FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Christian values
Christian values
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"Or lay off the funky herbs." Perhaps I should say " let them eat cake " | |||
"You need a good hard shag you don't you " | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Peace and goodwill to all of Mankind. That's all I have to say about that. " I say peace and good will to human kind not just men xx Thus any human or text that promotes homosexuallity is something that is negative is not a positive contributor to that aim xx The love and make feel guilty is another clear example of the twisted nature of the xtian doctrine , not however necessarily an attribute of all those claiming to be christian | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Are they explicit or implicit Is homophobia a fixed explicit non negotiable christian value that good non bigoted people must hold for them to be a literal christian Or is it not explicit and can only be inferred to be the desired instructions from a mythical creature by humans who want to be homophobes Personaly I feel the horrid bronze age book of manipulation, is rather explicit and the JC character from the story is non severable from the OT , Using logic if a person believes the JC character to be their inspiration for life values they can't ignore the ot perspective I almost quote JC " I have not come here to change the law but to uphold it" The law being the Ot And we all know what the OT perspective is on man laying next to man is Other than a non christian , human perspective there is nothing biblical or christian to instruct the Christian bible reader not to be homophobic So what always confuses me is when a person who hopes a god exists yet is gay or not homophobic suggests they are christian ? If objectively they can choose to accept many parts of a cruel bigoted book are invalid how then they can emphatically protest that other parts are worthy of belief It's not the issue that they hope a creator or higher power exists that's reasonable but that they choose a most fleshed out specific doctrine and story to which they themselves have discredited some or many parts or concepts " It always amazes me how people who have no belief constantly try to tell people who have beliefs what they should or should not believe. What leads to a person being saved for most Christians is not so much what you do but what you actually believe. Also there are many laws in the OT, such as eating pork, marriage to dead relatives former spouses, working, usury etc etc. Not many of these are upheld by most Christian denominations. With regard to the sexual side of things most Christians, if pressed, would probably argue that all sex outside of marriage is a sin and no form of sex outside of marriage more or less of a sin than any other. However I believe that a true Christian would only say this if pressed because a far bigger truly Christian doctrine is 'Judge not lest you be judged'. If more people adopted that one Christian doctrine and nothing else the world would be a lot better and more liberal place than it currently is. | |||
"I know Jehovah Witnesses. They say they are Christian but are horribly homophobic. I guess gay and bi people aren't in the bible. " I think they were , was it in Sodom and Gomorrah or somewhere like that ? | |||
"Sorry my mind switched off after the second sentence "With such a bland , but intended insult my only reply can be that I'm not surprised lol | |||
"I know Jehovah Witnesses. They say they are Christian but are horribly homophobic. I guess gay and bi people aren't in the bible. " Maybe you should read it more closely and from a different perspective.! | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"Cherry picker here. I see no hypocrisy in choosing to believe the essence of a religion (e.g. love thy neighbour) and the existence of a higher power, rather than to take literally its texts which are mired in the politics and culture of the time in which they were written. " I see little or no hypocrisy in being a conscientious theist ? I'm a conscientious atheist I don't believe in love my neighbour , I do however know it's right to attempt to live in harmony x | |||
"Cherry picker here. I see no hypocrisy in choosing to believe the essence of a religion (e.g. love thy neighbour) and the existence of a higher power, rather than to take literally its texts which are mired in the politics and culture of the time in which they were written. I see little or no hypocrisy in being a conscientious theist ? I'm a conscientious atheist I don't believe in love my neighbour , I do however know it's right to attempt to live in harmony x" I don't think anyone is accusing of being a hypocrite, theists or not. | |||
"Cherry picker here. I see no hypocrisy in choosing to believe the essence of a religion (e.g. love thy neighbour) and the existence of a higher power, rather than to take literally its texts which are mired in the politics and culture of the time in which they were written. I see little or no hypocrisy in being a conscientious theist ? I'm a conscientious atheist I don't believe in love my neighbour , I do however know it's right to attempt to live in harmony x I don't think anyone is accusing of being a hypocrite, theists or not." It was a reference to a post further up saying people shouldn't cherry pick which parts of a religion they choose to follow. | |||
| |||
| |||
"It concerns me when people cherry pick from any single religion , I think it's a philosophical necessity to cherry pick from all religions, philosophies, ideas theories , conversations , imaginations x and try not to collect inconsistencies xx I think most kind normal people would have a nice mix x" But don't all the best religions do this? The Old Testament has influences from Babylonia, Assyria, Egypt and Greece. Even when Jesus tore up the ten commandments and said instead "love your neighbour", that came, via Plato, from the Taoist religion of the East. (But, judging by your name, I'm guessing you knew that!) | |||
"I treat all Christians as I would any other mental person. Probably the biggest fraud on the people of the people, religion.." The sort of tolerant attitude we've come to expect from many on this site who think they're open minded but in fact are just very intolerant and closed minded people. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I treat all Christians as I would any other mental person. Probably the biggest fraud on the people of the people, religion.. The sort of tolerant attitude we've come to expect from many on this site who think they're open minded but in fact are just very intolerant and closed minded people." Why do you think that open-mindedness in one area of interest would lead to the same in all others? Humans are infinitely diverse. | |||
"I treat all Christians as I would any other mental person. Probably the biggest fraud on the people of the people, religion.. The sort of tolerant attitude we've come to expect from many on this site who think they're open minded but in fact are just very intolerant and closed minded people. Why do you think that open-mindedness in one area of interest would lead to the same in all others? Humans are infinitely diverse." I don't but generally individuals are either tolerant or intolerant. All I seem to see from many, especially those who claim to be atheists, is closed minded intolerance and intolerance is always the enemy of freedom and liberalism and, for the sake of all, must be challenged. | |||
"I know Jehovah Witnesses. They say they are Christian but are horribly homophobic. I guess gay and bi people aren't in the bible. Maybe you should read it more closely and from a different perspective.!" I haven't read it at all. Nor will I. I don't approve of organised religion. Don't send me any more weird messages either. | |||
"All I seem to see from many, especially those who claim to be atheists, is closed minded intolerance and intolerance is always the enemy of freedom and liberalism and, for the sake of all, must be challenged." Probably because as soon as any theist meets an atheist, they try to convert them. I'm happy for religious people to believe their various doctrines, as long as they leave me alone. But they never can. | |||
"I know Jehovah Witnesses. They say they are Christian but are horribly homophobic. I guess gay and bi people aren't in the bible. Maybe you should read it more closely and from a different perspective.! I haven't read it at all. Nor will I. I don't approve of organised religion. Don't send me any more weird messages either. " What? The only message I've sent you was on the JOKE Genial Erection thread. You surly didn't think that was real? I just assumed you realised that. If you honestly thought that anything that I said on the whole of that thread was serious you're wrong but if you were offended then I am truly and honestly sorry. I genuine have a lot of respect for you and some of the things you say, even if I don't always agree with it. Please accept this as an open, unmitigated and complete apology for any offence caused. | |||
"All I seem to see from many, especially those who claim to be atheists, is closed minded intolerance and intolerance is always the enemy of freedom and liberalism and, for the sake of all, must be challenged. Probably because as soon as any theist meets an atheist, they try to convert them. I'm happy for religious people to believe their various doctrines, as long as they leave me alone. But they never can." I've found the opposite, atheists are always determined to argue me down and ram their point of view down my throat. Perhaps it's because I'm a catholic and we generally can't be arsed, but I'm one of your "they" and I wouldn't dream of trying to convert anyone, tell them their beliefs (or lack thereof) are shit or fail to "leave them alone". I'd love it if atheists would do me the same courtesy but many don't. | |||
"All I seem to see from many, especially those who claim to be atheists, is closed minded intolerance and intolerance is always the enemy of freedom and liberalism and, for the sake of all, must be challenged. Probably because as soon as any theist meets an atheist, they try to convert them. I'm happy for religious people to believe their various doctrines, as long as they leave me alone. But they never can. I've found the opposite, atheists are always determined to argue me down and ram their point of view down my throat. Perhaps it's because I'm a catholic and we generally can't be arsed, but I'm one of your "they" and I wouldn't dream of trying to convert anyone, tell them their beliefs (or lack thereof) are shit or fail to "leave them alone". I'd love it if atheists would do me the same courtesy but many don't."  | |||
"All I seem to see from many, especially those who claim to be atheists, is closed minded intolerance and intolerance is always the enemy of freedom and liberalism and, for the sake of all, must be challenged. Probably because as soon as any theist meets an atheist, they try to convert them. I'm happy for religious people to believe their various doctrines, as long as they leave me alone. But they never can." Whereas I'm happy to discuss my beliefs with anyone I have no wish to force my beliefs on any. I'm also quite happy not to talk about my beliefs also. | |||
"All I seem to see from many, especially those who claim to be atheists, is closed minded intolerance and intolerance is always the enemy of freedom and liberalism and, for the sake of all, must be challenged. Probably because as soon as any theist meets an atheist, they try to convert them. I'm happy for religious people to believe their various doctrines, as long as they leave me alone. But they never can. I've found the opposite, atheists are always determined to argue me down and ram their point of view down my throat. Perhaps it's because I'm a catholic and we generally can't be arsed, but I'm one of your "they" and I wouldn't dream of trying to convert anyone, tell them their beliefs (or lack thereof) are shit or fail to "leave them alone". I'd love it if atheists would do me the same courtesy but many don't." That's pretty much my experience to. | |||
"All I seem to see from many, especially those who claim to be atheists, is closed minded intolerance and intolerance is always the enemy of freedom and liberalism and, for the sake of all, must be challenged. Probably because as soon as any theist meets an atheist, they try to convert them. I'm happy for religious people to believe their various doctrines, as long as they leave me alone. But they never can." I'm getting a stash of NHS leaflets on blood transfusions to keep by the front door. Seems a fair exchange for the numerous copies of 'the watchtower' and 'awake' I keep getting offered. A | |||
"All I seem to see from many, especially those who claim to be atheists, is closed minded intolerance and intolerance is always the enemy of freedom and liberalism and, for the sake of all, must be challenged. Probably because as soon as any theist meets an atheist, they try to convert them. I'm happy for religious people to believe their various doctrines, as long as they leave me alone. But they never can. I'm getting a stash of NHS leaflets on blood transfusions to keep by the front door. Seems a fair exchange for the numerous copies of 'the watchtower' and 'awake' I keep getting offered. A " | |||
"All I seem to see from many, especially those who claim to be atheists, is closed minded intolerance and intolerance is always the enemy of freedom and liberalism and, for the sake of all, must be challenged. Probably because as soon as any theist meets an atheist, they try to convert them. I'm happy for religious people to believe their various doctrines, as long as they leave me alone. But they never can. I'm getting a stash of NHS leaflets on blood transfusions to keep by the front door. Seems a fair exchange for the numerous copies of 'the watchtower' and 'awake' I keep getting offered. A " Just curious; have you read any of them? | |||
| |||
| |||
"All I seem to see from many, especially those who claim to be atheists, is closed minded intolerance and intolerance is always the enemy of freedom and liberalism and, for the sake of all, must be challenged. Probably because as soon as any theist meets an atheist, they try to convert them. I'm happy for religious people to believe their various doctrines, as long as they leave me alone. But they never can." It works both ways, I find. I tend to attract atheists trying to convert me. | |||
| |||
| |||
"You can't have your cake, nor eat it. I'm atheist and don't understand how someone can profess the truth of a religion, but only certain bits. Like its ok to wear mixed fabrics on your back - Leviticus, but not ok for men to lie with men - probably the same book. And how, despite the bible commanding the stoning of adulterers etc, few people in this country - as far as I'm aware - are actually doing this. " Your stoning example is exactly what I mean. It may well say that in the Bible, but that's because it's a product of the time in which it was written and has no relevance to the society in which I live today. Religion for me isn't about ticking a set of _oxes and if you tick them all it makes you a "better" Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist/whatever. Of course you can select which parts are the most important to you and the most relevant to your life. I have free will to do so. It is not incompatible with Christianity. | |||
"All I seem to see from many, especially those who claim to be atheists, is closed minded intolerance and intolerance is always the enemy of freedom and liberalism and, for the sake of all, must be challenged. Probably because as soon as any theist meets an atheist, they try to convert them. I'm happy for religious people to believe their various doctrines, as long as they leave me alone. But they never can. I'm getting a stash of NHS leaflets on blood transfusions to keep by the front door. Seems a fair exchange for the numerous copies of 'the watchtower' and 'awake' I keep getting offered. A Just curious; have you read any of them?" Yes. They've changed over the years. It used to be scary "you're going to hell if you don't believe" claptrap. Now it's all warm and fuzzy with modern day scenarios - but the same underlying message. You're going to hell if you don't believe. Can't remember that's times had a Muslim, Hindu, Bhuddist or any other religion come knocking at the door. If someone wants to explore religion let them do that off their own back and through their own pro-active efforts. If the local Muslim community suddenly commenced a door knocking 'recruitment campaign' there'd be outrage, media coverage, debates in parliament etc. Why should the JW's be seen any differently? 
A | |||
| |||
" Or are they bronze age dark age concepts that only bad people dig out to justify their manipulative biggoted agenda " Bronze age was before Jesus lived. #JustSaying Mostly I think it's important to remember that the manuscripts and teaching that Christianity is based on happened at a time when there was no concept of being gay. (Pederasty is not homosexuality). It's up to the people in the church to make the church relevant to the world today, and people choose to do that in different ways. | |||
| |||
" Or are they bronze age dark age concepts that only bad people dig out to justify their manipulative biggoted agenda Bronze age was before Jesus lived. #JustSaying Mostly I think it's important to remember that the manuscripts and teaching that Christianity is based on happened at a time when there was no concept of being gay. (Pederasty is not homosexuality). It's up to the people in the church to make the church relevant to the world today, and people choose to do that in different ways." | |||
"So perhaps back to the original post x Is the concept that homosexuallity should be repressed an explicit part of Christianity and is sex with a condom wrong. Are they rules that define the religion or are they bronze age dark age concepts that only bad people dig out to justify their manipulative biggoted agenda It seems according to the definition of christian I keep reading that i too am a christian, I was born c of e but have chosen the bits I don't think are right " Surely if you're C of E it is far simpler: I know of an Anglican Bishop who believes in neither the Virgin Birth, nor the Resurrection. Whilst some christians take the bible very literally, most do not. Indeed many feel the whole of the Old Testament merely provides context for the New, and others dismiss its relevance entirely. Personally I think that the early Catholic church gave too much weight to the teachings of Paul and consequently turned much more misogynistic, but that's just my opinion. So no, I don't think religion is the problem, I think the problem is indeed bigoted people misusing the bible for their own agenda. But then many atheists are guilty of that too. I also believe that the Bible says a lot more about homosexuality than most are willing to accept. Mr ddc (Ps, sorry if I mis-edited your post, I wanted to clarify how I understood what you said) | |||
| |||
"I treat all Christians as I would any other mental person. Probably the biggest fraud on the people of the people, religion.. The sort of tolerant attitude we've come to expect from many on this site who think they're open minded but in fact are just very intolerant and closed minded people. Why do you think that open-mindedness in one area of interest would lead to the same in all others? Humans are infinitely diverse. I don't but generally individuals are either tolerant or intolerant. All I seem to see from many, especially those who claim to be atheists, is closed minded intolerance and intolerance is always the enemy of freedom and liberalism and, for the sake of all, must be challenged." j As if to prove my point....insanity and belief without question- pretty mental. Look out for Father Christmas and the tooth fairy!! | |||
"Is in ten commandments? No homosexuality only come from laviticus. Nobody really takes any notice of laviticus." Why even need 10 commandments, surely just have- don't be a cunt! Covers most things.... | |||
"Is in ten commandments? No homosexuality only come from laviticus. Nobody really takes any notice of laviticus. Why even need 10 commandments, surely just have- don't be a cunt! Covers most things.... " | |||
"I treat all Christians as I would any other mental person. Probably the biggest fraud on the people of the people, religion.. The sort of tolerant attitude we've come to expect from many on this site who think they're open minded but in fact are just very intolerant and closed minded people. Why do you think that open-mindedness in one area of interest would lead to the same in all others? Humans are infinitely diverse. I don't but generally individuals are either tolerant or intolerant. All I seem to see from many, especially those who claim to be atheists, is closed minded intolerance and intolerance is always the enemy of freedom and liberalism and, for the sake of all, must be challenged.j As if to prove my point....insanity and belief without question- pretty mental. Look out for Father Christmas and the tooth fairy!!" I fail to see how anything I've said proves your point. Christians are not taught to believe with out question, in fact quite the opposite, it's a Christian's duty to question and explore religion and be on the watching out for false profits. On the other hand you clearly do prove my point that a lot of people who claim to be atheists are in fact closed minded bigots as surely only a very closed minded person would believe that any who don't believe the same as they do must be mentally ill. | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
" Or are they bronze age dark age concepts that only bad people dig out to justify their manipulative biggoted agenda Bronze age was before Jesus lived. #JustSaying Mostly I think it's important to remember that the manuscripts and teaching that Christianity is based on happened at a time when there was no concept of being gay. (Pederasty is not homosexuality). It's up to the people in the church to make the church relevant to the world today, and people choose to do that in different ways. "Very interesting maybe telling how you dislike the association with bronze age ? You know full well I know the biblical time of the Christ character is post bronze age and only just post iron age however we all know that the concepts associated with Christianity are cherry pi , contrived , not only from the the new testament but also link directly through the genealogy of the Christ character to his alleged father and his father's rules for humanity To simplify. The teachings of the Jesus character in the books pretty much preach , Love my daddy, follow it's rules If you dispute that many if not most xtians take the bronze age ot to be a part of their Christianity we might ask them about the 10 commandments , most won't know them but will take them as the direct words of the daddy of the son , and the son tells us to obey daddy ,love daddy xx Let us quote Mathew 5 17 The Fulfillment of the Law 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. the law is bronze age thus Christianity Also Matthew again Adultery 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. You say " It's up to the people in the church to make the church relevant to the world today, and people choose to do that in different ways." That maybe a hope, a get out clause, your opinion but logical nonsense That maybe a reasonable , pragmatic , respectable, intelligent non theistic approach but not a religious or xtian one Unambiguous xtian law Love yahweh Not change the rules cos they make you uncomfortable Nowhere is it found that an Abrahamic god or its son instructs humans to change practices in accordance with popular current sentiment One would assume our all knowing yahweh would not one century think stoning good , explicitly make sure it appeared in a book then change its mind but hope humans would change without being instructed ? I don't think it's unreasonable to think Either yahweh exists, it gave blond cult rules to bronze age humans and it's rules don't change Or it does not exist in any form remotely in align with the biblical text , that all the words and the rules are are made up by humans , then future human conscience cherry picking to suit an agenda or zeitgeist And thus have zero authority or value above any others opinion | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I don't get religious people's obsession with same-sex activity. Why are they so interested in it? Why can they not let it go? I have yet to see any mainstream or fringe religious group seriously campaign to ban divorce, force unwed parents to marry, make adultery illegal etc etc.... It's all focused on same-sex stuff - so why the fuck are they so obsessed? They've been peddling their claptrap for over 1500 years, a lot of people are now bored with it. Why are they still trying to use it to forcibly impinge on people's lives? It's time to unclench their fingers one by one, from the mantle of power and influence. " I don't think that's really true. To most Christians a sin is a sin. The Catholic church has a slightly different approach with venal, cardinal and mortal sins but all sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin regardless of orientation. I think the problem is is that people want Christians to say things that they believe to be sins are not sins and many simply will not do that. I also think that this also completely misunderstands what sin is and the nature of sin. Most Christian faiths teach that we all sin and that sin is a normal part of human existence. That is why most also teach that it is not for any of us in the normal human condition of sin to judge or condemn others for their sins. Only God can judge and/or condemn. I often feel I sound a lot more religious on these threads than I actually am but, while not agreeing with everything organised religions do or say it does seem to me that many who seem to fervently condemn simply don't really know what they're talking about. | |||
"I don't get religious people's obsession with same-sex activity. Why are they so interested in it? Why can they not let it go? I have yet to see any mainstream or fringe religious group seriously campaign to ban divorce, force unwed parents to marry, make adultery illegal etc etc.... It's all focused on same-sex stuff - so why the fuck are they so obsessed? They've been peddling their claptrap for over 1500 years, a lot of people are now bored with it. Why are they still trying to use it to forcibly impinge on people's lives? It's time to unclench their fingers one by one, from the mantle of power and influence. I don't think that's really true. To most Christians a sin is a sin. The Catholic church has a slightly different approach with venal, cardinal and mortal sins but all sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin regardless of orientation. I think the problem is is that people want Christians to say things that they believe to be sins are not sins and many simply will not do that. I also think that this also completely misunderstands what sin is and the nature of sin. Most Christian faiths teach that we all sin and that sin is a normal part of human existence. That is why most also teach that it is not for any of us in the normal human condition of sin to judge or condemn others for their sins. Only God can judge and/or condemn. I often feel I sound a lot more religious on these threads than I actually am but, while not agreeing with everything organised religions do or say it does seem to me that many who seem to fervently condemn simply don't really know what they're talking about." The point being that I don't care what the Catholic church thinks is a sin or not a sin. I want people to keep their religious beliefs out of my life and the lives of others who feel the same the way. For too long organised religion has been allowed to dictate social mores - that time has changed. "completely misunderstands what sin is and the nature of sin" Seeing as I don't believe, nothing I do is sinful so there is nothing to misunderstand. The Abrahamic religions commandeered a lot of societal rituals and customs as their own - they do not belong to those religions and never have. It's time for non-believers to claim them back. | |||
"I don't get religious people's obsession with same-sex activity. Why are they so interested in it? Why can they not let it go? I have yet to see any mainstream or fringe religious group seriously campaign to ban divorce, force unwed parents to marry, make adultery illegal etc etc.... It's all focused on same-sex stuff - so why the fuck are they so obsessed? They've been peddling their claptrap for over 1500 years, a lot of people are now bored with it. Why are they still trying to use it to forcibly impinge on people's lives? It's time to unclench their fingers one by one, from the mantle of power and influence. I don't think that's really true. To most Christians a sin is a sin. The Catholic church has a slightly different approach with venal, cardinal and mortal sins but all sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin regardless of orientation. I think the problem is is that people want Christians to say things that they believe to be sins are not sins and many simply will not do that. I also think that this also completely misunderstands what sin is and the nature of sin. Most Christian faiths teach that we all sin and that sin is a normal part of human existence. That is why most also teach that it is not for any of us in the normal human condition of sin to judge or condemn others for their sins. Only God can judge and/or condemn. I often feel I sound a lot more religious on these threads than I actually am but, while not agreeing with everything organised religions do or say it does seem to me that many who seem to fervently condemn simply don't really know what they're talking about. The point being that I don't care what the Catholic church thinks is a sin or not a sin. I want people to keep their religious beliefs out of my life and the lives of others who feel the same the way. For too long organised religion has been allowed to dictate social mores - that time has changed. completely misunderstands what sin is and the nature of sin Seeing as I don't believe, nothing I do is sinful so there is nothing to misunderstand. The Abrahamic religions commandeered a lot of societal rituals and customs as their own - they do not belong to those religions and never have. It's time for non-believers to claim them back. " I'm quite happy for you to believe or not believe and I have no desire to convert you or force any moral code on you, especially one I don't follow myself. My posts is simply pointing out that what you say about Christians being hung up about same sex relationships is not actually true. I further went on to discuss what Christians mean by the term sin because you seemed to be under the impression that Christians believe that to sin is to be condemned or that sin was not normal. It's you who brought the subject up, I'm simply trying to clarify it for you. Of course if you don't care then that's fine also but then why post your opinion on the thread if you don't want or care about posts people make in reply? | |||
"Are they explicit or implicit Is homophobia a fixed explicit non negotiable christian value that good non bigoted people must hold for them to be a literal christian Or is it not explicit and can only be inferred to be the desired instructions from a mythical creature by humans who want to be homophobes Personaly I feel the horrid bronze age book of manipulation, is rather explicit and the JC character from the story is non severable from the OT , Using logic if a person believes the JC character to be their inspiration for life values they can't ignore the ot perspective I almost quote JC " I have not come here to change the law but to uphold it" The law being the Ot And we all know what the OT perspective is on man laying next to man is Other than a non christian , human perspective there is nothing biblical or christian to instruct the Christian bible reader not to be homophobic So what always confuses me is when a person who hopes a god exists yet is gay or not homophobic suggests they are christian ? If objectively they can choose to accept many parts of a cruel bigoted book are invalid how then they can emphatically protest that other parts are worthy of belief It's not the issue that they hope a creator or higher power exists that's reasonable but that they choose a most fleshed out specific doctrine and story to which they themselves have discredited some or many parts or concepts " Can someone please translate | |||
"You need a good hard shag you don't you " | |||
"Are they explicit or implicit Is homophobia a fixed explicit non negotiable christian value that good non bigoted people must hold for them to be a literal christian Or is it not explicit and can only be inferred to be the desired instructions from a mythical creature by humans who want to be homophobes Personaly I feel the horrid bronze age book of manipulation, is rather explicit and the JC character from the story is non severable from the OT , Using logic if a person believes the JC character to be their inspiration for life values they can't ignore the ot perspective I almost quote JC " I have not come here to change the law but to uphold it" The law being the Ot And we all know what the OT perspective is on man laying next to man is Other than a non christian , human perspective there is nothing biblical or christian to instruct the Christian bible reader not to be homophobic So what always confuses me is when a person who hopes a god exists yet is gay or not homophobic suggests they are christian ? If objectively they can choose to accept many parts of a cruel bigoted book are invalid how then they can emphatically protest that other parts are worthy of belief It's not the issue that they hope a creator or higher power exists that's reasonable but that they choose a most fleshed out specific doctrine and story to which they themselves have discredited some or many parts or concepts Can someone please translate" I think basically it's saying that in order to be a Christian you logically have to be a bigot and/or a homophobe. This is of course complete rubbish. The only thing you have to do to be a Christian is believe in God and believe you are saved through Christ. It's as simple as that. | |||
"This is of course complete rubbish. The only thing you have to do to be a Christian is believe in God and believe you are saved through Christ. It's as simple as that." This. ^^ | |||
"This is of course complete rubbish. The only thing you have to do to be a Christian is believe in God and believe you are saved through Christ. It's as simple as that. This. ^^" And again | |||
" Or are they Bronze Age Dark Age concepts that only bad people dig out to justify their manipulative biggoted agenda Bronze Age was before Jesus lived. #JustSaying Mostly I think it's important to remember that the manuscripts and teaching that Christianity is based on happened at a time when there was no concept of being gay. (Pederasty is not homosexuality). It's up to the people in the church to make the church relevant to the world today, and people choose to do that in different ways.
Very interesting maybe telling how you dislike the association with Bronze Age?
You know full well I know the biblical time of the Christ character is post bronze age and only just post iron age however we all know that the concepts associated with Christianity are cherry pie, contrived, not only from the new testament but also link directly through the genealogy of the Christ character to his alleged father and his father's rules for humanity
To simplify. The teachings of the Jesus character in the books pretty much preach,
Love my daddy, follow its rules
If you dispute that many if not most xtians take the bronze age to be a part of their Christianity we might ask them about the 10 commandments, most won't know them but will take them as the direct words of the daddy of the son, and the son tells us to obey daddy, love daddy xx
Let us quote
Mathew 5 17
The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
the law is bronze age thus Christianity
"Whilst it does clearly say here that Christ did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it what this actually means depends upon what part of the text you decide to put the meaning on. I, as many other Christians, put the emphasis on verse 20. This clearly says that just knowing the law and being able to teach it is not enough and that Christians should be ‘more righteous’ than that. So what is meant by being ‘more righteous’ than the Pharisees and teachers of the law? If being ‘more righteous’ meant simply following the law more closely than the Pharisees and teachers of the law then that would be all but impossible for most. It can only mean that Christian must be more right in their sole; that they must do what they do because they believe it to be right and not just because the law tells them to do it. So, while the full text is saying that no change in the law is required and that Christ has come neither to replace or diminish the law it is also saying the main Christian message that it’s not what you do but what you believe that counts. " Also Matthew again Adultery 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. " First of all let’s take v 27. What is it actually saying? It’s saying that what you think is as important in the eyes of God as what you do. I would go further than that. What you think is as important as what you do in every walk of life religious or not. It’s this very concept that forms the bases of English law and having to prove both the act (actus rei) and the guilty mind (mens rea). And if you are not sure about whether the thought of the act is as important as the act itself try replacing the act of adultery with an act of paedophilia and see if you still think it’s ok just to think about it. Of course many, including myself, on this site do not believe that adultery is wrong so why would thinking about it be wrong but, to get the meaning of the text at the time, go with the paedophilia analogy. V 29 to 30 are not actually talking about a human body but are talking about the body of the church. What they are saying is to do with false belief and heresy and how, if false belief and heresy are leading the church astray they should be rooted out and removed from the body of the church " You say " It's up to the people in the church to make the church relevant to the world today, and people choose to do that in different ways." That maybe a hope, a get out clause, your opinion but logical nonsense That maybe a reasonable , pragmatic , respectable, intelligent non theistic approach but not a religious or xtian one Unambiguous xtian law Love yahweh Not change the rules cos they make you uncomfortable Nowhere is it found that an Abrahamic god or its son instructs humans to change practices in accordance with popular current sentiment One would assume our all knowing yahweh would not one century think stoning good , explicitly make sure it appeared in a book then change its mind but hope humans would change without being instructed ? I don't think it's unreasonable to think Either yahweh exists, it gave blond cult rules to bronze age humans and it's rules don't change Or it does not exist in any form remotely in align with the biblical text , that all the words and the rules are are made up by humans , then future human conscience cherry picking to suit an agenda or zeitgeist And thus have zero authority or value above any others opinion " I think the problem in general here is that you have chosen one interpretation for the texts you quote and are insisting that they are the only possible interpretation. This is clearly not the case. There are many demonisations of Christians who, reading the same good book, come up with quite different interpretation of what the text mean. You seem to always fall back on your own fundamentalist like interpretation of the text, insist that all Christians must interpretate it in the same way and that that way is either bad or wrong. The reality is that is just not the case. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
Meanwhile, outside the dark church filled with carved idols recalling a human blood sacrifice, God blows gently and lovingly in the wind | |||
"I was reading about a holocaust survivor today, and see the things happening around the world today, Iraq, Syria, e.t.c When are we going to learn religion is behind some of the worst evils mankind has seen? Religion was created when people thought the world was flat, weather was God crying, smiling e.t.c And nearly everything that can be explained by science now was sorcery. People still follow what some cavemen tree huggers had to say, worrying. It's like getting a child to do brain surgery on you... "No: religion has been used as an EXCUSE for some of the worst evils mankind has ever seen. The examples you have quoted are about power and politics, not faith. | |||
| |||
"I was reading about a holocaust survivor today, and see the things happening around the world today, Iraq, Syria, e.t.c When are we going to learn religion is behind some of the worst evils mankind has seen? Religion was created when people thought the world was flat, weather was God crying, smiling e.t.c And nearly everything that can be explained by science now was sorcery. People still follow what some cavemen tree huggers had to say, worrying. It's like getting a child to do brain surgery on you...
No: religion has been used as an EXCUSE for some of the worst evils mankind has ever seen. The examples you have quoted are about power and politics, not faith. "Sorry I have to disagree it is about faith (each area mentioned has issues with faith) and leadership and rights to live there faith they believe in and everyone else in the vicinity believes and follows the religion. | |||
"I was reading about a holocaust survivor today, and see the things happening around the world today, Iraq, Syria, e.t.c When are we going to learn religion is behind some of the worst evils mankind has seen? Religion was created when people thought the world was flat, weather was God crying, smiling e.t.c And nearly everything that can be explained by science now was sorcery. People still follow what some cavemen tree huggers had to say, worrying. It's like getting a child to do brain surgery on you...
No: religion has been used as an EXCUSE for some of the worst evils mankind has ever seen. The examples you have quoted are about power and politics, not faith.
Sorry I have to disagree it is about faith (each area mentioned has issues with faith) and leadership and rights to live there faith they believe in and everyone else in the vicinity believes and follows the religion."The holocaust wasn't about religious. It was persecution of the Jews, yes, but it was about power and expansionism and culture and man's inhumanity to man. The examples in Syria and Iraq aren't really about faith either. Tribal politics, history and resources all come into play. "Religion" is just used as a convenient shorthand when people don't want to delve deeper into the real reasons for conflict. If organised religion had never existed, there would be just as many conflicts going on around the world today. | |||
" If organised religion had never existed, there would be just as many conflicts going on around the world today. " Sadly, if organised religion had never existed, human beings would have invented it. And if there is only one true God, then this must surely be so. Religion is often the cause. People may be fighting over resources, but it is the belief that they will be rewarded for doing God's will that encourages the actual foot soldiers, especially the suicide bombers and martyrs. Sorry. | |||
| |||
"I was reading about a holocaust survivor today, and see the things happening around the world today, Iraq, Syria, e.t.c When are we going to learn religion is behind some of the worst evils mankind has seen? Religion was created when people thought the world was flat, weather was God crying, smiling e.t.c And nearly everything that can be explained by science now was sorcery. People still follow what some cavemen tree huggers had to say, worrying. It's like getting a child to do brain surgery on you... "Scientology was invented in the last century as a religion. | |||
" If organised religion had never existed, there would be just as many conflicts going on around the world today. Sadly, if organised religion had never existed, human beings would have invented it. And if there is only one true God, then this must surely be so. Religion is often the cause. People may be fighting over resources, but it is the belief that they will be rewarded for doing God's will that encourages the actual foot soldiers, especially the suicide bombers and martyrs. Sorry. " But is that really religion? Surely that's the interpretation of religion by leaders manipulating it to suit their purposes and convincing the foot soldiers that's what the religion is supposed to be about. | |||
" But is that really religion? Surely that's the interpretation of religion by leaders manipulating it to suit their purposes and convincing the foot soldiers that's what the religion is supposed to be about." I believe it is, which is why I have far fewer problems with God, than I do with religion. In effect we have almost gone full circle.The OP quotes and interprets those parts of the bible that suits his agenda, while we point to those of Jesus's teachings that demonstrate ours. Unfortunately the bible, the Quran, the Torah, et al. are all ambiguous and open to interpretation. Then who is anyone to say which interpretation is the true one? | |||
" But is that really religion? Surely that's the interpretation of religion by leaders manipulating it to suit their purposes and convincing the foot soldiers that's what the religion is supposed to be about. I believe it is, which is why I have far fewer problems with God, than I do with religion. In effect we have almost gone full circle.The OP quotes and interprets those parts of the bible that suits his agenda, while we point to those of Jesus's teachings that demonstrate ours. Unfortunately the bible, the Quran, the Torah, et al. are all ambiguous and open to interpretation. Then who is anyone to say which interpretation is the true one? " I agree with the last part of what you say here but I really don't think there is any evidence to suggest that a world without religion would be any less conflict ridden. In fact if evidence exists at all it is of the opposite. Both Communism and Nazi/fascism were secular or even atheists movements but were responsible for most conflict in the last 100 years and killed over 30,000,000 outside of the actual wars they created. 30,000,000: That's more people killed by the two secular movements than by all so called religious conflict throughout history. | |||
"You need a good hard shag you don't you " | |||
" I agree with the last part of what you say here but I really don't think there is any evidence to suggest that a world without religion would be any less conflict ridden. In fact if evidence exists at all it is of the opposite. Both Communism and Nazi/fascism were secular or even atheists movements but were responsible for most conflict in the last 100 years and killed over 30,000,000 outside of the actual wars they created. 30,000,000: That's more people killed by the two secular movements than by all so called religious conflict throughout history." And I agree with that. I didn't say that religion is the cause of all conflict, (or didn't mean to), nor that, imo, God himself orders any of it him/herself. But I had a C of E upbringing, so the OT offers far less conflict for me! | |||
"You need a good hard shag you don't you
"It was a much more appealing suggestion when made by the original poster. Especially if it was Mrs Polk.  | |||
| |||
| |||
