God IS MALE.

True possessing a penis does not mandate marriage, let me rephrase my statement: If God is male, than God must have a PARTNER, Who is that partner?

Thank you. Thats all i needed. I agree comepletely. And mabye you think God is Male and mabye you dont. I dont beilve that God IS MALE and NOT FEMALE. I dont beilve that God is BOTH, I beilve that God has no gender, just as Ancient Jews beilved. God is indescribable to the human brain.
You and I agree on this issue. I didn't intend to say that God was male, but I suppose that the male defalt reference to a person is a major pit-fall of English. So many things are misunderstood in scripture because of English. Especially the old English of the King James version.

It appears that I have engaged the wrong person on this issue. Who was asserting that God is male?

As to the 144,000, these are not ordinary guys, and yes, they do not produce children and there line ends with their physical end.

I don't know if you are familiar with scripture to any degree, but here are 2 primary passages in the Revelation of John (or Book of Revelation, if you profer) about them:

Revelation 7:1-8;
1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea or against any tree. 2 Then I saw another angel ascend from the rising of the sun, with the seal of the living God, and he called with a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm earth and sea, 3 saying, "Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God upon their foreheads." 4
And I heard the number of the sealed, a 144,000 sealed, out of every tribe of the sons of Israel
, 5
12,000 sealed out of the tribe of Judah,
12,000 of the tribe of Reuben,
12,000 of the tribe of Gad
, 6
12,000 of the tribe of Asher,
12,000 of the tribe of Naph'tali,
12,000 of the tribe of Manas'seh
, 7
12,000 of the tribe of Simeon,
12,000 of the tribe of Levi,
12,000 of the tribe of Is'sachar
8
12,000 of the tribe of Zeb'ulun,
12,000 of the tribe of Joseph,
12,000 sealed out of the tribe of Benjamin


Revelation 14:1-5;
1 Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him the 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpers playing on their harps, 3 and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb, 5 and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are spotless".
 
Last edited:

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As a tangent, the Revelation of John is why I, for one, don't care about environmental activist claims of global worming, O-Zone depletion, etc; because the angels are going to f#ck up this plannet far more than Man ever could.

We are servants to God, not the plannet.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
true we are servants but this doesnt mean that we need to destroy what God created for us.
 
Top Bottom