Was the media too alarmist?
-
Genesis 1:27. Divinity is found in the individual. As such, it's not a frivolous thing. I think for Christians (or any compassionate people generally), saving as many lives as possible is what's called for. And no, that doesn't mean shutting down the world and living in a bunker from now to eternity; that would quite obviously lead to a high death count as well. There are things we can do to open the country up gradually and safely.
Sacrificing individuals to "save" society runs counter to that, and it's exactly that kind of rhetoric that was used in the Soviet Union in the 30s.
Please love yourself.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Was the media too alarmist?:
Genesis 1:27. Divinity is found in the individual. As such, it's not a frivolous thing. I think for Christians (or any compassionate people generally), saving as many lives as possible is what's called for. And no, that doesn't mean shutting down the world and living in a bunker from now to eternity; that would quite obviously lead to a high death count as well. There are things we can do to open the country up gradually and safely.
Sacrificing individuals to "save" society runs counter to that, and it's exactly that kind of rhetoric that was used in the Soviet Union in the 30s.
You keep saying that, and I still think you're wrong. To me, it sounds like the typical self-centered mantra of today, with the highest importance of the self. Christianity has never been about the highest importance of the self.
-
It's the individual who surrenders himself to God, not some social collective. Salvation lies within, not in the hands of the state. Luke 7:36, Luke 10, Genesis 7, etc. etc.: every Biblical parable has at its center an individual, not a noble mob. Christianity is about understanding the sovereignty of the person, not killing individuals so that the rest of the state can go back to work. The idea that two people should kill themselves to help the economy get back on track sounds like a death cult to me, so no thanks.
Please love yourself.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Was the media too alarmist?:
It's the individual who surrenders himself to God, not some social collective. Salvation lies within, not in the hands of the state. Luke 7:36, Luke 10, Genesis 7, etc. etc.: every Biblical parable has at its center an individual, not a noble mob. Christianity is about understanding the sovereignty of the person, not killing individuals so that the rest of the state can go back to work. The idea that two people should kill themselves to help the economy get back on track sounds like a death cult to me, so no thanks.
Who said Salvation lies in the hands of the state?
-
I am probably the last person to talk about the Bible, as I will acknowledge that I do not know very much about it.
But, it seems (like many other religious books) that you can find passages to fit your point of view, even if they are totally opposite to each other.
One example I have heard:
Doesnt part of the Bible say "an eye for an eye" yet another part says "turn the other cheek"AGAIN, I do not know the Bible too much, so the above is probably taken out of contacts, but it is one example that I think of.
-
Why are we in a Biblical debate in a thread about whether the media went too far into panic mode?
Me/rry/Christmas
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Was the media too alarmist?:
Why are we in a Biblical debate in a thread about whether the media went too far into panic mode?
Amen.
But, I must say I am impressed with people that can reference Bible verses off the top of their head. When it gets real heavy, it ends up being references thrown back and forth, without content, almost like a game.
I do remember years ago on this forum, there were certain individuals that were amazing in their knowledge, and then the knock-down-drag-out fights that would occur as true meaning was chased around the room.
OK. Back to the topic.
Yeah, media sux, causes panic for click-bait. Orange Man bad, Biden has no marbles, Cuomo will be the next pres., Hillary is jiggly.Other than that, I got pretty much nothing.
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@taiwan_girl said in Was the media too alarmist?:
I am probably the last person to talk about the Bible, as I will acknowledge that I do not know very much about it.
But, it seems (like many other religious books) that you can find passages to fit your point of view, even if they are totally opposite to each other.
One example I have heard:
Doesnt part of the Bible say "an eye for an eye" yet another part says "turn the other cheek"AGAIN, I do not know the Bible too much, so the above is probably taken out of contacts, but it is one example that I think of.
The Bible has many layers. Some things that can be taken literally, also have deeper meanings, when you connect the books as a whole or when you know the background or the everyday life of the time it was written.
Tomorrow is Easter, the day Christ arose from the dead and walked away from his tomb. If you are a bit curious about that, pick up a good reference Bible and do some reading. The first five books of the New Testament is where I would start...
-
@Jolly said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@mark said in Was the media too alarmist?:
It's just a book, written by men.
Dewey, you're wrong on multiple levels.
I hope it’s merely a typo that you confuse mark for Dewey. I have met both mark and Dewey in person. They are two different people.
-
@Axtremus said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@Jolly said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@mark said in Was the media too alarmist?:
It's just a book, written by men.
Dewey, you're wrong on multiple levels.
I hope it’s merely a typo that you confuse mark for Dewey. I have met both mark and Dewey in person. They are two different people.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/the_new_coffee_room/viewtopic.php?p=1216039#p1216039
@dewey said in [Marriage Equality in the Presbyterian Church]
If you believe, as Jolly does, that the Bible is inerrant, infallible, immutable, then you cannot accept any of the explanation I've just offered. -
Thanks for post that again. That was an interesting discussion
-
@Axtremus said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@Jolly said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@mark said in Was the media too alarmist?:
It's just a book, written by men.
Dewey, you're wrong on multiple levels.
I hope it’s merely a typo that you confuse mark for Dewey. I have met both mark and Dewey in person. They are two different people.
No, I meant exactly what I said. Figure it out.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@taiwan_girl said in Was the media too alarmist?:
Thanks for post that again. That was an interesting discussion
I'm getting older. I wouldn't put near that much effort in trying to explain apostasy.
I doubt Larry would, either.
-
@Jolly said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@Axtremus said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@Jolly said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@mark said in Was the media too alarmist?:
It's just a book, written by men.
Dewey, you're wrong on multiple levels.
I hope it’s merely a typo that you confuse mark for Dewey. I have met both mark and Dewey in person. They are two different people.
No, I meant exactly what I said. Figure it out.
You quoted @mark's post and called him "Dewey."
It's quite easy to figure out that it's either a typo, or you have mistaken @mark for Dewey, or you thought the two are one and the same.
If you meant something else, then you were not saying what you thought you meant. -
@Axtremus said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@Jolly said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@Axtremus said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@Jolly said in Was the media too alarmist?:
@mark said in Was the media too alarmist?:
It's just a book, written by men.
Dewey, you're wrong on multiple levels.
I hope it’s merely a typo that you confuse mark for Dewey. I have met both mark and Dewey in person. They are two different people.
No, I meant exactly what I said. Figure it out.
You quoted @mark's post and called him "Dewey."
It's quite easy to figure out that it's either a typo, or you have mistaken @mark for Dewey, or you thought the two are one and the same.
If you meant something else, then you were not saying what you thought you meant.You're a smart lad. Figure it out.
