First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Where have all the good men gone?
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 6/18/08
Now as Christ was the head of the church, so should the father be the head of the house. This is a christian concept not much applied anymore. but to ignore parts of the bible that do not favor us would be a waste of the gospel in its entirety.

Ephesians 5:23 (Show me Ephesians 5)
For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

Colossians 1:18 (Show me Colossians 1)
And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Meaning that it is the fathers job to fulfill the faith in his home, to lead his family in a Christian nature. The son having the right to have a say of his own development, I personally cannot agree with that. If it goes against scripture, I think the wrong mindset has been already been set.
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 6/19/08

YouAreDumb wrote:


cryolyger wrote:

Whether or not you believe it the truth of the matter is even if you are raised a certain way, you can break away from it, as I did with my family as the world can do with their own, with little to no effort you can choose not to believe that is the only thing I wish not to be in a controlled enviornment. and I am going to introduce my child any way I see fit, as his parent. And that just so happens to be that the blood of Christ washed our sins away. Now when my child gets to a certain age, depending on how knowledegable they are, I will no longer take them to church, they can go on their own, as did my grandparents and parents did to me. This sociological thinking isn't a new thing you are preaching brotha, I have heard this arguement time and time again. How a child is raised WILL NOT dictate how that child will live, you can merely influence.
I dont think you quite understand that the mind (from which all choices come) is made by how you are raised. Your choices after that will be a product of that mind, which in turn lead to new experiences, which lead to new choices, but the start of it all is still the mind that set it into motion. QED.



My appologies if I do not wish to introduce the corrupt world to my child, I wish for him to find out himself just how awful it is. Man is wicked and without the grace of God we would all still be.


Your loathing of mankind is also nothing new. Such self effacing doctrine is masochistic nonsense, which glories in mans darker side, while ignoring all the beauty and wonder his mind has created.


" I dont think you quite understand that the mind (from which all choices come) is made by how you are raised"

Response: I don't dispute that choices come from the mind. However, I do doubt that all necessary actions come form the diverse faculties that make up the mind. Only if you belong to the philosophical school of that reduces actions to mere thoughts would you even begin to believe that all actions come from the mind. FYI: the school of thought I refer to is called "behaviorism" which is pioneered by B.F. Skinner, et al.

"Your loathing of mankind is also nothing new. Such self effacing doctrine is masochistic nonsense, which glories in mans darker side, while ignoring all the beauty and wonder his mind has created"

Response: I am only referring to the theological school of which I hold, i.e., Augustinian. Now I don't expect you to know what it teaches exactly, but it still raises some plausible answers to anthropological inquiry. Also, you make insulting intellectual epithets which I think are not needed in making a worthwhile dialog on human autonomy--which seems like the view you seem to hold--and, or Biblical Anthropology, which I hold to. It may seem like a pessimistic world view to you, however it is still esteemed in the academic setting of many notable theologians and philosophers. I will gladly redirect you to some of these professors if you have further questions.
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 6/19/08

YouAreDumb wrote:


cryolyger wrote:

Now as Christ was the head of the church, so should the father be the head of the house. This is a christian concept not much applied anymore. but to ignore parts of the bible that do not favor us would be a waste of the gospel in its entirety.

Ephesians 5:23 (Show me Ephesians 5)
For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

Colossians 1:18 (Show me Colossians 1)
And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Meaning that it is the fathers job to fulfill the faith in his home, to lead his family in a Christian nature. The son having the right to have a say of his own development, I personally cannot agree with that. If it goes against scripture, I think the wrong mindset has been already been set.

Right, let us not forget that women are to remain subservient to men in both the church and the home.


You completely misunderstood why I posted holy writ. I simply was showing the federal (or "headship") theology which is pervasive throughout the Old and New Testaments. I think the best way to illustrate such a point is for you to have some cursory knowledge of Covenant Theology. But since it seems like you have a cursory knowledge of theology as a whole, I don't expect you to know that either. However, I will venture to encourage you to at least try and understand it. Try reading Dr. M. Horton. He published a book called , "God of the Covenants." Great book for an introductory look at how God deals with people since the beginning of Creation (from the Reformed understanding, of course).
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 6/19/08

YouAreDumb wrote:


AburaiRukia wrote:

haha I'm wonderig whether i should scold you guys for getting off topic or not!

I was recently listening to a preacher...think it was last...saturday! He was brought to Christianity at the age of 4 by his mother and even though he went through a lot of hardships ( like being sexually abused twice by the age of 10) he stayed in the faith and kept going in life ONLY because he was a Christian and came to trust God so much. NEVER underestimate the faith of a child. Plus it says in the Bible that you need faith like a child to get into heaven anyway.

Teaching something to a child at a young age isn't indoctrination because when we grow up we all grow out of the things that we believe aren't true. For example! I no longer believe in Santa Clause, the Boogy Man, the Easter Bunny, or anything I was taught to believe in as a child.
Those are not good analogies at all. People do not really think those things exist, and while they may mention them to kids-they do not take them to a place once a week to learn about the Boogey man. They are not taught that unless you believe in the boogey man you will go to a place of endless suffering, and they are not taught "boogian" values. I think you get my point.




The truth of the matter is that EVERYONE questions there faith when they get older and EVERYONE comes to their own conclusions in the end no matter what they were taught.

Otherwise we'd have a LOT of milk and cookies going to waste every Christmas Eve rofl!


Your logic is amusing I quite agree.


I can only agree in part. Do people question their beliefs in a more mature atmosphere? Sure. But do they repudiate everything or question the very epistemic basis of their belief in the first place? No. I think there is a foundational principle that leads to certain conclusions that wont allow for "radical agnosticism."
For instance, while I ask the questions of reality, I am the one doing the asking. There is one thing I am still not "doubting," as Descartes put it: I don't doubt that I am the one doubting. So yes, I only agree in part.
Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 6/19/08

cryolyger wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:


cryolyger wrote:

Whether or not you believe it the truth of the matter is even if you are raised a certain way, you can break away from it, as I did with my family as the world can do with their own, with little to no effort you can choose not to believe that is the only thing I wish not to be in a controlled enviornment. and I am going to introduce my child any way I see fit, as his parent. And that just so happens to be that the blood of Christ washed our sins away. Now when my child gets to a certain age, depending on how knowledegable they are, I will no longer take them to church, they can go on their own, as did my grandparents and parents did to me. This sociological thinking isn't a new thing you are preaching brotha, I have heard this arguement time and time again. How a child is raised WILL NOT dictate how that child will live, you can merely influence.
I dont think you quite understand that the mind (from which all choices come) is made by how you are raised. Your choices after that will be a product of that mind, which in turn lead to new experiences, which lead to new choices, but the start of it all is still the mind that set it into motion. QED.



My appologies if I do not wish to introduce the corrupt world to my child, I wish for him to find out himself just how awful it is. Man is wicked and without the grace of God we would all still be.


Your loathing of mankind is also nothing new. Such self effacing doctrine is masochistic nonsense, which glories in mans darker side, while ignoring all the beauty and wonder his mind has created.


" I dont think you quite understand that the mind (from which all choices come) is made by how you are raised"

Response: I don't dispute that choices come from the mind. However, I do doubt that all necessary actions come form the diverse faculties that make up the mind. Only if you belong to the philosophical school of that reduces actions to mere thoughts would you even begin to believe that all actions come from the mind. FYI: the school of thought I refer to is called "behaviorism" which is pioneered by B.F. Skinner, et al.

"Your loathing of mankind is also nothing new. Such self effacing doctrine is masochistic nonsense, which glories in mans darker side, while ignoring all the beauty and wonder his mind has created"

Response: I am only referring to the theological school of which I hold, i.e., Augustinian. Now I don't expect you to know what it teaches exactly, but it still raises some plausible answers to anthropological inquiry
No, I know what it teaches, and I find it morally repugnant, just as I find Augustine himself to be a miserable old fool. I said it is nothing new because it has been a part of your religion for centuries.





. Also, you make insulting intellectual epithets which I think are not needed in making a worthwhile dialog on human autonomy--which seems like the view you seem to hold--and, or Biblical Anthropology, which I hold to. It may seem like a pessimistic world view to you, however it is still esteemed in the academic setting of many notable theologians and philosophers. I will gladly redirect you to some of these professors if you have further questions.

Listen I have read literally dozens if not hundreds of books on theology and philosophy. This is not way lessens my disgust for yours. I am not one of the people who gives respect to opposing viewpoints-quite the opposite in fact. I feel nothing but revulsion for both Reformed theology and also Augustinian theology. Both are at heart immoral . I will discuss the subject if you wish but I will refuse to give any esteem to either one.
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 6/19/08
This discussion doesn't belong in this forum. I have time available if you wish to discuss theology, but I would insist you consider your tone, it would appear that you are attacking what it means to be a father.

I must quote once more a favorite verse that seems to apply to this situation. "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers" (Ephesians 4:29).

In any regard back to the subject at hand, our country as does our world lacks morales and values, as well as throwing our old traditions such as respect out the window; what then, is the solution, or what is happening with society that would incur such a radical reformation in a negative context.
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 6/19/08
Alright, it is obvious you are well-read. But I must again enforce this is not the place. If your looking for a debate in this fashion just send me a message. Otherwise stick to the topic at hand. The question is about morales of man, not of those of the Divine.
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 6/19/08
Alright, theres a topic, these laws, they are there to serve the people and protect. Or that was their original context, agreed? Then what of the morals found in traditional society, chivalry for instance, when did that become a thing of the past?

A secular society, interesting concept. Then by this I think it's safe to concur the concept between right and wrong is diminshing as well? possibly due to a lack of christian influence. There were days when we were at war and non-christians and christians alike fought together, during the wars we didnt get along with other societys but our own was united.
Moderator
14757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
65 / M / FL. But, I (May...
Offline
Posted 6/19/08

digs wrote:

Neither, God commands things because it is His will. God knows what is right and wrong and sets the law for such things. God is the creator of morals. there are absolutes in this world, and morals are one of them. If you are saying that morals don't apply to atheists, then please logically tell me why you should still do good and be a "good person?"


WOW good answer
Moderator
14757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
65 / M / FL. But, I (May...
Offline
Posted 6/19/08

cryolyger wrote:

This discussion doesn't belong in this forum. I have time available if you wish to discuss theology, but I would insist you consider your tone, it would appear that you are attacking what it means to be a father.

I must quote once more a favorite verse that seems to apply to this situation. "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers" (Ephesians 4:29).

In any regard back to the subject at hand, our country as does our world lacks morales and values, as well as throwing our old traditions such as respect out the window; what then, is the solution, or what is happening with society that would incur such a radical reformation in a negative context.


Hmmm I am going have to agree about it being off topic in this forum. This thread is for most part for talking about finding or not finding the ONE God has picked out for YOU. This thread has been getting off topic for some time now and I let it go, but now that other members are saying it is off topic. I will have to hold it to topic it was started with. THE MOD has spoken
Scientist Moderator
digs 
52086 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/08
Sometimes God has us to be single. It isn't promised that we get married. God knows everything, he knows who we will marry if it is His will.
Moderator
10834 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / Mare Serenitatis...
Offline
Posted 6/19/08

YouAreDumb wrote:


Ratman21 wrote:


cryolyger wrote:

This discussion doesn't belong in this forum. I have time available if you wish to discuss theology, but I would insist you consider your tone, it would appear that you are attacking what it means to be a father.

I must quote once more a favorite verse that seems to apply to this situation. "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers" (Ephesians 4:29).

In any regard back to the subject at hand, our country as does our world lacks morales and values, as well as throwing our old traditions such as respect out the window; what then, is the solution, or what is happening with society that would incur such a radical reformation in a negative context.


Hmmm I am going have to agree about it being off topic in this forum. This thread is for most part for talking about finding or not finding the ONE God has picked out for YOU. This thread has been getting off topic for some time now and I let it go, but now that other members are saying it is off topic. I will have to hold it to topic it was started with. THE MOD has spoken


If god picked them out doesn't that violate free will?


No it doesn't God can pick you for something and you can follow it or not. Hilter wasn't chosen to kill over 24 million people he did that on his own. God may pick the path but WE choose to follow to it. There's many roads in life. Yes God may pick certain people but those certain people don't always come though and someone else might rise to the occanion.
Read Relucant Phophits, it's a play that talks about this subject. (sorta)
I'm still looking for it but didn't Paul say something along the lines of...and this is me prepassaging....'Marriage isn't for everyone. Sometimes it is better not to wed than to let someone stand in the way of you and God?'
Marriage isn't for everyone? Someone people can't stand to be with someone allll the time some are too independented.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
52086 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/08
I think what Paul was talking about was not letting a sex life get in the way of serving the Lord. And if you spend too much time with your wife, it may be hindering God working in your life.
Moderator
10834 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / Mare Serenitatis...
Offline
Posted 6/19/08
Do you remember where it was said? I want to see if for my self... it's not that I don't believe you I just like seeing things for myself.
But i could have swore if said that you shouldn't let other gwet betwee nyo uand God and that you should worry about gwetting married not everyone is meant for marriage.
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 6/19/08

YouAreDumb wrote:


cryolyger wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:


cryolyger wrote:

Whether or not you believe it the truth of the matter is even if you are raised a certain way, you can break away from it, as I did with my family as the world can do with their own, with little to no effort you can choose not to believe that is the only thing I wish not to be in a controlled enviornment. and I am going to introduce my child any way I see fit, as his parent. And that just so happens to be that the blood of Christ washed our sins away. Now when my child gets to a certain age, depending on how knowledegable they are, I will no longer take them to church, they can go on their own, as did my grandparents and parents did to me. This sociological thinking isn't a new thing you are preaching brotha, I have heard this arguement time and time again. How a child is raised WILL NOT dictate how that child will live, you can merely influence.
I dont think you quite understand that the mind (from which all choices come) is made by how you are raised. Your choices after that will be a product of that mind, which in turn lead to new experiences, which lead to new choices, but the start of it all is still the mind that set it into motion. QED.



My appologies if I do not wish to introduce the corrupt world to my child, I wish for him to find out himself just how awful it is. Man is wicked and without the grace of God we would all still be.


Your loathing of mankind is also nothing new. Such self effacing doctrine is masochistic nonsense, which glories in mans darker side, while ignoring all the beauty and wonder his mind has created.


" I dont think you quite understand that the mind (from which all choices come) is made by how you are raised"

Response: I don't dispute that choices come from the mind. However, I do doubt that all necessary actions come form the diverse faculties that make up the mind. Only if you belong to the philosophical school of that reduces actions to mere thoughts would you even begin to believe that all actions come from the mind. FYI: the school of thought I refer to is called "behaviorism" which is pioneered by B.F. Skinner, et al.

"Your loathing of mankind is also nothing new. Such self effacing doctrine is masochistic nonsense, which glories in mans darker side, while ignoring all the beauty and wonder his mind has created"

Response: I am only referring to the theological school of which I hold, i.e., Augustinian. Now I don't expect you to know what it teaches exactly, but it still raises some plausible answers to anthropological inquiry
No, I know what it teaches, and I find it morally repugnant, just as I find Augustine himself to be a miserable old fool. I said it is nothing new because it has been a part of your religion for centuries.





. Also, you make insulting intellectual epithets which I think are not needed in making a worthwhile dialog on human autonomy--which seems like the view you seem to hold--and, or Biblical Anthropology, which I hold to. It may seem like a pessimistic world view to you, however it is still esteemed in the academic setting of many notable theologians and philosophers. I will gladly redirect you to some of these professors if you have further questions.

Listen I have read literally dozens if not hundreds of books on theology and philosophy. This is not way lessens my disgust for yours. I am not one of the people who gives respect to opposing viewpoints-quite the opposite in fact. I feel nothing but revulsion for both Reformed theology and also Augustinian theology. Both are at heart immoral . I will discuss the subject if you wish but I will refuse to give any esteem to either one.


Then tell me, who have you read? Bavinck? Van Til? Warfield? Who have you read? And you claim they are "immoral." Tell me, where did you get this sense of morality? What is morally reprehensible in your system of logical positivism? It seems like you appear to have a non-believing world view which cannot account for morality to begin with. So tell me, what is your source of authority since it doesn't come from a trans-temporal being?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.