fireproof_always

Both sides get credit for valid points as far as I'm concerned. I've not really been commenting much, but I've been mostly following the progression of the debate. I do have a minor problem with what's starting to occur. I find it counterproductive for one to say "define God" because even a nonbeliever must realize that we who believe necessarily hold to be true that God is above our ability to understand, and thus describe. You're basically asking that they do something they don't believe in or deem possible. Also, to say that God is not necessary for certain things like love and compassion, while perhaps your view, is the opposite for those who believe that these things are possible only because man is the image of God.

Paul, when I got out of high school I noticed many of my friends starting to get married and even have children already, and it bothered me because I felt I had been so much more faithful than these people yet God seemed to be blessing them with someone while I remainined alone. I prayed often that God would bring a Christian woman into the picture for me, and yet every time I'd start dating someone it seemed as if God was saying "No, not yet." Eventually I almost expected that answer, and finally I took resentment a step too far. I was dating a girl that I thought the world of, who was Christian and obviously put God first in her life, I chose to ignore the fact that my heart knew it wasn't God's will and we started talking about marriage... about two months after we started considering marriage (perhaps a year and a half or so together) I went to Basic Training and Tech School for the Air Force for about 3 months and when I got out she didn't come down to see me. Turns out she was already seeing somebody else. My point is that what I thought was a godly relationship was only deception, and I got hurt because I ignored God's warning about getting involved too deeply. I am single now, which is good because I'm deployed to Korea and you can't have your family here unless you're higher ranked, so that would just be more heartache. Basically I think God chooses to keep us single until we're at a point in life where the time to be single has passed. I'm grateful to Him that what happened did so when it did and not after I had made a mistake that would haunt me forever all because I wanted to be in a relationship so bad that I had the nerve to ignore God.

Two things. First of all, I believe the first post said if you can't keep it civil don't post. SO, why are so many being so condescending and critical of those who don't believe. SHOW LOVE. Second. And this is for the nonbelievers that discuss Christianity. Honestly, if you did wake up and so many people had disappeared, the people you know who are truly Christian and show it in their lives would be gone. I'm relatively certain any of you would probably think Rapture first, not go looking for other explanations, we're talking about a large percentage of the population simply vanishing. I mean lets say that there was a book from a religion, for the sake of argument we'll just call in Xism. If this book described the end of our world in detail, and that event indeed happened to the letter, I for one would immediately realize they were right. What I'm trying to say is that if what the Bible says happens exactly as described, how could one doubt? I mean, it's not your run of the mill kinda stuff in Revelations..

If I'm out of line correct me at will, but I feel that most of you are simply trying to dig for the exceptions and debate that rather than the issue itself. For example, if we were debating killing someone itself, than someone would bring up whether or not murder and killing are different. (As previously stated I'm military) I would take the side that killing is sometimes required, and someone would say that the original text says "Thou shalt not kill." IT'S A COMMANDMENT. Still, did not God kill? Did not God aid his people in combat and therefore help them kill? In the same vein, I realize there are always going to be exceptions to the rule. And for those of you who take the legalist mindset that there is never an exception, consider that "The wages of sin is Death." So all that have sinned must suffer eternal Death? Negative, because by his sacrifice Christ made an eternal exception to the rule that those who repent should be saved from justice. We strive to, but we are not like Christ, we do not have the ability to save someone from his deserved fate, or to know his heart. That is why the death penalty is necessary, because we only know the crime that has been committed, not the heart of the person who may or may not have repented of it. And before you try to find a loophole let me state we're debating the death penalty, not whether someone who murders deserves it (the question about someone committing manslaughter or killing in self defense is irelevant because 99% of the time, the death penalty is not administered to that kind of crime.)

It wasn't a bad metaphor, to be sure. It stopped me in my tracks for a minute and I had to read it over. The only problem with the metaphor is that you compared a human being to God. I think it would be hard to do a metaphor for God, actually, because of the fact that he IS God. I do understand what you were trying to get across though, so as I said, it was not a bad metaphor. I'd be disappointed if someone didn't dissect a metaphor in a discussion like this. Besides, I thought the point was to use science PLUS beliefs to discuss both sides of the divide?? Interestingly, on many of the points in this thread I find myself agreeing with the nonbelievers. Mainly because they're making the points I'm used to making. Case in point, my God is NOT a HUMAN, he is above it. Obviously that's not quite the point they were making, still we both agree that comparing deity to humanity is futile. That's like me saying my Faith is in itself based in Science and therefore I don't need to use logic or reason in my arguments. Physical substance and spiritual/supernatural/magical/etc manifestations/beings are not and will never be possibly connected in any form, metaphor or otherwise (my one personal exception to this is Christ, whom I wholeheartedly believe was fully God and fully man at the same time). The metaphor/parable about this George character, while admittedly a good reference to the atheists who actually say "There CAN'T be a God" is made irrelevant by those who say "Perhaps there is a God, but I need proof." God can only be proven to an individual if he decides to physically manifest his power to that person. Yet he says that we that believe on Faith are more blessed than the ones who saw Christ manifest miracles, because we do not require that definite concrete evidence to serve. I know my God exists, and I will gladly spend time debating it with anyone who desires to respectfully discuss it, yet I will NEVER claim that I can give them proof because I, as a man, cannot. All I can do is state my reasoning and what evidence I have, and hope that I can convince him or her.

I tend to shy away from using the term close-minded in regards to atheists because it implies that all atheists are the same way. Just as I am offended by people who call Christians one of the various psuedo-insults such as "Bible-Thumpers" "Holy Rollers" etc etc; I am equally offended by people who say "Atheists/Agnostics/Jews/Muslims/Hindus/whatever are so close minded." It is simply not possible that everyone who believes something fits that bill. There are atheists such as a friend of mine, Kris; or Lesta here, who by discussing Christian beliefs respectfully and honestly prove that there are exceptions, just as not all of us Christians are the holier-than-thou type. One's beliefs are personal, and as long as they agree to respect mine and perhaps allow me to explain my beliefs to them and explain their's to me, then I refuse to say that they are close minded regardless of how adamantly they disbelieve what I believe.

Hmmm...It seems like rather than debate the topic at hand we've reached a point where we mostly only argue against each other's beliefs and statements. Also, there's been a considerable amount of completely irrelevant and even, as OneLight said, disturbing material presented. I'm afraid it may be that the likelihood of a respectful conversation has become nil. JCISGD, LadyC, OneLight; I found your points and speculations for the most part to be interesting and mature, combative while remaining as considerate as possible when disagreeing with someone. I enjoyed our discussion but unless things clear up a bit I'd rather leave it alone. Hope to talk with you all in another topic. God Bless.

Well either way he can't sue God. They've done everything possible to take God out of government and the legal system, so they probably wouldn't let him in the courtroom to stand trial By the way, I'm suing this forum. You see, by posting this and therefore FORCING me to read it, you've made me feel discriminated against for my belief I actually have a point on that last line. If an atheist writes a book about how Christians are all going to disappear after death I can't sue him for discriminating against my idea of an afterlife for two reasons: One, I'm not required to read it, just as this man isn't required to read the Bible. Two, there is a freedom of speech that authors are given which requires that one be able to say whatever they want, and as a literary work there is no direct assault or discrimination.

Someone's probably not going to like this...but this is a DISCUSSION... As a member of the military, I've come to accept the fact that the day might come where I will take a life. It sucks, but I see it as necessary because of the threat that is posed by the enemy to the way of life I have come to love. I don't do this because I believe in the politicians, but rather because I will not allow myself to sit by and let someone take away the freedoms my friends and family deserve, or to make them feel unsafe in their own homes. I am a child of a God who has repeatedly over time shown righteous fury, and aided his people in combat so that they may be victorious. My God is a warrior, and we are called to have the heart of God, and because of that I feel no shame in my decision to bear arms against another person. I see the death penalty in a similar way, if someone commits a crime so great that their life is the only fair price, then I pray they repent and ask forgiveness but justice must not be weakened by our desire that another human being might live. Not being able to know the heart of another, we simply can't say, they have repented truthfully, and release them. The crime must be punished regardless.

First of all, it is my duty and responsibility to apologize to you OneLight, if what I said was interpreted by you as a personal attack or arrogance as some have speculated. I assure you I did not intend to imply judgement or contempt. However, I have never seen the movie Fireproof, my display name comes from my job, I am a firefighter in the US Air Force. I do admit though that my beliefs on the subject are the result of personal experience. My dad was divorced, then married my mother, and because of that union I have been one of the lucky few who have been raised in an undivided home and been able to learn from my parents what a godly and loving relationship is made of. I find it hard to accept that my God would have any judgement against my dad, given the example he has set for myself and my brother and sister. And yes, I did mention my age and marital status...but here's the kicker, I'm also a virgin at 21 even surrounded by the military lifestyle that promotes immorality and promiscuity at times. Does that mean that I am also not qualified to debate doctrine over sex and sexual immorality because I haven't experienced the act myself? I do welcome any words of wisdom those such as yourself can give a young person like me, however you must understand I do not seek to make it seem as though I have all the answers, because I realize that as a man I will never have all the answers, and that is why I will always need God to speak his will to me. The "answers" I present are merely my own opinions and speculations, derived from my attempts to understand what the Word means to me. I am not a person who can sit in a sermon and accept what I am told at face value. I must look up the verses used in the sermon myself and decide whether I believe that God was speaking in the sermon or not. I know at times this makes what I believe disagree with what others believe, but that is the purpose of a fellowship, to discuss our beliefs that all may grow in wisdom and faith.

Luke 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell yuou this man went down to his house justified rather than the other, for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. Christ said those words. He knew that even now man would struggle with thinking himself righteous because he followed law. You say that is not legalism but it is, because the problem with legalism is that it replaces mercy with unyielding self-righteousness, understanding with rigid contempt for those we deem sinners, and chooses to favor confrontation and attempted superiority over aiding those who seek wisdom. Do you honestly claim to follow EVERY single word of the Bible? If you do, I can immediately tell you at the best you've lied. No one is perfect. Christ said that too. But we are forgiven. My point was never that the Bible didn't actually mean what it said, but rather that what is most important to God is where you heart is and whether it follows His will. You come into this discussion where a fellow believer is asking for advice and your answer is "He is very clear about marriage and divorce. You can argue until the ice caps melt and His words will not change." Yes, I certainly see where you are willing to obey God's Word, especially where it calls us to be merciful and have a servants heart. Read the verses before the one that started this topic. Luke 16:14. Christ is talking to the Pharisees. He says the law was teached until John and after that the word of God was preached. He's making a much larger point there than whether remarriage is adultery.

"Your responsibility is to continue to live a Godly life; a constant reminder of what they are putting on the shelf." As short and simple as this was, it's basically as honest an answer as you can get. Are you setting a godly example, without pressuring them (pushing Christianity on the young often creates resentment and rebellion, leading to sin)? Are you praying daily for God's intervention, that he might deal with them in their own way, and touch their souls with his love? If so, I know how hard it may be to accept, but you are doing your part. No one can be forced to follow the straight and narrow, it is a course we all must come to of free will, not by being told by man but by coming to see God's mercy and will.

First of all I'd like to state that I am perhaps not the most "qualified" person to add my two cents to this topic, because I am 21 and have yet to marry. However, I do find it necessary to point out that what many people discussing this topic tend to do is dangerous and counterproductive from a spiritual standpoint. I'm referring to the addition of legalist thought to a spiritual debate. I realize that we are called to obey God's law, still one must realize that His Word was intended to be read by each and considered, prayed over, debated internally; in order that we may not only know the Word, but understand it's meaning to us. This will seem unrelated at first, but I do have a point. Look at David, who was loved by God yet failed in regards to Uriah's wife, Bethseba. He actually commited adultery, and still God favored him. God looked on David's heart, his desire to serve and honor Him, and forgave his indiscretion. My point is that the vital aspect to this topic isn't whether or not it is adultery by definition of the law, but rather what comes of the marriage. Is it a faith-filled loving union which honors God and his desire for a man and woman? If so, there is no need to question oneself with the legalism driven questions that the enemy can use to drag you down. Remember that Satan knows the Word of God, and it is often one of his most powerful tools in causing Christians to doubt their own salvation and purity.