That's a most excellent answer and I agree with every word of it. Faith is a gift from God, and even the act of turning towards Christ is by the work of the Holy Spirit. I was urged by the Spirit to say what I did, so I assumed it was for a reason. I feel God blessed it, and that it was His will. You're right that it would be impossible for someone give their lives in totality without being reborn, however, I put that out there that that is what God wants, and even the intention of doing it is useful to God. He could use that and support it and make sure it happens. People do drop to their knees and give their lives to God every day, and whether it is from going to church or seeing a message like mine, whatever it is, I know it is all by the grace of the Spirit. So we're in full agreement, which is odd if you're not a Christian. How did that happen?

>> ^dr_izzybizzy:
It seems to me that one of the basic tenets of orthodox Christianity is the belief that humans are incapable of being totally committed to the service of God, of worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth, or even of having faith at all prior to their regeneration and new life in Christ. To suggest that it is necessary (and therefore possible) for us to make a total submission of our will to the will of God before we invite Christ to enter our life and take over is to put the cart before the horse, for the very reason we need Christ to "take over" our lives is the fact that we are incapable of obedience (willing submission) on our own. If we could do it before receiving divine assistance, we could do it apart from divine assistance, which renders Christ unnecessary, which no orthodox Christian would ever affirm. In fact, we cannot even be willing to submit (which, to be sure, is different from willing submission) prior to the reception of grace. To think otherwise is to fall into the heretical trap of Pelagianism, which has been condemned among orthodox Christians since the 4th century.
And so, Augustine argues that if, as the Bible says, God creates in the believer a new heart to replace their heart of stone, then we cannot assume "without absurdity" that "there previously existed in any man the merit of a good will, to entitle him to the removal of his stony heart, when all the while this very heart of stone signifies nothing else than a will of the hardest kind and such as is absolutely inflexible against God. For where a good will precedes, there is, of course, no longer a heart of stone."
...which is why Anselm prays "Teach me to seek you, and reveal yourself to me, when I seek you, for I cannot seek you, except you teach me, nor find you, except you reveal yourself."
...and Aquinas reasons "a man cannot turn to God except through God turning him to himself."
...and Luther writes a whole treatise on "The Bondage of the Will"
And, to be sure, they all consider themselves to be drawing logical conclusions from what they read in the Bible, quoting passages like:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44)
"You did not choose me, I chose you" (John 15:16)
"Without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5)
"Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned." (Lamentations 5:8)
"By grace you have been saved, through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)
So, in sum, orthodox Christians have, for at least 1500 years or so, agreed that there is nothing humans can do on their own to prepare themselves (i.e. be worthy of) the reception of grace(i.e. to have a new life in Christ in which he "takes over") -which is precisely why Christians have no reason to boast. To say we must do something first, whether it be "to believe" or "have faith" or "be willing to obey," before we can receive grace (a life in Christ) is to treat grace as a reward, which no orthodox Christian would maintain. I'm sorry to say, what you have asked of us is not only impossible, it appears to be unchristian (which, to be fair, I'm sure was not your intention).
I applaud your desire to share your faith. I encourage you to learn more about it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
The reason I said that is because God requires a total commitment. God is looking for people who will worship Him in Spirit and in truth. So, if you're half-hearted about it that isn't going to get you anywhere. God will provide the evidence that He is there, but you have to be willing to give your life to God first.
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
>> ^dr_izzybizzy:
So...doing X will lead to paradise, not doing X will lead to endless misery?
For curiosity's sake, why shouldn't I ask Jesus to take control of my life if I'm not ready (i.e. what would be the negative consequence of doing so)?
>> ^shinyblurry:
There is only one way to eternal life, and that is through Jesus Christ. If you want to know Him, find a quiet place and pray that He enter your life, and let Him take it over. Don't make the request unless you are willing to turn yourself, and your life completely over to God. God bless.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
>> ^vaire2ube:
imagine the double rainbow!!
he says we should accept our mortality, but stopping aging and melding minds with technology to live forever is kinda my hope. I enjoy watching this all unfold and id like to continue to.

It seems to me that one of the basic tenets of orthodox Christianity is the belief that humans are incapable of being totally committed to the service of God, of worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth, or even of having faith at all prior to their regeneration and new life in Christ. To suggest that it is necessary (and therefore possible) for us to make a total submission of our will to the will of God before we invite Christ to enter our life and take over is to put the cart before the horse, for the very reason we need Christ to "take over" our lives is the fact that we are incapable of obedience (willing submission) on our own. If we could do it before receiving divine assistance, we could do it apart from divine assistance, which renders Christ unnecessary, which no orthodox Christian would ever affirm. In fact, we cannot even be willing to submit (which, to be sure, is different from willing submission) prior to the reception of grace. To think otherwise is to fall into the heretical trap of Pelagianism, which has been condemned among orthodox Christians since the 4th century.

And so, Augustine argues that if, as the Bible says, God creates in the believer a new heart to replace their heart of stone, then we cannot assume "without absurdity" that "there previously existed in any man the merit of a good will, to entitle him to the removal of his stony heart, when all the while this very heart of stone signifies nothing else than a will of the hardest kind and such as is absolutely inflexible against God. For where a good will precedes, there is, of course, no longer a heart of stone."

...which is why Anselm prays "Teach me to seek you, and reveal yourself to me, when I seek you, for I cannot seek you, except you teach me, nor find you, except you reveal yourself."

...and Aquinas reasons "a man cannot turn to God except through God turning him to himself."

...and Luther writes a whole treatise on "The Bondage of the Will"

And, to be sure, they all consider themselves to be drawing logical conclusions from what they read in the Bible, quoting passages like:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44)
"You did not choose me, I chose you" (John 15:16)
"Without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5)
"Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned." (Lamentations 5:8)
"By grace you have been saved, through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)


So, in sum, orthodox Christians have, for at least 1500 years or so, agreed that there is nothing humans can do on their own to prepare themselves (i.e. be worthy of) the reception of grace(i.e. to have a new life in Christ in which he "takes over") -which is precisely why Christians have no reason to boast. To say we must do something first, whether it be "to believe" or "have faith" or "be willing to obey," before we can receive grace (a life in Christ) is to treat grace as a reward, which no orthodox Christian would maintain. I'm sorry to say, what you have asked of us is not only impossible, it appears to be unchristian (which, to be fair, I'm sure was not your intention).

I applaud your desire to share your faith. I encourage you to learn more about it.


>> ^shinyblurry:

The reason I said that is because God requires a total commitment. God is looking for people who will worship Him in Spirit and in truth. So, if you're half-hearted about it that isn't going to get you anywhere. God will provide the evidence that He is there, but you have to be willing to give your life to God first.
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
>> ^dr_izzybizzy:
So...doing X will lead to paradise, not doing X will lead to endless misery?
For curiosity's sake, why shouldn't I ask Jesus to take control of my life if I'm not ready (i.e. what would be the negative consequence of doing so)?
>> ^shinyblurry:
There is only one way to eternal life, and that is through Jesus Christ. If you want to know Him, find a quiet place and pray that He enter your life, and let Him take it over. Don't make the request unless you are willing to turn yourself, and your life completely over to God. God bless.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
>> ^vaire2ube:
imagine the double rainbow!!
he says we should accept our mortality, but stopping aging and melding minds with technology to live forever is kinda my hope. I enjoy watching this all unfold and id like to continue to.

Mongol General: Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^bcglorf:

And meanwhile you lament the loss of monsters like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad. Well done.

Do you have a citation for that claim?
Meanwhile 1.5 million dead civilians in Iraq, untold thousands of dead civilians from drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, hundreds of innocents locked up and tortured at secret prisons all over the world, terror bombings in North Africa, yeah... you've got the moral high-ground here.

And your problem is you hold Saddam guiltless for the Iraqi dead. You hold the Taliban and Al Qaeda guiltless for the Afghan and Pakistani dead. You hold Al Shabab guiltless for the Somali dead. You hold Gaddafi guiltless for the Libyan dead.
What kind of twisted world view do you have were you reject the evidence for the above, but fully and enthusiastically embrace the guilt of those fighting against Saddam, Gaddafi, the Taliban, Al Qaeada and Al Shabab?


Fuck you. That's 3 times now in this thread you've made the same baseless accusations against me. Fuck you. You want to ignore the world wide terrorism and murder that you support, so be it.

Using your standard, we should be invading/bombing China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and half of the world. And to go further, China, Russia, and whoever else should be invading/bombing the US trying to install the type of government they think we should have.

What kind of "twisted world view" is that?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:

And meanwhile you lament the loss of monsters like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad. Well done.

Do you have a citation for that claim?
Meanwhile 1.5 million dead civilians in Iraq, untold thousands of dead civilians from drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, hundreds of innocents locked up and tortured at secret prisons all over the world, terror bombings in North Africa, yeah... you've got the moral high-ground here.


And your problem is you hold Saddam guiltless for the Iraqi dead. You hold the Taliban and Al Qaeda guiltless for the Afghan and Pakistani dead. You hold Al Shabab guiltless for the Somali dead. You hold Gaddafi guiltless for the Libyan dead.

What kind of twisted world view do you have were you reject the evidence for the above, but fully and enthusiastically embrace the guilt of those fighting against Saddam, Gaddafi, the Taliban, Al Qaeada and Al Shabab?

>> ^bcglorf:


And meanwhile you lament the loss of monsters like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad. Well done.


Do you have a citation for that claim?

Meanwhile 1.5 million dead civilians in Iraq, untold thousands of dead civilians from drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, hundreds of innocents locked up and tortured at secret prisons all over the world, terror bombings in North Africa, yeah... you've got the moral high-ground here.

>> ^marbles:

@cheerleaders for Western colonialism and imperialism
This is what you support:
http://videosift.com/video/Make-No-Mistake-NATO-committed-War-Cri
mes-in-Libya
Get ready for the occupation force in Libya, the advance on Syria, and maybe even a confrontation with Iran.
http://videosift.com/video/Military-Sources-Reveal-Ground-For
ce-Invasion-of-Libya
http://videosift.com/video/World-War-III-Defined-Wider-War-
Unfolding-in-Middle-East
This has been planned out for at least 10 years.
Gareth Porter: General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia.


And meanwhile you lament the loss of monsters like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad. Well done.

Ten Ways Progressive Policies Harm Society's Moral Character
By Dennis Prager
7/19/2011

While liberals are certain about the moral superiority of liberal policies, the truth is that those policies actually diminish a society's moral character. Many individual liberals are fine people, but the policies they advocate tend to make a people worse. Here are 10 reasons:

1. The bigger the government, the less the citizens do for one another. If the state will take care of me and my neighbors, why should I? This is why Western Europeans, people who have lived in welfare states far longer than Americans have, give less to charity and volunteer less time to others than do Americans of the same socioeconomic status.

The greatest description of American civilization was written in the early 19th century by the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville. One of the differences distinguishing Americans from Europeans that he most marveled at was how much Americans -- through myriad associations -- took care of one another. Until President Franklin Roosevelt began the seemingly inexorable movement of America toward the European welfare state -- vastly expanded later by other Democratic presidents -- Americans took responsibility for one another and for themselves far more than they do today. Churches, Rotary Clubs, free-loan societies and other voluntary associations were ubiquitous. As the state grew, however, all these associations declined. In Western Europe, they have virtually all disappeared.

2. The welfare state, though often well intended, is nevertheless a Ponzi scheme. Conservatives have known this for generations. But now, any honest person must acknowledge it. The welfare state is predicated on collecting money from today's workers in order to pay for those who paid in before them. But today's workers don't have enough money to sustain the scheme, and there are too few of them to do so. As a result, virtually every welfare state in Europe, and many American states, like California, are going broke.

3. Citizens of liberal welfare states become increasingly narcissistic. The great preoccupations of vast numbers of Brits, Frenchmen, Germans and other Western Europeans are how much vacation time they will have and how early they can retire and be supported by the state.

4. The liberal welfare state makes people disdain work. Americans work considerably harder than Western Europeans, and contrary to liberal thought since Karl Marx, work builds character.

5. Nothing more guarantees the erosion of character than getting something for nothing. In the liberal welfare state, one develops an entitlement mentality -- another expression of narcissism. And the rhetoric of liberalism -- labeling each new entitlement a "right" -- reinforces this sense of entitlement.

6. The bigger the government, the more the corruption. As the famous truism goes, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Of course, big businesses are also often corrupt. But they are eventually caught or go out of business. The government cannot go out of business. And unlike corrupt governments, corrupt businesses cannot print money and thereby devalue a nation's currency, and they cannot arrest you.

7. The welfare state corrupts family life. Even many Democrats have acknowledged the destructive consequences of the welfare state on the underclass. It has rendered vast numbers of males unnecessary to females, who have looked to the state to support them and their children (and the more children, the more state support) rather than to husbands. In effect, these women took the state as their husband.

8. The welfare state inhibits the maturation of its young citizens into responsible adults. As regards men specifically, I was raised, as were all generations of American men before me, to aspire to work hard in order to marry and support a wife and children. No more. One of the reasons many single women lament the prevalence of boy-men -- men who have not grown up -- is that the liberal state has told men they don't have to support anybody. They are free to remain boys for as long as they want.

And here is an example regarding both sexes. The loudest and most sustained applause I ever heard was that of college students responding to a speech by President Barack Obama informing them that they would now be covered by their parents' health insurance policies until age 26.

9. As a result of the left's sympathetic views of pacifism and because almost no welfare state can afford a strong military, European countries rely on America to fight the world's evils and even to defend them.

10. The leftist (SET ITAL) weltanschauung (END ITAL) sees society's and the world's great battle as between rich and poor rather than between good and evil. Equality therefore trumps morality. This is what produces the morally confused liberal elites that can venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free and decent America that has greater inequality.

None of this matters to progressives. Against all this destructiveness, they will respond not with arguments to refute these consequences of the liberal welfare state, but by citing the terms "social justice" and "compassion," and by labeling their opponents "selfish" and worse.

If you want to feel good, liberalism is awesome. If you want to do good, it is largely awful.

Not only was his comment egregious, it was also abominable, atrocious, awful, base, beastly, beneath contempt, conspicuous, contemptible, crass, deplorable, despicable, detestable, dire, disgusting, dreadful, excessive, extreme, fetid, filthy, flagrant, foul, glaring, grievous, gross, hateful, heinous, horrible, horrid, hyperbolic, incontinent, infamous, inordinate, intemperate, intolerable, lamentable, loathsome, lousy, marked, monstrous, nasty, nefarious, noisome, notorious, obnoxious, odious, of mark, offensive, out of bounds, outrageous, pitiable, pitiful, regrettable, reprehensible, repulsive, rotten, sad, scandalous, scurvy, shameful, shocking, shoddy, sordid, terrible, unconscionable, undue, unmitigated, unqualified, unreasonable, vile, villainous, woeful, worthless and wretched. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
burdturgler had every right to pull out the ban hammer. That statement is disgusting and has no place on this site, let alone this decade. Who still says shit like that? It's 2011 for Cthulhu's sake.
Also, @blankfist, do you really not see the difference between "nigger" and "cracker"? I sense you do, but if not, I'd be more than happy to elaborate. Also, trying to make this into some kind of political argument is beyond lame. Shame on you. You should know better.

Whatever, selfrighteousfuturetoday. What he said wasn't that egregious. And certainly not worth a ban. I stand by that.

@blankfist

That's a shame, really. I would of though examples like this would of shown how flawed the government do-gooding can be in the affairs of morality. One could, and rightly, question why the government funds abortion at all when, like DT pointed out, children's leukemia is always struggling for more support? Why is it MORE morally correct to help women abort proto-human matter and not children who's bones are decomposing in their living, breathing, fully human bodies? It is an unanswerable question because it strikes at the core of all your own personal beliefs. It would be very hard to convey it rationally.

In as much as it now laments its controversial status via the context federal funding, for awhile, it also benefited. It is hard to gain enough political capital to expect addition funding for children's leukemia, rotting children's bones just isn't sexy enough for a political person to care about...caring != votes in that case. As such, it is exceeding hard to get federal funding for things that don't have a lot of political pressure behind it. Which means federal good-will has to go through 2 filters, first it has to garner enough popular support to warrant a politic-o to care, then it has to make it around the politic-o circuit and get some place positive. I have had the pleasure of being involved with charities from time to time, and it much easier to get support directly from people then to influence how they vote and try to get funding via that context.

Plus, funding is only half the battle, it is the actual fighting part. The REAL battle, the battle the wins the war, is about awareness. If you aren't fighting the awareness battle, you will lose in time. Funding is about staying alive in the minds of those who's support you need. The awareness runs for breast cancer have to be the finest example of this idea done well. When your money is delegated by some third party politic-o, you can rest assured that your money will only be spent on things that buy him the most votes. Which is a shame, really, because there are tons of good causes out there that don't buy votes.

The best solution is to be as connected to your local charity organizations as you can. If we want a world worth living in, each person must live the role, not try and vote it into reality, that simply wont do.

I'm preaching to the choir though.

Please don't talk my recent wall of text the wrong way. It was more of a personal lament than anything negative directed at you. Read it as me having a tantrum that the world isn't ideal, or even possible to get there. Nothing denigrating to you was intended.

What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!

Good fucking on him. Fuck this lamentation re: 'it's a horrible world that leads to this', any situation where you don't teach the bully to turn around and walk away leaves them knowing that they can do it again...

And irt 'waah waah, he might have come from bad circumstances', the 'abused becomes the abuser' defense doesn't typically work anywhere else, it's not a legitimate defense here. You step in to a fight with someone, you're gambling that you're better than they are. In the heat of the moment, anything can happen and as the video shows, does. This little fucker thought he was tough because he had gotten away with it before. Now he's a worldwide disgrace and a laughing stock. Mebbe it'll teach him something and make him a better person for it. I doubt it but no other lesson was going to do that.

Did you speak to God yourself shiny? Or did you read the re-re-re-translation of a book written by agenda driven nutters like you 600 years after a bunch of backward uneducated nomads in the desert wrote it?
(No offense to early mid-east culture but the Chinese at least could read and write by then, shame God gave them a miss).

You don't sound like a bad person but you HAVE to understand that to those of us who are not indoctrinated into believing in ancient peasant stories of magic tricks you sound like a NUTTER. And a nutter who claims to know the inner thoughts of a supreme being! If I was God I'd kick your ass for presumtion.

Come on, you must know you're crazy. If you lament the state of civilization then understand that tribal superstitions and fearfulness are FAR from part of the solution. Let's face it if you'd been born in a different country you'd be just as fervent about a whole different story.


>> ^shinyblurry:

I wouldn't want anyone to go to hell, and neither does God..

God has made it very clear He isn't letting any sin into Heaven and everyone knows that..

I don't mind it for the Lords sake but the worst part of it for me is knowing that the ones doing this will be judged for it if they don't repent.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Of course we have taxed ourselves to prosperity.

If you guys had your way during the 20th century, america would have the stature of Canada - not that Canada isn't a nice place. Our military, our space program, our infrastructure, our technological advantage took taxes.

Now you shortsighted fools want to end that. Well, living in Beijing, I see every day how they are throwing money into all the above categories and getting results. Then, 10-15 years from now, you guys will be lamenting how and why US has seen better days.