Tolerance vs Godliness
- Thread starter Nineveh
- Start date
Originally posted by Nineveh
She was the only one to offer the definition. The only other places I could even locate the word were pagan websites. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
From what you have said, what you actually know and how you use terms.
I deserved that, I mocked your typos...
But as a pantheist yes, "panties" would be part of your god too
So far, when something has "no relevence" to you it's because you can't recall the argument you are making.
the name calling vears us so offf course, sometimes i can't. What are we arguing here? The one word definition of my faith?
again, and again and again and again... what do you want to know about my beliefs and i will tell you. Mind reading would be unethical even if i could do it. What do you want to know?
No.
It is about Gods compassion tolerance for even the wicked, which since you claim to be intolerant of gay people, for instance, i was simply questioning why you would pick the name, for one reason.
Besides this is tolerance vs. Godliness yet got does not fight tolerance but encompasses it.
Besides i did read it. Jonah told the people(jonah 3:7) great calamity they would face if they did not repent. So they even repented under duress. God says the people are stupid but he cares for them any way, micah is a similar story from a different place and by the time we get one short book away to Nahum, the lord is angry at Nineveh for the whole book.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
What you believe.
God's compassion toward Nineveh was to send Jonah. Beyond that He spared them because they repented.
You still don't want to understand why chose the name, do you?
In a nutshell it's to stand against folks who believe in "judge not".
You and I obviously have different D/deities.
Actually, Jonah didn't utter one word about repentance. He said, "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned."
Just to let you know, Jonah 3:7 was the decree from the King, not Jonah's witness. You will find that in 3:4.
According to Scripture, "The Ninevites believed God." 3:5
Name the verse. I believe you do not understand what you are trying to quote.
Is this an attempt to try to justify your ignorance about how much time elapsed between Jonah and Nahum?
It's more than doubtful. He's not grieved that He made you. But you do grieve Him.
So now Lighthouse is a prophet, the mouthpiece of God? i don't think so.
Son, it is very immature of you to lob out half - (oops? uh ? behinded) insults at someone you have never met and have no concept of. You do not know who you are dealing with so i would not assume anything about my relations with what you might call "God". To do so you inevitably only damage your own relations with God, there can be no other outcome.
I only speak what the Bible says.
*raises eyebrow*
On what planet is this something you can lay out efficiently in a post? Haw finite are your beliefs?
Here's a go for mine ish.
1. you can not ever know everything. If you try, you will die long before you have finished. If you accept that relationally thinking, you can not ever know a significant amount of anything and therefore veritably nothing. With that perspective of mind you can learn more than you ever could have learned if you though you know something.
2. There is, in order for anything to exist, some outer perameter of absolutely nothing. Within that there is a mathmatical object called the wave function, which is the collection of absolulely every quantum particle in existence. This breaks down into miultiverses and universes which explains multi-demensional worlds. That and the fact that every molecule in existence is made of the same quantum particles which are the exact same thing as the sentient functional whole for the forward function of at root quantum particles.
This is what i throw myself down and humble myself before acnowledging that is and directs my every action and creates"me".
3. i'd go into the ethics of that here but, it would take up so much space, and no one has probabably read this far anyway, why push it. We'll cover ethics next time.
4. So this is a big thing to comprehend, Jesus and others tried to explain it and it was rightly tarnished to be what it is. christanity today has not much to do with the style or philosophy of life Christ lived. Humans were not far enough evolved yet to "deal" So we have been evolving until society is ripe to become aware. in short, and in reference to the A.C.B. quote earlier The wave function was personified into our image for us to understand something so huge very simply. All religions are languages to understanding the inclusion in the wave function.
Ok. i am only at four and there is so much more, i have a few non-computer world things to attend to , so i must go and will reply to other posts later as this took so long. Beliefs is a big subject. i have taught courses in it. All you get on the web is a brief synopsis, and a touching, but if you want to spend the time we can start a thread about it and i'll go to town.
Do i need to say anything here?
He spared them because they repented says the book of Jonah supposedly the story of things written by him, so in the book of Jonah it says not only that they repented but did so under threat and duress.
In the book of Jonah which, even though i don't believe it, you attest was written by God through Jonah.
when they say Nineveh repented they even mention that it was the kings and therefore the city of Ninevah, That's like saying if Bush does something i did too, and frankly i never bombed anyone.
but the story is about God saying judge not. Why would you talke that name and stand against anyone!!!??
Don't just look at the quotes in your weekly flier and listen to what the precher says pretending it's holy writ. Read the whole story from that actual bible and you find a story about a place so wicked Jonah faced god's wrath in the belly of a fish instead of go there. So he goes anyway and a set of kings ttell him the city has repented and within what has to be aproximatly much less than 200 years the whole city is wicked again and stupid, so much so god denounces it for the remainder of the book and then it is destroyed by that prophacy and constructed in it's place is arguably the wickedest city ever was (Babylon stemmed from the people of Nineveh)
So yes i understand you took the name to denounce those who believe judge not.
i simply say you fully embody that misunderstanding of the points of Nineveh's inclusion in the bible. By using the name to write wicked bigoted hate threads against huge stereotypes of different people fully embodies the two faced falsly holy eternally wicked soul of the city that became babylon.
Good name choice in short.
If you were nice or tolerant or repentant to God it wouldn't make much sense. but i am not arguing with you, i think you made a great choice for doing such things.
i'm reading your holy word, you are not reading mine.
Jonah 4:10 begins,
"But the lord said," YOu have...(metaphorical dead through lack of care vine reference)...(11) But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who can not tell their right hand from their left, and as many cattle as well. Should i not be concerned by that great city?"
Now, whether he means physically can not tell left from right or, given sociological habits of the area, that he was saying they were confusing two hands used for very opposing purposes, it seems he was implying they were not too bright.
That verse finishes off Jonah, but since Nineveh later fell, it is likely God in infinite wisdom knew Jonah's mission there would eventually fail when he sent him to do it. You can not discount the book of Nahum when using Jonah simply because it happened after it.
It actually doesn't matter,however, Jonah served as a prophet to Israel and Assyria from 793-753 B.C. Nahum was written between 663-612 B.C.
So the maiximum ish time it could be is 181 years. Which is long to a human but not to history. It stands that i believe The point of the cities inclusion in the bible includes it's entire life span and the stuff after was not just thrown in for a larf.:jump:
Nineveh
Merely Christian
All you have to do is ask.
With this in mind, you have an odd reaction when corrected....
I believe youbelieve what you believe, but I don't think you know who Christ is.
Try to keep it to theological beliefs, that might help. But, so you will know, you can create your own threads. Just try to keep them in an appropriate forum.
That's not what the Book says. I guess you are free to make up what happened if that's what you feel you need to do to make your point.
How does this correct that you named the wrong verse? The one you cited was the decree of the King of Nineveh (3:7) not Jonah's witness found earlier in chapter 3.
Anyway, if Jonah did his own stuff on his own here, he sure did make himself look really bad.
Are you allergic to reading or something?
Starting in chapter 3 v 5:
The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth. When the news reached the king of Nineveh ...
The entire Bible is about judgement.
It's not whether you do or don't, we all do, but how that's at issue. If you trully believe you shouldn't, you aught to stop.
Why am I not surprised you botch even this part of the story?
I have no idea what this glommed together paragraph means. Why don't you try sorting it out in terms of order of events, and this time, READ the book before you attemept your exegesis of it.
And so far, you have been wrong on every single point you make about it. I'm not shocked you still don't understand why I chose the name I did.
You still can't wrap your mind around the fact the people repented after Jonah gave witness, can you?
Thanks
Too bad you still won't understand why ...
Nice and tolerant to God? huh?
You aren't holy, nor are your words. Come down off your prophet pedestal.
I've read enough from you to know you are completely ignorant of the Bible.
Actually, "pantheologist" right/left hand is describing their moral capacity. Not their mental capacity. I sort of figured you didn't understand what you were saying.
It's nice to see you finally bothered to look that up....
And you can't use Nahum to defend the argument you are trying to make.
Do you think if Nineveh would have repented again God would have spared them again?
Oooh you found Google! Good for you!
Your argument just failed on all points, didn't it? Or do you want to keep traveling down the road of "wrong"?
(hint: it helps to know your argument before you attempt to debate it)
Corrected!?
Good girl, you based that off of such little information, you really are polishing that name plate today!
My theory of what is is theological. What are you basing an argument of that on?
No you want to know my beliefs you start a thread about it, i am not about to weild down a belief thread for the purpose of or the presumed purpose of buffing my ego.
And what are you basing this argument on?
i read it, i quoted it word for word and you are telling me because black and white print argues your preconcieved directed and biased synthesis of what it could be interpreted as.
It is what the book says that's how come i quoted it.
This you made up,right? what are you referring to?
i named every quote by it's chapter and verse.
que pas es? WHAT!?!?
Says the frightened king, nothing is given about the sociological lives of the people only that the kings say they did everything they were told to do by a man who threatened the wrath of God. And much as the government i currently live in is fully unsupported by me. Besides if you really want someone to do something, starving them is a good method, Fast my behind! Not likely every wicked person decided to take a fast and repent all at once. More likely it appeared they had repented by being forced by unwilling fasting, apearences look good and the winners write the history books.
But all of this is completely regardless of my argument, which is that Nineveh's inclusion in the bible includes it's complete life span and that the point is GOD HAD TOLERANCE.
Oh here is our problem...i am using a holy book of the christians and catholics the first few books belong to the Jews too though, You must be dealing with an entirely different book titles "Bible" Any other distinguishing references than it is about judgement while the most common book titled "bible" is about tolerance and a cool guy named Jesus, and lots of poitics and sex.
i don't care what you say, Jonah got eaten by a great big fish in the bible. :kookoo:
You really ought to stop wasting space with dilusional tripe. For your knowledge, so you can just quit it (for Pete's sake) i have read the bible many times, we becan discussing these two books, so i got the book out rereadit (twice actually) read the book inbetween (Micah) and then pulled it out to directly quote from it.
So you say, but you give not one single remote reference to how or why. i am just wrong? You have nothing to back that up but it is more fact than what i can quote from the bible?
And i get it, by your reasons OR mine the fact is the same. You picked the name Nineveh because it captures your intolerant nature.
i, um said they did repent, i even gave the quote where it is said. i do not agree with you, however, that Nineveh's importance in the stories of the bible ended at that moment of repentence. i also do not agree that the rest of the bibles references to the fall of Nineveh were just thrown in for a larf, but for no purpose.l
Thanks
Too bad you still won't understand why ...
Honey, i get the impression you are not even sure of what the argument is that you are debating.
You are so sweet. Nieve but sweet.
i never claimed any of these things but your subconcious flatters me by naturally assigning them to me, even though your concious is arguing with your subconcious. i actually have nothing to do with this converstaion at all, but thanks.
i was referring to what i wouold call holy write much as you concider your bible, and while it is nice of you to assume i wrote it, i did not.
Yeah, but your most intelligent argument has simply been, "you're wrong" So just your belief in my ignorance of the bible doesn't actually make me ignorant.
Says the debater who backs nothing up. Tomatoes/ tomatoes, (sound it out honey)
i disagree with your interpretation of that statement but interpretations of this bible are as different as the readers and only suggestion changes that. Once again you can figure the sky is green for all i care, it still does not make it so.
Why not, Does Nahum not exist in your abriviated version of the bible? So it can exist for no one you interact with?
God already knew how many times they would repent and that the city would not end on a repentant note. But let's pretend "God" didn't really know what was up.
And yes, the point was to be tolerant of the people who need it most, Funny Jesus did have the same philosophy as God in that instance, he hung out with lepers.
Um, ok honey, Google is not the best place to look up the bible on.
Let me introduce you to a concept. Everything on google pays for space and is written and then coded by humans. Of all of the places to look up individual bible verses and most especially dates, google is fairly corrupted even more so than the written bible! You will find much more accurate (sort of) bible verses in the, um, bible.
But yes i found google quite a great many years ago and even regularly attended dinner with it's founder for a while.
you can figure dates by cross referencing with 1 corinthians, knowing the dates of the reigns of different empires and the dates prophets were alive and whaen they were actually prophets. Then it is just some simple math.
which points, you actually need to say which points, not just say all points when there are none. Again, your belief does not create reality.
Hint: it helps to have an argument before you debate it.
If anyone doesn't have an argument it is you, anami.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
Odd reply to someone you have been talking to for over a week now who has shown you repetedly you are in error.
It's up to you if you want to remain ignorant.
Actually it's pretty simple to discern you are a garden variety pagan.
I didn't know expounding on what you believe would be so hard, guess I shoulda known...
Hey, if you don't wanna share : shrugs : no skin off my nose.
Something you may not be familliar with, it's called reality.
"He spared them because they repented says the book of Jonah"
That is Biblical and can be gleened from the account, but then you felt the need to add:
"supposedly the story of things written by him, so in the book of Jonah it says not only that they repented but did so under threat and duress."
That is no where in the account. The account says simply, "They believed God".
You didn't quote the part you made up, you added it to make your point.
I didn't make up the fact you said, " Besides i did read it. Jonah told the people(jonah 3:7) great calamity they would face if they did not repent."
Jonah 3:6-7 says, "When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. Then he issued a proclamation in Nineveh:"
That's the King talking not Jonah. For crying out loud. It's a simple matter, why do you insist on being wrong?
Jonah said, "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned." That is all he said. He didn't tell them to do or not do anything.
The people believed God.
That's it.
Everything else you keep trying to add is simply that, your additions to the account.
I don't really care what you need to add to make your point. The account says:
"The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth."
Then: "When the news reached the king of Nineveh"
Only in the account of Nineveh according to anami.
Tell that to Nahum.
Oh... and do you think God would have been "tolerant" had Nineveh not repented?
:darwinsm:
You know what they say about pointing fingers, right?
You musta ripped out the Book of Judges then. And all the instances where God wasn't tolerant. How thick is your Bible? 20 pagaes or so? That would explain why you keep missing so much...
You said: "Don't just look at the quotes in your weekly flier and listen to what the precher says pretending it's holy writ. Read the whole story from that actual bible and you find a story about a place so wicked Jonah faced god's wrath in the belly of a fish instead of go there."
Are you absolutely sure that's why Jonah didn't want to go? If you are really sure, you won't have any trouble quoting the Scripture that backs you up, right?
It's not your ability to cut and paste at question, it's your ability to read and understand what is being said.
You are thick. Is it by choice or by nature?
lol
You went on for days about Nahum. What was it you said? God was wrong or foolish or some such?
Sugarplum, if anyone needs a map it's you.
It's not your ignorance that keeps you from learning, it's your attitude, especially toward correction that keeps you ignorant.
Right.
And how many days have we been talking about Nineveh and you still have trouble with Chapter 3 v 7.
I do not doubt you are having an "out of body experience" while typing, but I'm more prone to chalk that feeling up to crack than anything spiritual.
You said: " i'm reading your holy word, you are not reading mine."
You were the one implying your "words are holy". Sorry, I don't buy it. I think your words are best described as ignorant, egotistical and sometimes borderline stupid.
Oh, please don't misconstrue that I don't think "your words are holy" with me thinking you had anything at all to do with writting the Bible. The first evidence would be your complete and utter lack of knowing what's in it.
I would say your ignorance is pretty out there. Me pointing it out is only pointing it out, you are the one making my statement true.
I dunno if you know this or not, but you don't have to stay ignorant. An evidence would be you finally figured out how much time passed between Jonah and Nahum instead of believing it was only a matter of a time span beteween flipping a few pages in the Bible.
Right, never mind all those arguments and quotes lol
Ok sweetie pie.
Was there some point in this? Or are you taking the tact "if your argument fails you cans still call names"?
LOL
It's not about interpretation it's about understanding figures of speech.
Because in the beginning when I told you why I chose the name, I emphasized the repentance of the people even when Jonah didn't wanna witness.
It was you that tried to drag it into Nahum with your cockeyed understanding of when Nahum happened.
You didn't answer the question. Try again:
Do you think if Nineveh would have repented again God would have spared them again?
Jesus wasn't tolerant all the time either.
Ok, sugarlump, but it worked for you
Like it really matters to you who or how the Bible might be misrepresented LOL
:darwinsm:
Bet you wish you had done it sooner, instead of trying to make Jonah and Nahum sound like mere days apart. (or at least as long as it took you to read from one to the other).
And you accuse me of not being able to follow along...
Your "judgement" about my name is totally off. My witness, like Jonah's stands. Even though it has taken a week to get this far, the people still repented when the unwilling Jonah witnessed to them.
You were the one to take issue. You are still wrong. But out of all of this, you were forced to become a little more familliar with Jonah and Nahum, so it wasn't a total loss
Now... if only you would become a little more familliar with the God spoken of in the Bible so you would stop with that ignorant "tolerance" garbage.
Last edited:
Once again, if you simply state that i am wrong with out even saying why let alone waiting to see if that why is reasonable then you have not shown me to be in error. You calling me an idiot in no way defuncts my opinion.
A pagan is someone who believes in multiple Gods, i understand why people have Gods and i support that, but i do not beilieve any of them actually exist outside of that persons perspective, therefor it would technically be impossible for me to be a pagan, garden varitety or other.
(see that is what a correction looks like, see you said i was a pagan and i gave you reasonable verifyable reasons why that can not be true. That is a correction.)
It is simply very time consuming, and if i thought the information would be anything more than summarily dissmissed i would love to share.
Calamity = bad
So now if the bible is such a holy word why would there be such a difference? One includes duress where the other does not, that is a very interesting place for such an effective change.
i am currently referencing from a Life Application study bible, but i have several others in the other room, which version are you reading so that we can syncronize bibles.
(Do you still maintain that the bible hasn't been changed? Given that your Jonah 3:7 and mine say completely different things?)
Why can you not follow the argument? i never said the king was not speaking there, in fact i verified that when i stated that the kings though not every citizen converted. You are argueing against nothing....
Oh there it is, lucky for you they just rearanged and re worded the same thing... overturned = bad
No i said what you were asking was silly for if you ask that you presume God was wrong or foolish, but you bring it up again, whether God would have saved Nineveh again if they would have repented, yes, probably because there is tolerance there, as i said. My point was simply that God already knew what would become of Nineveh even before he set Jonah there, therefore not being wrong or foolish as you had indicated.
Here i am going to call you on your infantile behavior. On a site that ousted someone for vauge inscestual references (an insult plain and simple actually, that was way out of line) Bear in mind this is the same thing. Crack and it's effects are as disgusting to me as incest.
So please note this is childish behavior quite bad form for debate and quite frankly it bothers me.
Please keep your crack obsession to yourself.
thank you
:doh:
No, what i was clearly implying is that you and i both have books that we concider holy. i am reading yours (the bible), you are not reading mine (the book of truth) i was not at anytime implying that i had anything to do with the writing of either of them. It was about our very oposite research styles regarding debate.
(*this would also be concidered a correction, you misunderstood my simple statement twice. i repeat the same idea in different ways until i find one you can understand, this is also a form of correction, but you see the rational nature of why you are being corrected is included at the very least in an implyed form. ie: i imply you thought i meant my personal words when i clearly meant the book i offer most creadence to. Much as earlier in the same sentence i refer to your holy word and i, of course, am not saying you wrote the bible, only that you hold it sacred. Now do you understand?
How?
What is your issue? i waited until i had time to reference and do the math, and then i handily found it simply stated in this study bible. but what is your issue my point would have help whether it was 1 year or 20 or 110 or 189 or 400, it was irrelivent i only did the math to get you to let go of a pointless topic. It takes thirty seconds to flip the pages of the bible, i certainly never asserted the time period covered by Micah was, thirty seconds.
i am about to give up on ya, darlin'
What arguments and quotes?
"you don't know how long the time period was."
i do but it has always been irrellivent.
"you are stupid"
unsubstansiated
"You are wrong"
Based on what
It sounds like you just don't agree with me and you can't live with that, sorry.
Deal.
And yet you did not understand what i meant by Tamatoe/ tamatoe
Sound it out, and here is a hint sound each out differently. Then you will understand the figure of speech i was using and can go on argueing how you "get it" and i don't.
Yes i believe this discussion started when you i was surprized someone would take that name as their own. We came to a standstill quite a long time ago.
You assert that this period after Jonah and before Nahum that is not written about at all, though it was in the vicinity of 180 years of time, is the only relevant time of it's existance.
i asserted that it's entire life is equally as relevent to it's purpose in its inclusion in the bible.
Now i think your statement sounds silly and you already claimed mine to be stupid. So let's just think as we do, you will never convince me of what you say and it seems the same is true the other way, so rise above lady! Move on.
So call God foolish again, ok.
For like the fourth time YES because he was making a show of tolerance in the first place
i kinda get a kick out of how you wildly interpret my words.
and then you tell me you can interprete the bible so well.
I never mentioed Joanh and Nahum were days apart, the first time you asked that question i relied that i thought it was 200 years or so, which it turned out was longer than it actually was, and certainly never implied it to be a matter of days.
me: I'm right!
someone else: No, I'm right!
anami: You're both right.
me and someone else: You're wrong, anami!
anami, who's right?
someone else: No, I'm right!
anami: You're both right.
me and someone else: You're wrong, anami!
anami, who's right?
Is ignorance realy blissful? I wouldn't know, but I'm very certain you do.
I doubt you would know what it's like to know anything, anami.