Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Loonette wrote:I can't even imagine where all this puts me in the eyes of some of you. But it's all okay. I know where I sit with God. I was created by God for a very specific purpose, just like all living creatures on Earth. And I don't question - I just take each step with care and seek guidance for the journey.

And I know where I sit with the holidays too. It's such a reflective time of the year. A time to slow down. A time to share celebrations with others.

Just two small bits of a well written post.

I don't go to church, (although I was brought up in an Anglican home and was Chistened in the Anglican church as well) but still consider myself to be Christian. Do I have to attend a church to continue my faith???

No offence, but I am against abortions, with that said, I'm also pro-choice. Where do I come off as being enlightened enough to make judgement on your, or anyone else's choices?

My beliefs are just that... my beliefs. Do I have a right or obligation to force those beliefs on you or anybody else??? Not in my eyes. I believe in God, or I should say, a "GOD". I have always thought of him as a compassionate and forgiving being, not the fear mongering entity envisioned in so many Christian teachings.

I have friends that were told they would go to hell by a nun, just because on the day of their first communion, they chose to squeeze one more sister into the pew so they could all sit together during the service. Apparently, they were told only so many people to the pew... how dumb is that. After the youngest was forced to move, she started to cry and her mother removed her from the church along with her brother and sisters, never to return. This woman was a faithful Catholic and it was that act of ignorance that pushed her away from her faith.

There is no place for intolerance in the church, or personal beliefs.

I believe in the second coming of Christ.

Those of the Bahá'í Faith also believe in the second coming of Christ, they just believe that it already happened in the person of Bahá'u'lláh.

Judaism is awaiting more of a "first coming" than a "second coming." They are awaiting the coming of their Messiah. This Messiah will then usher in the millennium that Isaiah and other prophets describe.

Muslims believe that Isa was sent down as a Prophet of Allah (God), but that he is not God or Lord, nor the son of God. Muslims do not believe that Isa, also known as Jesus by Christians and others, is dead or was ever crucified. They believe that he was raised to heaven and is there, and will descend at the appointed time, end all wars, and bring peace to the world.

So, who's right? Don't you find it strange that two which seem so different and always at odds with each other, both believe in the second coming of Christ.

I know I've only listed 3 beliefs, but they are all similar in the fact that they believe in the same god. They also each hold Jerusalem as a holy city.

• The Jewish bond to Jerusalem was never broken. For three millennia, Jerusalem has been the center of the Jewish faith, retaining its symbolic value throughout the generations.
• For Christians, Jerusalem is the place where Jesus lived, preached, died, and was resurrected. While it is the heavenly rather than the earthly Jerusalem which is emphasized by the Church, places mentioned in the New Testament as the sites of his ministry and passion have drawn pilgrims and devoted worshipers for centuries.
• According to Islam, the prophet Mohammed was miraculously transported from Mecca to Jerusalem, and it was from there that he made his ascent to heaven. The Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aksa ("the remote") Mosque, both built in the seventh century, made definitive the identification of Jerusalem as the "Remote Place" that is mentioned in the Koran, and thus a holy place after Mecca and Medina.

Each persons beliefs are personal and no one should be able to say otherwise


End of rant...

cruisinflatout wrote:Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics.

Even if you win, you're still mentally challenged.

Sorry... I know iI'm dreding this up from about 5 pages ago... I completely agree, but here I'm trying to learn more about my fellow board members, and it's nice to see an exchange of views where nobody is cowed into holding theirs back

And I think we'd all reather call it "sharing" than arguing. It is interesting, isn't it?

ZooTech wrote:God is pretty clear about His stand on abortion, Wizz, so I don't believe it to be presumptuous lest my God be proven a liar. And as a follower of Christ (okay, not a good one, but I do try) I cannot vote for, believe in, or defend any position that attempts to turn a black and white topic into varying shades of grey.

And yet the Bible, in very black and white terms, says that slavery is O.K. (Exodus 21:7, Lev. 25:44).

What's your take on that aspect of God's word?

Spiff wrote:

ZooTech wrote:God is pretty clear about His stand on abortion, Wizz, so I don't believe it to be presumptuous lest my God be proven a liar. And as a follower of Christ (okay, not a good one, but I do try) I cannot vote for, believe in, or defend any position that attempts to turn a black and white topic into varying shades of grey.

And yet the Bible, in very black and white terms, says that slavery is O.K. (Exodus 21:7, Lev. 25:44).

What's your take on that aspect of God's word?

My "take" is that Exodus and Leviticus are from the Old Testament. They have a new one out now. You might want to look into it.

ronboskz650sr wrote:The ACLU, is in opposition to Biblical priciples from prayer to homosexuality, and You just can't believe both ways. Pick a side spiff.

The ACLU is not against the Biblical principle of prayer. Why do you continue to state this falsehood? It fights to support the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the government from giving preference to one religion over another.

And rightly so.

The ACLU doesn't give a rat's behind about a student praying in school, whether before lunch or before a math test. But if a public school's principal leads a daily Christian, Muslim, or Jewish prayer over the loudspeaker before lunch, that's a very big constitutional problem. As it should be.

So, contrary to what ZooTech said, he would not catch hell if his daughter were to be caught saying a prayer before eating her school lunch.

"There is a distinction between speech by a school and speech by individual students." So says an ACLU lawyer in this case, in which the ACLU is supporting the legal right of a student to sing "Awesome God" at her school's Talent Show.

For those of you who would call the ACLU anti-religious, what do you make of this effort by the ACLU to support the singing of "Awsome God" in a school talent show?

The people who criticize the ACLU for being anti-religious consistently fail to make the distinction between the speech of citizens (all religious speech by citizens is protected by the First Amendment) and the speech of the governement (which cannot favor one religion over another).

Look, in my state the ACLU has just filed a lawsuit against the Minneapolis Police Department for its new "Camera Cop" program.

The ACLU objects to the fact that the city sends a traffic ticket to the registered owner of a vehicle caught running a red light (the cameras record the licence plate).

The owner's gotta pay the fine, or fight the summons in court. In essence, the city is saying that YOU (the owner) were driving the vehicle in question, so the violation goes on YOUR record.

And if you don't pay up, a warrant is issued for YOUR arrest. Never mind that it may not have been you driving that day.

In other words, the government says that you're guilty, and you've got to prove your innocence.

The ACLU says that that violates the presumption of innocence (Fourth Amendment) that this country's legal system was founded on.

I agree with the ACLU in this lawsuit, and I'll bet that the majority of freedom-loving motorcyclists on this forum would too.

Does that make me in favor of jerks who run red lights? Of course not. I hate red-light runners. But I don't think we should trash the Constitution to catch them, because that would give the government too much power.

And yet, if I support the ACLU when it fights any attempt of the government to promote one religion over another, I'm labeled as anti-Christian.

I'm not anti-Christian, and I don't support red-light runners.

ZooTech wrote:My "take" is that Exodus and Leviticus are from the Old Testament. They have a new one out now. You might want to look into it.

What a great quote. I hope I remember to use it the next time someone uses the "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" biblical justification.

Thanks!

Spiff wrote:

ZooTech wrote:My "take" is that Exodus and Leviticus are from the Old Testament. They have a new one out now. You might want to look into it.

What a great quote. I hope I remember to use it the next time someone uses the "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" biblical justification.

Thanks!

Sure thing! Cuz after all, the New Testament says nothing of homosexuality.

If you want to quote from the Old Testament, which deals with Jewish law, go right ahead. But if you think finding an inconsistency between an Old Testament book and a New Testament book renders the Bible contradictory to itself, try reading the verses in context. It helps to know who and/or what the Bible is addressing in any given verse.

And you don't even have to believe in God to know homosexuality is wrong. Anyone believing in evolution can clearly see the male posterior is not equipped to accomodate the act, which is why purchases must be made at specialty stores to help things along. Or do you suppose a million years from now evolution will catch up?

Actually quite a few different animals -- most commonly primates -- will exhibit homosexual activities. Humans are the only ones who seem to have a problem with it happening though.

Of course it is a lot easier to condemn then try to understand.

I do understand the take on not wanting homosexuals to marry, simply because it is a christian concept, but I don't think you have the right to tell them it is wrong.

ZooTech wrote:And you don't even have to believe in God to know homosexuality is wrong. Anyone believing in evolution can clearly see the male posterior is not equipped to accomodate the act

I can't even begin to believe you took this tack. Unless your religious doctrine states it, how could it be wrong. To know it is wrong requires you to perceive a thing as having a right or a wrong. I don't think you'll find many non-Christians (oh, I suppose Muslims and Jews might agree with you) who think homosexuality is "wrong". The mechanics of sexuality (the equippment problem you elude to) are not the only component of homosexuality. It is more about a relationship issue and the mechanics you speak of are "fruits" of being in a relationship. It is only the hetrosexuals who fear being desired by homosexual who seem to focus on this "homosexuals are wrong" point.

But I can't say a thing about those with religious beliefs that say it is wrong. If you think God says it is wrong, I guess it is wrong. Makes me sad for homosexual Christians. They love God and glorify Christ and yet they are damned still. Christian think this is a choice, but I don't know anyone who would choose to be such an unpopular thing. As far as I can tell supressing who you are is only going to make things worse. Look at preists - they are not allowed to touch women or have a sexuality - so we get a whole bunch of sexual disfunction.

But I know, you didn't write the rules, God did and so you are grateful.