Danica McKellar Becomes A Bible-Believing Christian After Leaving California

[Moviefan2k4]

Here's another spin on the "free will vs. predestination" debate, which I will freely admit is a subject that I personally struggle with. But this is how C.S. Lewis addressed it...

"We may not live in a perfect world because of free will. But, because of free will, we live in the best of all possible worlds. God created the world perfect and without sin. Our free will is a perfect creation, but as soon as our free will went against God's will, then sin entered the world. God created the best of all possible worlds. Our free will could choose bravery, compassion, and obedience towards God. But because we were tempted by the great deceiver to go against the perfect plan of God, we live in a fallen world."

 

[Moviefan2k4]

In addition to what's shown in the following video, selecting a portion of a person's post with your mouse should give you a popup choice between +Quote and Reply

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Thanks. Its just that I've probably screwed up ten or more times today, messing up my posts by mistakening putting a piece of code in the wrong place, or pasting it more than once. I am eagerly awaiting when my account reaches 14 days, so I can finally edit my own posts.

 

[Avro Arrow]

committed spiritual murder

Forgive my ignorance, but what is spiritual murder, and how does it differ from regular murder?

I don't hate homosexuals, and I'm not afraid of them either. I simply disagree with the behavior they practice, and if they hate me because of it, that's their call.

You "disagree"? What makes you think any part of their lives could possibly be up for "debate", which would warrant your "agreement" or "disagreement"?

You can disagree that pineapple belongs on pizza. You can't "disagree" with who someone fundamentally is.

 

[M'Sharak]

^^^Argh!!! I swear, all this formatting for responses is starting to get on my nerves!

It's so much easier when you simply let the board software do all that for you.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is spiritual murder, and how does it differ from regular murder?

Jesus said that hate is equal to murder in God's eyes, and I know I've surely felt hate for various people in my past. That's why I mentioned it in my illustration.

You "disagree"? What makes you think any part of their lives could possibly be up for "debate", which would warrant your "agreement" or "disagreement"?

Debate is open for practically anything in life; it happens all the time with everyone and everybody. Just because you're discussing an issue, or even choosing to take opposing sides, that doesn't make you unreasonable.

You can disagree that pineapple belongs on pizza. You can't "disagree" with who someone fundamentally is.

In my humble opinion, emotions of any kind generally don't qualify for this. That's why I suggested that a genetic component hasn't been found yet. And to press things even further, the overall question could be made much simpler - "Should we as humans follow every emotion or impulse we have?"

 

[Avro Arrow]

Jesus said that hate is equal to murder in God's eyes

Interesting.

Debate is open for practically anything in life; it happens all the time with everyone and everybody.

It shouldn't be. Part of the problem in the world today is that certain groups think certain peoples' lives should be up for debate. They should not.

Just because you're discussing an issue, or even choosing to take opposing sides, that doesn't make you unreasonable.

Peoples' fundamental being is not an "issue". If you choose to oppose people based on who they are, then yes, you are being unreasonable.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Should people follow any homophobic impulses they might have? No.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

It shouldn't be. Part of the problem in the world today is that certain groups think certain peoples' lives should be up for debate. They should not.

I find this somewhat amusing, and also one-sided, since atheists often say that Christians should leave them alone...yet they routinely fail to leave Christians alone. They want the freedom to do whatever they want, but they often deny Christians the same opportunity.

Peoples' fundamental being is not an "issue". If you choose to oppose people based on who they are, then yes, you are being unreasonable.

I disagree with the idea that a person's emotions (sexual or otherwise) are the source of their "fundamental being".

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Should people follow any homophobic impulses they might have? No.

One problem with words like "homophobic" is that there's no set definition for it. Many homosexuals themselves, and even people who are not yet still approve of that behavior, often use the term as a synonym for "fear" or "hate"...but from a logical perspective, it just doesn't match. It is perfectly possible to disagree with a person's behavior, and not fear or hate them. For me, this isn't personal - I've already said I'm not afraid of them, and I don't wish them any harm. If you think otherwise, I'm sorry for that, but with due respect you're wrong about my views.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

One problem with words like "homophobic" is that there's no set definition for it. Many homosexuals themselves, and even people who are not yet still approve of that behavior, often use the term as a synonym for "fear" or "hate"...but from a logical perspective, it just doesn't match. It is perfectly possible to disagree with a person's behavior, and not fear or hate them. For me, this isn't personal - I've already said I'm not afraid of them, and I don't wish them any harm. If you think otherwise, I'm sorry for that, but with due respect you're wrong about my views.

Pretty much every word in the English language has multiple senses of meaning. Also, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the various definitions of a word do not follow entirely and unambiguously from its morphological structure. Coping with these aspects of word usage is a basic skill of communication; most people master it without thinking too much about it.

Additionally, it's funny how the freedom not to engage in sexual relations that they choose not to just isn't enough for some people.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Pretty much every word in the English language has multiple senses of meaning. Also, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the various definitions of a word do not follow entirely and unambiguously form its morphological structure. Coping with these aspects of word usage is a basic skill of communication; most people master it without thinking too much about it.

What can I say? I'm a very detailed and often literal thinker. I also believe in moral absolutes, and I don't take it personally when others disagree.

Additionally, it's funny how the freedom not to engage in sexual relations that they choose not to just isn't enough for some people.

People can do whatever they want - I'm not debating that. But the very concept of freedom is not absolute: as Isaac Newton famously said, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction". While he was obviously speaking of the physical world, I'm applying it to the metaphysical as well..

 

[Avro Arrow]

I find this somewhat amusing, and also one-sided, since atheists often say that Christians should leave them alone...yet they routinely fail to leave Christians alone. They want the freedom to do whatever they want, but they often deny Christians the same opportunity.

What freedoms are Christians being denied?

I disagree with the idea that a person's emotions (sexual or otherwise) are the source of their "fundamental being".

I'm not sure what "emotions" has to do with this. You have seen in this very thread that their orientation is not something they choose, it is just part of who they are as a person.

There is a word for a person who opposes someone simply based on who they are, but if I were to use it, I'm sure I would be accused of "throwing around baseless accusations and insults".

 

[CorporalCaptain]

People can do whatever they want - I'm not debating that. But the very concept of freedom is not absolute: as Isaac Newton famously said, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction". While he was obviously speaking of the physical world, I'm applying it to the metaphysical as well..

Wow, that actually sounds like a threat!

If two people are having a loving and consensual romantic relationship, why don't you just leave them alone?!

 

[Tosk]

And to press things even further, the overall question could be made much simpler - "Should we as humans follow every emotion or impulse we have?"

I don't think I've ever met anyone in my life who follows every emotion/impulse they have. I doubt they exist. Everyone holds back something.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

What freedoms are Christians being denied?

For starters, the ability to express their views without being insulted, with words like "homophobic" and such. I've already made my position clear on that, multiple times...and to be honest, I am rapidly tiring of repeating myself.

I'm not sure what "emotions" has to do with this. You have seen in this very thread that their orientation is not something they choose, it is just part of who they are as a person.

If someone claimed they were genetically predisposed toward adultery or rape, would you believe them? I don't think so, because there's no conclusive evidence for it...and the same holds true for homosexuality. But even if there were, it doesn't logically follow that we should always act according to our every impulse.

There is a word for a person who opposes someone simply based on who they are, but if I were to use it, I'm sure I would be accused of "throwing around baseless accusations and insults".

Thank you for understanding.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I don't think I've ever met anyone in my life who follows every emotion/impulse they have. I doubt they exist. Everyone holds back something.

I agree.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If someone claimed they were genetically predisposed toward adultery or rape, would you believe them? I don't think so, because there's no conclusive evidence for it...and the same holds true for homosexuality. But even if there were, it doesn't logically follow that we should always act according to our every impulse.

You want to compare homosexuality on the one hand with rape and adultery on the other? Really? This is where you want to go?

 

[Tosk]

I agree.

I'm not sure I understand the point of the question though.

 

[Jayson1]

Not directly, but my point is that we all make choices which God does not approve of...and if we refuse to repent, He will have no other option but to judge us for those decisions.

This makes God seem lie a Dictator. He has no boss. He doesn't have to judge people if he doesn't want to.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Wow, that actually sounds like a threat!

Well, it certainly wasn't meant as one, and I'm sorry you feel that way.

If two people are having a loving and consensual romantic relationship, why don't you just leave them alone?!

Based on this idea, it seems your overall opinion is that the ultimate goal for most people should simply be contentment. But there's a big problem with that - people can generally be content with a situation, and its still destructive in some way, to others or even themselves.

I'll use myself as an example: when I was 20 years old, I met and felt a great deal of passion for a married woman. We mutually acted on that, and for a short time, there didn't seem to be a lot of problems. But our affair began to unravel very quickly - we spoke and behaved in ways that that hurt us both very deeply. After multiple tries to make things work, it finally ended...and to be honest, some days pass where I still feel her presence, and I miss her greatly. I've been a hopeless romantic for most of my life, but as a result of the choices I made back then, there's certain songs I can't hear without wanting to cry. I know I've been forgiven, so I'm not going to hell for adultery, but I still have to live with the mental and emotional consequences of my actions. I don't say any of this to garner a false sense of sympathy, but simply to illustrate what can and often does happen regarding sin...even if you feel good about it at the time.