That's how I roll. Be glad I reduced the corn!Quote:
Originally Posted by D1988
Printable View
That's how I roll. Be glad I reduced the corn!Quote:
Originally Posted by D1988
ok. you stumped me. sorry for the argument
To preface, first of all I am not straightedge but most of my best friends are. Also, as much as I would like to be straightedge, I know for a fact that its not fair to try and be something your not, because I occasionally indulge in the alcoholic beverage or two. But I respect the hell out those who are truly straightedge because you guys have some of the determination and fortitude that the rest of this world needs. With that said, I thought I would add my two cents on this subject. Not that I think that straightedge kids can or cannot be Christian and straightedge. I believe that this is more of a subjunctive question because theres many underlying factors. First and foremost, the fact that many different sects of Christianity do not believe the exact same thing. Evangelicals and newborn Christians, for instance, believe that those who do not change their wickedness will be cursed to the depths of hell. I myself am a Catholic, so I think it is important to being up a point that deals more with I believe in. In reference to xsecx claim that Jesus is God, that isn't necessarily true, at least from a Catholic's point of view. Catholics believe that Jesus did not become our savior until after he was resurrected. The idea we have to keep in mind here is that Jesus is not God, but the human manifestation of God, gift-wrapped with all the human qualities we all share. The gospels make reference of this in the form of a tale of Jesus' early life. In Luke:
Luke 2:41-52
The Boy Jesus at the Temple
41Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. 43After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."
49"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" 50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.
51Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.
Not only did Jesus make a mistake by not returning to his parents, but the bible states that "Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them" (Luke 2:51). This is the only account of Jesus life in any of the four gospels. With that said, Jesus was also tempted in the desert by the devil himself. Both Catholic and non-catholic scholars believe that this was a sign of Jesus' humanity. The devil wouldn't tempt Jesus if he thought he was in fact just God on earth. This story can be found in Luke 4:1-14.
I hope this answer's xsecx question to xmegx about whether Jesus is perfect, because he is not. In fact, the existence of the humanity of Jesus negates any possibility that he can or was ever perfect. After the Resurrection is a different story, but humanity and perfection are oxymorons when referring to Jesus as God. It's just an incorrect relation. God is, among other things, onmipresent and omniscient. While the bible tells of Jesus having amazing powers, he was neither of these. He was limited to his qualities as a human. The best example I think of that would prove Jesus' imperfection was trashing the bizarre in front of the temple (John 2:12-25). There was genuine anger in Jesus when he did this, even screaming at those turning the temple into a marketplace. My point of all this is that I think the six degrees of separation that's being used to say that Christian and straightedge beliefs contradict is flawed, only because the reasoning is that Jesus is God. Since he is not God until the resurrection, its safe to assume that Jesus' consumption of wine, while unacceptable to the straightedge world, has to be taken with a grain of salt because Jesus was fallible in those times before the resurrection of Christ. Now I'm not taking sides in all of this, I just thought it would be appropriate to state some facts and clear up some of the confusion. Thanks for accepting my membership, I look forward to posting in the future.
wow when i said subjunctive i meant to say subjective. my bad.
here's the point though, humans have 2 parents and can't perform miracles and don't refer to themselves as god.Quote:
Originally Posted by nplang08
Jesus therefore said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world." They said therefore to Him, "Lord, evermore give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." (John 6:32-35)
Martha therefore said to Jesus, "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You." Jesus said to her, "Your brother shall rise again." Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" She said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world." (John 11:21-27)
the entire point of the christ figure is that he is perfect and without sin, that's why he's capable of taking on the sins of humanity. If he was just simply a human until he died, then why was he the only one? What would make him unique and then, why would he have been the only one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
I think you missed my point though. I agree totally that the CHRIST FIGURE was perfect, but only after the resurrection. The idea that there exists in Jesus of Nazareth, the child born of the virgin Mary, a certain humanity, different from being totally human, negates any idea of his perfection until after the resurrection. This is why Catholics celebrate Easter. It symbolizes the forgiveness of our sins. Your second quote solidifies my answer. Martha acknowledges that her brother will rise AFTER the Resurrection. When Jesus is the resurrection and the life, it only foreshadows his death on the cross. The Christ figure cannot be fully recognized until the resurrection. You have to understand that there are things in the bible that cannot be taken literally. In your first quote, he is speaking of spirituality. Its a hunger and thirst for faith. Not physical food. I understand Jesus was not totally human, but he had humanity and divinity during his lifetime, making it impossible for him to be perfect. Is he the Son of God? yes. Was he born of the virgin Mary? yes. Was he able to save our sins before the resurrection? no. Galations makes a clear reference to Jesus being a man under the law: (Gal. 4:5-6) But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Although he was divine, he was still born of a human. Perfection is only achieved after the resurrection, so when Jesus drank the wine, he was not perfect.
No, I got your point, the scripture just doesn't support it. Jesus in the scripture refers to himself as salvation and god while living as a "human", so how would he then not be perfect? Your reasoning isn't sound and negates the divinity of jesus during his life, when in actual context of the bible doesn't make sense. The resurrection was the final act of divinity, not the first. How can he have divinity and not be perfect? How can he be human and not without sin? Or do you believe that jesus did sin? How can jesus make representations that he is god, like he did in the first quote, if you're saying he wasn't? How does that reconcile within your beliefs? If jesus was truly the son of god, why would he only be perfect after death?Quote:
Originally Posted by nplang08
Your still confusing being "human" with the idea of humanity. It's taught through scripture that Jesus was both divine and human, and that in fact is what made him unique. I never stated that the resurrection was the first act of divinity, all of his miracles can be considered divine acts. The resurrection was though the act that him totally divine, totally perfect. I know that Jesus was not totally human, he was "humane" though and there existed a humanity. My reasoning is perfectly sound. Of course Jesus said he was the salvation of God. He also said he was the bread and the life. But can you tell me when he became that salvation, that bread? it wasn't when was born, it was after the resurrection. If he were not both of both human and divine nature, only divine, Jesus would not have had to die for the salvation of all our sins. This argument has crossed some very philosophical paths now haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
We are now arguing something that scholars have been debating for years: how can Jesus have both human and divine natures. The scriptures show that he does, but how is this possible. I think you bring up some valid points about the perfection of Jesus during his lifetime, but I also find it hard to believe considering he had proven many times in the gospels that he did have a human nature (bazaar at the temple, temptation in the desert, getting lost in Luke). Thats why when I posted my first quote I said this idea of perfection is subjective, not objective. The problem with the scriptures is that they can be interpreted differently. For exmaple you say he called himself the savior, while I say he only inferred what he knew would be true by making those statements.
Yes, but by being divine it kind of overrules any human faults. How can something be divine, but faulty? Jesus didn't speak while he was alive that following him was the only way to salvation? The entire point is that, the same with god any actions that were done, were perfect and above human criticism. Would you say that god was wrong for the destruction of soddom and gomarah? Or the flood? If so, then how can you a human, judge and disagree with the actions of your god? What jesus wrong for providing wine to a wedding, an act of divinity?Quote:
Originally Posted by nplang08
I guess the last question you pose is harder for me to answer since I am not straightedge. Do I personally believe that Jesus was wrong for turning water into wine? no, but thats just because I am a Catholic who occasionally drinks (don't do drugs though). It gets tricky when you bring up the Old Testament and the New Testament when it comes to God's actions, because God was directly involved in the Old Testament, the creation story, Sodom and Gomorrah, the flood, Moses, etc. but not in the New Testament. With the inception of the Holy Spirit being presented in the New Testament, there was no need for God's direct involvement with us. Free will I think is the term that may be most important here. The thing is the I'm not too into what other sects of Christianity are taught, all I know is that evangelism and new-born Christianity scares the shit out of me lol. I know that the Catholic church teaches that Jesus' death and resurrection implies that your sins can be forgiven, as long as you totally repent. God understands the fact that we are human, and humans make mistakes. Now this is going back to New Testament God, not to say that the God in the two books are two different Gods, but God as he was portrayed in the Old Testament was a little more wrathful. Again, I think you being up some awesome points, and I can understand from your point of view how it would be contradictory to be Christian and straightedge. I guess the truth of the matter is theres a crapload of proof for both our points in the Old and New Testament, which I still, as a Catholic, don't really understand why that is. Guess why I have to take some things on faith. Dude I like this site, theres intelligent arguments on here as opposed to "fuck you your wrong" and "your a douschebag".Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
I would like to say
Jesus drank wine, yes he did but the word drank is past tense. I doubt he drinks it anymore. Anyway, to get drunk is a sin, alcohol in all forms is allowed sensibly, but we are given a choice, and if we don't want any of the booze thats fine with God.
so it's fine with god that you think he's wrong? Isn't that blasphemy? Or are you saying that you don't think there's anything wrong with the consumption of alcohol?Quote:
Originally Posted by optimismdefeats
that is some nice art there, is that charcoal shading i see?Quote:
Originally Posted by xGriffox
i like fingerpainting better, ahaha, im kiding
I just spent 1.5 hours reading through this thread. There has been some great discussion as well as some ignorant posts from various people. I think it's interesting that it has drug up after being dormant for one month. Since it already has, I'll add just a few comments:
Historically and culturally, the oinos (wine) was prominent at the dinner table in the Middle East. In fact, if you believe in the accuracy of the New Testament of the Christian Bible, Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana (John 2:1-22). Unlike John the Baptist, Jesus did drink wine (quite possibly the reason why Baptists are so anti-alcohol nowadays). Followers of Jesus were merely warned to not consume to drunkedness because it degrades the body, thus the temple where the Holy Spirit resides. There are other passages in both the Old and New Testaments that have the same warning because of its possible dangers.
Logically one must think Jesus' actions were incorrect if the belief is held that anyone that consumes alcohol is in the wrong; not only did he partake, but he provided the alcohol in a the few recorded cases. However, if someone is a Christian, he believes that Jesus was the Son of Man and of God and died for humanity's sins. According to Jewish law, the animal (typically a lamb) used in the repentance sacrifice would need to be deemed "blemish free," also known as perfect. For Jesus to be the sacrifice for humanity's sins, he would have been perfect as well. If someone subscribes to this the latter belief that Jesus is the Son of God and perfect, the attitude towards alcohol, specifically wine, will need to change. Holding oneself higher than Jesus based on a straightedge lifestyle would be blasphemy.
It all boils down to perspective. I have chosen a straightedge lifestyle because I didn't like how I was on drugs, but I don't look down on my husband or friends who drink. Athough I do give people who smoke hell. HA!
um, i probably said something stupid in there, i changed since i posted that
dont kide me! Kider! Stop kiding me! Kiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide!Quote:
Originally Posted by chadfitzy
I can and will just start deleting posts from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Segadoway
My main problem is that people tend to think that they can view the religion with modern eyes rather than viewing it within context. Hey I have no problems with homosexuals or women, so I'll just ignore the parts of the bible that condemn homosexuality and are sexist. People hold on to religious views by morphing them to fit them rather than the other way around and simply ignoring the parts that don't fit with their world view.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlaRant
I don't look down on people that drink, but I do however deeply believe that it's unnecessary and that the world would be a much better place without it. and I also think god was wrong about a lot of things.
fine!Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
I don't think that drinking is wrong. It's just something I choose not to do, which is what edge is all about. It's just a choice. That's all it is. I don't think that edge contradicts Christianity because I don't think that drinking is wrong. It's just a choice. Yeah, people will say "It's a drug so it's wrong!" but if you look at it that way then everything is a drug. People who go eat a big meal from McDonalds every day are polluting their bodies too. Moderation is key.
why don't you chose to do it? If there's nothing wrong with it, why don't you do it? Do you think the world would be better place without alcohol? Do you think that alcohol consumption is a positive thing that should be encouraged?Quote:
Originally Posted by lefty8595
I find myself wanting to ask the exact same questions dusty has asked. I also think its a very strenuous and flawed argument to liken everything to drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by lefty8595
i think that people can hold the key values of christianity and still hold to the straight edge lifestyle. being anti-alchohol and choosing not to drink it are two completely different things. choosing not to drink alchohol because it poisons your body is a personal choice and someone can make that choice without saying that alchohol is "evil" or unholy. so i think that someone could hold fast to their christian beliefs while still choosing not to drink, smoke, do drugs, or anything like that. if someone chooses to not drink, smoke, do drugs, or have sex before marragedoes that make them straight edge? because a christian can do all the things without defying scripture.
Yeah, but being straight edge is about more than simply choosing not to drink. It's an active rejection of drugs and alcohol. I don't really see how someone can claim to be straight edge and not be anti alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by w.wright690
i see what you mean. it just doesnt make sense to me that because of one small detail you have to completely reject every aspect of such a broad religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
yeah, but that's what happens when the religion is based on the words and actions of a god and someones personal morality is in conflict with that. The same is true with being vegan for moral reasons and christian. You get caught in a trap that morality changes with time but the religion doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by w.wright690
Way off topic but is this a Revived dead topic or is it a rebirth of a new one?
I vaguely remember seeing one a few years ago that was similar. But i havent been on in a few years so it may be new.
maybe I should check the dates. nvmQuote:
Originally Posted by xSouthernEdgex
the thing about christianity is that most(logical) christians believe that if you believe the main, fundemental aspecs of the faith your are accepted into God's book of the saved. that is if you believe god created the heavens and earth, he is all powerful and all knowing, and that jesus came down and died to take away the burden of sin. An example of this sort of leeway that christians use is evolution. there are many people that believe that evolution happened but God started it all. they consider themselves christians because they believe the fundementals. personally i dont see anything wrong with that view. Although some would say that controdicts the book of genesis and the creation story there are many theories about it; i wont get into those theories right now. I think it's the same circumstance with alchohol. not a fundumental belief. Because with all the denomonations of the christian church there are many different practices, customs, and beliefs. But they all hold to the fundemental beliefs I listed above.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
yes, but that's a copout. They're picking and choosing what pieces fit their lives rather than accepting the religion as it is. There are parts of the bible that are completely ridiculous in modern times, but that's because humanity changed, not the "word of god" and it's completely convenient to ignore the pieces of the bible that you don't agree with. That's kind of the point. How can you believe that the bible is holy scripture and then ignore parts of it? Like for instance, being homosexual, or being against the eating of meat or being against the consumption of alcohol. The bible is very specific at either the condemnation of some things, like homosexuality, or the acceptance and promotion of others, alcohol and meat. Are you going to try and tell me that you can be a good christian and think that your god was wrong? How is that not blasphemy? Or do you not believe that jesus was divine and able to perform miracles? I would also argue that one cannot be logical and christian, since the basis of the faith itself is completely illogical.Quote:
Originally Posted by w.wright690
i disagree that being a christian is illogical. i dont see how the world was just created by some random happening. i cant see how there could be no person to start everything. i dont see how we would be here without a creator. i dont think my god was "wrong". i think its foolish to take the bible completely literally.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
faith is opposite of logic. christianity is based on faith and therefore illogical.Quote:
Originally Posted by w.wright690
so you think that drinking alcohol is good and right and something that everyone should do? So which parts can you take literally and which parts shouldn't you? Let me guess, the parts that you agree with are literal, and the ones that don't are allegory, right? Do you believe that the world would be a better place without alcohol? If you don't then how are you straight edge? If you do, then how can you think your god wasn't wrong for providing people alcohol?
explain to me how believing in a god is illogical. you cant just say it then not explain it.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
i agree with the entire bible. but if you have ever read the bible you would see that some parts are vague and could be interpreted by different people differently, as is with any written text. for example some people think that the book of genesis was literal. but another theory is that god created evolution. now people didnt just come up with this theory all on their own because they didnt like the idea of no evolution. the bible was written in hebrew and one translation of the first verse is "and god created light" another is "and there was a large bang" one supports the big bang theory but in our bibles today the other translation is used. so people dont randomly choose to change what is in the bible. people do reserch and understand what they're talking about which is key in critisizing something.
i know this has been said in posts before me, but alchohol is a great achievement of the human race and back there was nothing wrong with it. sure people got drunk back then but they didnt do any harm. in today's culture i think the world would be better without it but not back then. also alchohol as a whole isnt bad, people using it irrosponsibly is. and dont say "you should take the bible in context not find exuses like the time it was written" because if you do you should learn something about those times and not speak blindly.
I find it strange that you say that someone cant be straight edge and christian yet all of the straight edge beliefs are christian beliefs. the bible says not to have sex before marriage, and it says not to get drunk on wine(which also applies to drugs). you're practicing christian values and you say you cant be christian? doesnt that seem strange to you?
faith is opposite of logic. If your belief in something requires faith, then it is illogical.Quote:
Originally Posted by w.wright690
Main Entry:
log·ic Listen to the pronunciation of logic
Pronunciation:
\ˈlä-jik\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin logica, from Greek logikē, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason — more at legend
Date:
12th century
1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration
god cannot be inferred nor demonstrated. your belief in god is based on faith, not on anything tangible or testable.
See here's the thing about that statement. The idea that god created evolution was only brought about after the concept of evolution was spread as an attempt to reconcile the issues with the creation myth. The bible is a static document, but science and human understanding isn't. Up until Darwin, and awful lot of people thought the creation myth in genesis was literal and correct, but when people started thinking about it they had a crisis of faith, so they had to try to come up with an explanation. People want to hold onto the religion whether or not it actually makes sense. So they come up with ways to play fast and loose with it. The key issue still remains, the bible is not a living document and as morality and humanity grows and evolves, crises in faith will continue and more and more of the bible with stop being literal and become allegory.Quote:
i agree with the entire bible. but if you have ever read the bible you would see that some parts are vague and could be interpreted by different people differently, as is with any written text. for example some people think that the book of genesis was literal. but another theory is that god created evolution. now people didnt just come up with this theory all on their own because they didnt like the idea of no evolution. the bible was written in hebrew and one translation of the first verse is "and god created light" another is "and there was a large bang" one supports the big bang theory but in our bibles today the other translation is used. so people dont randomly choose to change what is in the bible. people do reserch and understand what they're talking about which is key in critisizing something.
Great achievement? How so, exactly? I'm confused, didn't you just say that the bible talked about the problems of drunkenness? And now you're saying that the problems with drunkards is a modern problem? Are you seriously going to try and say that alcoholism didn't exist in the time of christ and that it wasn't a problem, even then? I mean, wasn't that part of the reason why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed? If alcohol isn't bad, then why don't you use it and suggest that people do it? Your statements appear to be really inconsistent.Quote:
i know this has been said in posts before me, but alchohol is a great achievement of the human race and back there was nothing wrong with it. sure people got drunk back then but they didnt do any harm. in today's culture i think the world would be better without it but not back then. also alchohol as a whole isnt bad, people using it irrosponsibly is. and dont say "you should take the bible in context not find exuses like the time it was written" because if you do you should learn something about those times and not speak blindly.
Really? Straight edge isn't about not having sex until marriage. Is about the total and completely abstience from drugs and alcohol. The bible condones and encourages the use of alcohol. Your god created alcohol as a miracle, which is something in direct opposition to what straight edge stands for.Quote:
I find it strange that you say that someone cant be straight edge and christian yet all of the straight edge beliefs are christian beliefs. the bible says not to have sex before marriage, and it says not to get drunk on wine(which also applies to drugs). you're practicing christian values and you say you cant be christian? doesnt that seem strange to you?
well about your first article i would like to say i think it is logical to live as if there is a god to die and find out there isnt than to live as if there isnt a god and to die and find out there is. i think that the millions of people in this world that believe in some sort of a god support the fact that faith counts for something. if no one felt anything than there would never have been any sort of faith. there has to be something there for people to feel it.
the fact that people started looking into the bible's creation story after darwin put his theory out there is true, but proves nothing. before that there wasnt many other supported theories of any other way that the earth came to be. so of course there going to study it after that. why wouldn't they? if they didnt do that they would be questioning their faith, the fact that those link only supports a creator.
my statements are not inconsistent. the people that got drunk back then didnt do any harm. they just walked around smashed, its not like they could get in a car and drive drunk. but it warps the mind. which is why it is wrong on a christian basis. it's much more a problem in today's culture because drunks can do much more harm here.
God created wine as a miracle to provide for his people. his people needed it to complete a wedding in jewish culture. the people werent drunk when he gave them wine. he gave them wine so they could get married. notice how he didnt just give random people alchohol just because. he gave it to them for a special purpose that was necessary.
This doesn't make any sense, and I'm pretty much convinced at this point that you don't understand what logic means.Quote:
Originally Posted by w.wright690
It proves nothing? You're seriously not making sense. Do you seriously not understand that what you're doing, and what others before you are doing is reacting to something and then trying to figure out it fits into something that it doesn't? Prior to darwin people believed the creation myth was the literal truth. Do you dispute that? Do you know what made people change their minds about it?Quote:
the fact that people started looking into the bible's creation story after darwin put his theory out there is true, but proves nothing. before that there wasnt many other supported theories of any other way that the earth came to be. so of course there going to study it after that. why wouldn't they? if they didnt do that they would be questioning their faith, the fact that those link only supports a creator.
what are you basing this on? This is completely and totally historically and medically inaccurate.Quote:
my statements are not inconsistent. the people that got drunk back then didnt do any harm. they just walked around smashed, its not like they could get in a car and drive drunk. but it warps the mind. which is why it is wrong on a christian basis. it's much more a problem in today's culture because drunks can do much more harm here.
What does that have to do with people who are straight edge living in opposition to alcohol? The point was that jesus had no problem with the consumption or distribution of alcohol, something that straight edge people do. Are you trying to say that straight edge people don't have a problem with it?Quote:
God created wine as a miracle to provide for his people. his people needed it to complete a wedding in jewish culture. the people werent drunk when he gave them wine. he gave them wine so they could get married. notice how he didnt just give random people alchohol just because. he gave it to them for a special purpose that was necessary.
Hi there, I just wanted to add a few points: There are some scholars that state that Jesus' first miracle of creating wine from water at the wedding was symbolic of the completion of the convenant/marriage between him and the Jewish people.Quote:
Originally Posted by w.wright690
It was also common knowledge at the time that certain pagan gods were to be prayed to for this same miracle and it was written in rabbinic literature stating that various prophets and rabbis completed the same miracle as well as other miracles. It has been said that Jesus was to complete all of these miracles in addition to his sacrifice for humanity's sins to prove his power and to disprove the sacredness of the others.