Women at Casinos

[MicroBob]

I haven't been paying much attention to the 'pro-christian vs. anti-christian' aspects of this thread (and have skimmed or entirely skipped many of the posts) but this particular portion did catch my eye:


[ QUOTE ]
He placed us on this Earth for one reason. That reason is to prepare us for eternity. Why do we need to be prepared for eternity? He has a very important task for us to do in eternity. To Give Him Glory.

[/ QUOTE ]


To put the beginning of this together with the end of this I determine that supposedly the ONLY reason God put someone on earth is to 'give him glory' (love him back I guess).

If that's the ONLY reason God put me on earth then supposedly that means one has NO other reason for existing.
I'm just supposed to walk around all day and worship God over and over.


Sorry....I just think that is a bit stupid.

I admit I am an athiest with not much of an interest in the bible so there are certainly many many aspects of it with which I am not familiar (by my choice) but I do hope and believe that many Christians do not share this similar view that the ONLY reason for existing is because God wants a bunch of people down here worshiping him non-stop.



I respect the wishes of the original poster's friend and his wife to believe in whatever it is they believe. That is why I answered his questions more seriously regarding the atmosphere of a typical casino.

But this bit about a God that just wants everyone to revel in his glory as their sole purpose of existence is really kind of silly.

[Megenoita]

Hey MicroBob,

I talked to Emperor about this, and I don't think he meant that statement how it came out. How it came out led you to conclude:

"If that's the ONLY reason God put me on earth then supposedly that means one has NO other reason for existing."

I don't think that conclusion is where he was leading. I think what he meant, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that the chief reason for our living is to glorify God-to worship and serve the One who created us. God has many purposes for people on earth, and it is true that the Bible says that glorifying Him is the overriding one, but that only makes sense, or at least it does to me. Earlier I gave the example of a carpenter who fashions a wood chair. Whatever the chair will be used for, it will glorify its creator in its service because it manifests the workmanship of said creator. Here I think a definition of terms is necessary. "Glorifying God" is such a "religious" term that perhaps its meaning is not clear in our discussion. It doesn't mean sitting around and praying and singing and worshipping. Does it include those things? Yes. But glorifying God is something that any believer does when s/he does anything with an attitude and mindset that gives God the credit and shows God through themselves, manifesting His workmanship in our lives. With that definition, a person who works hard at his job in order to be responsible because God has asked us of this glorifies God in his diligence. A person who bakes a cake for a neighbor because God tells us to care about people glorifies God. A person who does not get angry when provoked, but instead seeks to defer to the source of provocation glorifies God in his self control. Roy, by not looking at other women with lust, glorifies God by seeking pure thinking. So essentially, God is glorified in anything that is done "in faith", or in obedience, in the mindset of wanting to obey God, therefore it is written, "Whatsoever you do, whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God." (I Corinthians 10:31) Anything that a person does to glorify God shows who God is through their actions, just like the finished product of a carpenter shows through the workmanship of its own creator. So glorifying God is not just the purpose, or the goal, of the Christian life; it's the consistency of the entire journey.

"I admit I am an athiest with not much of an interest in the bible..."

For an atheist with not much interest in the Bible, you sure come across decently open to at least discussing these things [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. With that said, it is also true that if you searched a little deeper into these things, I do think they would make more sense and eventually come together to make the ONLY sense. This of course is my faith speaking [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. God says if you will seek Him, you will find Him.

"I respect the wishes of the original poster's friend and his wife to believe in whatever it is they believe. That is why I answered his questions more seriously regarding the atmosphere of a typical casino."

Much appreciated. Your answer is why I posted originally.

M

[MicroBob]

that's a very nice post.


but emperor refers to the love that god wants all to show him in ETERNITY as the way everyone is supposed to give him his glory.

that our purpose now is to prepare us to give him his glory in the afterlife...or something like that.

This too would just seem really kind of vain of God as best I can figure it.


I do appreciate your definition of the term 'glory' though (or whatever) for on-earth purposes and am somewhat acquainted with it.


Thanks for your thoughts on 'finding' God. I know they are well-intentioned.

While I don't necessarily look forward to dying i am reasonably comfortable with my own mortality I believe and am also comfortable with my particular belief-system.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
As we still have a VERY Marxist and athiest Federal Government IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this statement, but I don't think I agree with your sentiment. I think you have a problem with a "marxist and athiest" government, and while I agree that the marxist (I'd prefer to call it socialist) bent does need to be rooted out, I wonder why you would prefer a non-aetheist government. We've seen over and over the persecution and suffering caused by religious governments; it seems like any true Christian would prefer both 1) religious freedom for all people and 2) removal of *overt* religious influence in govermental operations.

[obsidian]

Religion + government is always a bad thing. If you don't believe me just take a look at world history a little bit and see what issues have caused the most bloodshed. Also, I'm not sure why anyone would claim the US government is atheist. It references God repeatedly in both its currency and justice system. Just because it doesn't allow the 10 commandments to be posted in public schools doesn't make it atheist.

[Emperor]

Cool, you are a capitalist. That is wonderful.

I do agree with religious freedom for all people.

I do not agree that the government should take an anti-religious stand. Which the liberal judges, ACLU, and atheists of this country seem to be trying to FORCE onto the rest of us.

The first amendment. If read what Thomas Jefferson wrote about it, you will find that it was written by our forefathers so that religion would never be oppressed by the government, and that the government would ALWAYS be influenced by religion.

Why would our forefathers see the need for government to be influenced by religion?

Our forefathers knew that the rule of law comes from somewhere. Atheists usually believe that it comes from common sense, societal morals, ethics, and traditions. Our forefathers believed that our rule of law is based upon the the law of God. Morality is defined by the law of God, not by man. Christianity, Islam, Judaism all teach this.

So by default our governmental leaders NEED a black and white, well defined, "playbook". Otherwise they end up using their feelings, their personal experiences, beliefs of other nations, etc. to rule upon. Instead of the law of God.

Since the first judge ruled that just because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, doesn't mean a federal judge can't rule on it, we have fallen down a slippery slope of putting human law over God's law. Our forefathers THOUGHT they had made it very clear. Whatever the Constitution fails to give power to Congress specifically, the Congress can not make a law regarding it. If they do, then the Judicial system is there to strike it down based upon ONLY 1 thing. What does the Constitution say about it.

So lots of people are confused why the founders left so much out of the Constitution if they didn't want Congress and Judges "interpreting" it. They left so much out ON PURPOSE. So that the federal goverment would be leaving all of the things that were left out, to the States. The states when ratifying the Constitution thought the "omission" was still vague, so they added the the first 10 amendments to get more specific. Specifically the 10th amendment states:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

This tangent was just to show that while the 1st amendment talks about freedom of religion. It doesn't state freedom FROM religion. The founders knew we need a basis for laws other than what the people nd ESPECIALLY any government branch come up with.

[znup]

So you're going to hell for noticing?

[The Goober]

[ QUOTE ]

This inner knowledge that we all have, since Adam, it is supressed (Romans 1:18), so it's not like every human being thinks that the Bible is true and sees that moral system as absolute, and just wants to disobey. We are blinded by our own selfish desires, and we create our own system of morality, albeit unwittingly. Your system has led you to say, "I always thought that the only real sin is when someone does something that he knows, somewhere deep down, is wrong." It led me to think the same growing up. It's only when we say, "Fine, I give up, I do owe my life to my Creator" that our eyes will be opened to see the truth of God's word, God's desire for our lives. It's a step of faith to acknowledge our Creator God, but once we do, that is when God begins to reveal Himself more and more to us, and we begin to agree more and more with the Bible and understand how it is true.


[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, so we almost agreed, but then you reverted back into doctrine that I can't really argue with. So you are basically saying that humans are created with an intrinsic knowledge of right and wrong, but that only through knowledge of jesus and the bible can we actually see this in ourselves? This of course also brings up the oft-stated problem with christianity. If a baby is abandoned on a dessert island and raised by wild animals, this child has no chance for salvation, because there is no one there to teach him about jesus and hand him a bible?

To continue with your chair analogy. So the creator now makes himself a chair who's only purpose is to serve him (the creator) as something to sit on. However, instead of making the chair simply comfortable by design, he makes it not quite right - perhaps the back leans too far back for his tastes. Now he writes a book declaring his preference for chair back angles, gives this book to another group of chairs (but not directly to the one he just created), and decides that if this new chair doesn't adjust its back angle properly, he will punish it for all eternity.

[MicroBob]

If I weren't an athiest I would thank God everyday for the ACLU!!


i would also pray that various references to God would be removed from our currency, school systems, court-houses, etc.
It seems fairly obvious that most of these references to God are within the Christian belief system.


If we are so open to religion then why don't we have any alternative currency that says "In buddhe we trust"?

What about an athiest alternative currency that somewhere says "I don't trust in God."


Freedom of religion does indeed mean the right to not have a specific religion forced down our throats by the government.

There are plenty of other places to get that kind of brain-washing that the government ESPECIALLY should be as far removed from it as possible.



Please also note then back in the days when I subscribed to a Christian belief system I still had the same ideas regarding prayer in schools, having to swear to God in a court-house, etc etc.

I thought it was highly contradictory and EXTREMELY prejudicial against those who don't happen to believe in the same God that the government is assuming and presuming I believe in.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not agree that the government should take an anti-religious stand. Which the liberal judges, ACLU, and atheists of this country seem to be trying to FORCE onto the rest of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me one example of a liberal judge trying to force you to be an aetheist. Keeping religion out of government is not the same as imposing an "anti-religious" position.


[ QUOTE ]
we have fallen down a slippery slope of putting human law over God's law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good. God's law is between you and God. Imposing God's law on other men is not Man's duty. To do so is almost the definition of oppression.


[ QUOTE ]
This tangent was just to show that while the 1st amendment talks about freedom of religion. It doesn't state freedom FROM religion. The founders knew we need a basis for laws other than what the people nd ESPECIALLY any government branch come up with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Freedom FROM religion, if one chooses, is exactly the intent of the 1st amendment. Imposing religion, in the general sense, on another man is no better than imposing a specific religion.

Nobody is suggesting that men of religion should not serve in the government or that such men should not use their religious principles in making their decisions. On the contrary, such men are often less contemptable than the standard polititian. However, once one starts using imposing specific tenets of one's religion on the general population, the line has been crossed. That's what I meant when I said "removal of *overt* religious influence in govermental operations" (with the emphasis on overt).

Personally, I find arguments about what the founding fathers intended to be uninteresting. What they actually wrote *in the constitution* is more interesting, but still not the end-all-be-all. They were not infalliable. And more importantly, nobody alive today agreed to their conditions. However, the constitution is better than any other document we have, and using it is much easier than re-drawing a new constitution every generation. It's not a holy text, though. It doesn't grant me any rights - it only re-affirms the rights I already have inherently as a human, rights given by God, and it doesn't do a very good job at that (hence the disagreements where it's ambiguous).

Personally, I think we could get by with a much simplified set of laws:

1) The declaration of independence
2) Thou shalt not kill
3) Thou shalt not steal

What else is needed?