Jesus is Love. Allah is Not.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Jesus Saves (Fantasia from the Nothing)

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by rowech

Do I believe marriage is a Religious sacrament given to God for a man and a woman?

But marriage is a word that had nothing to do with religion until they decided to adopt it...

[Noop]

Molson, I like how you like to throw labels on people.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by rowech

Because my views don't agree with yours? Do I have hatred or intolerance in any of my views? No.

I don't see how that is not bigoted. You are saying that a certain percent of the population does not have the same rights as others. How is that different from not allowing blacks to vote or marry a white woman?

Originally Posted by rowech

Do I believe marriage is a Religious sacrament given to God for a man and a woman? Yes. Do I belive homosexuals should be allowed to have common rights under the eyes of the United Stats Constitution? Yes.

We aren't talking about religious sacrament though. We are talking about legal marriage in the United States. A sheet of paper that gives you certain benefits such as filing joint tax returns and being able to make life decisions for your spouse when they are incapacitated.

Churches can do what they want as a private entity. I'm talking about the government which is supposed to give equal rights to all citizens.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

But marriage is a word that had nothing to do with religion until they decided to adopt it...

There's a difference between being wholly, obstinately wrong about something and being a bigot.

[Noop]

Taxation without representation. We had a major war about that back in the day.

[cyril]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

heck clergy in England sometimes admit they don't believe in God ).

just curious, then why would the church accept them as workers on behalf of the religion? And why do they want to work for the church in the first place?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by cyril

just curious, then why would the church accept them as workers on behalf of the religion? And why do they want to work for the church in the first place?

I hear they have a great 401k...

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So you're saying that Christianity in this country is by in large supportive of homosexuality? That the anger towards them must be coming from those bigoted Atheists. That all the major Christian groups that oppose it and speak out against it are on the fringe.

No. Homosexuality is considered a sin. So, that's like saying Christianity is "pro-alcoholism" or something like that. However, I would say that Christianity is "for" the person who has these pre-dispositions or tendencies. We all have our axe to grind - it's just different for different people.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't see how that is not bigoted. You are saying that a certain percent of the population does not have the same rights as others. How is that different from not allowing blacks to vote or marry a white woman?


We aren't talking about religious sacrament though. We are talking about legal marriage in the United States. A sheet of paper that gives you certain benefits such as filing joint tax returns and being able to make life decisions for your spouse when they are incapacitated.

Churches can do what they want as a private entity. I'm talking about the government which is supposed to give equal rights to all citizens.

While I don't totally believe this argument, it can most certainly be said that they have the same rights as any straight couple. To marry a member of the opposite sex. I do not have any additional rights that they don't have. As I said...I don't really buy into that but it is a perfectly valid argument.

I have no problem with what you're saying as far as marriage providing those things from the government. None whatsoever. I have a problem with anybody using any part of the Christian God in that ceremony and believing God believes it to be okay. Whether it be the participants, the witnesses, the Justice performing the ceremony, the pastor...whoever.

This though then leads to a discussion you brought up a couple weeks ago about marriage in general and you, based on that discussion, have no value in marriage as anything religious and because of that, are never going to see things the same way I see them.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by cyril

just curious, then why would the church accept them as workers on behalf of the religion? And why do they want to work for the church in the first place?

To be honest I'm not 100% certain of the reasoning on either side (ie. church or individual concerned) - I'd speculate that they view the religion as misguided but a force of good for society (and from the churches viewpoint possibly the individual is someone who isn't a believer but is very competant at their job) - alternatively they may have once been beievers and found themselves disbelieving after several years within the church itself.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by rowech

I have a problem with anybody using any part of the Christian God in that ceremony and believing God believes it to be okay. Whether it be the participants, the witnesses, the Justice performing the ceremony, the pastor...whoever.

Well you know what, there's going to be people out there with different religious views than you. Even other Christians who believe differently than you. So you can "have a problem with" other Christians believing their god sanctifies gay marriage all you want, but that doesn't make their belief any less valid than your own.

[Autumn]

Wow, you guys are busy in here. If only I could harness this productivity and have you finish my work.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by rowech

I have no problem with what you're saying as far as marriage providing those things from the government. None whatsoever. I have a problem with anybody using any part of the Christian God in that ceremony and believing God believes it to be okay. Whether it be the participants, the witnesses, the Justice performing the ceremony, the pastor...whoever.

How can you tell if its 'your' christian God being used? - some people believe that everyone prays to the same God, some Christians believe only their particular brand of Christianity is the right one and everyone else is talking to the wall.

Personally with any such ceremony so long as it doesn't hurt anyone and the people involved in it are adults and 'cool' about it then I think it should be allowed myself.

I'm pretty sure that every day things are said in Gods name which he doesn't approve of - he's big enough to handle things himself imho, smiting the unbelievers and suchlike as required .... no reason for anyone else to stress over it imho

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I'm pretty sure that every day things are said in Gods name which he doesn't approve of - he's big enough to handle things himself imho, smiting the unbelievers and suchlike as required .... no reason for anyone else to stress over it imho

We definitely need more smiting these days. The level of smiting is just not what it used to be.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by rowech

While I don't totally believe this argument, it can most certainly be said that they have the same rights as any straight couple. To marry a member of the opposite sex. I do not have any additional rights that they don't have. As I said...I don't really buy into that but it is a perfectly valid argument.

I have no problem with what you're saying as far as marriage providing those things from the government. None whatsoever. I have a problem with anybody using any part of the Christian God in that ceremony and believing God believes it to be okay. Whether it be the participants, the witnesses, the Justice performing the ceremony, the pastor...whoever.

This though then leads to a discussion you brought up a couple weeks ago about marriage in general and you, based on that discussion, have no value in marriage as anything religious and because of that, are never going to see things the same way I see them.

I just think not enough people in this country separate the religious aspect of marriage with the legal side of it. They should be competely different. I don't think our government has a right to choose who can and can't be married.

As for Churches, they can do what they want.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

How can you tell if its 'your' christian God being used? - some people believe that everyone prays to the same God, some Christians believe only their particular brand of Christianity is the right one and everyone else is talking to the wall.

+1 here

Every day there are things going on already in "Christian" churches that many, many other Christian churches would consider incorrect, sacrilege, sin, whatever. That's one of the very key reasons why church and government need to keep separate, otherwise we have to decide which of these sects is the "right" one. It's not like gay marriage is the only thing they don't agree on. Christians can't agree on nearly anything if you dig down into it. (not that they're different than everyone else in that.)

[molson]

Originally Posted by cyril

just curious, then why would the church accept them as workers on behalf of the religion? And why do they want to work for the church in the first place?

I don't know about the first one, but as far as the second one - religion is more than just a litteral belief in dogma. It's about a culture, a tradition, a way to view the world - the whole thing can be more abstract than just believing the literal truth of every word in the bible.

It was made pretty clear to me in the church, early on, that the bible is not a history book, not a biology book. Faith means something different and deeper than litteral belief. It doesn't really matter what actually happened and when. It's more about people deriving positive things from a community.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by rowech

And what Christian Bible are you reading from that does not condemn homesexuality?

I guess the one the United Church of Christ uses, or any of the other Christian denominations which do not condemn homosexuality.

And yes, you can tell us that they're wrong and incorrect, but that's not my business to decide. And if you ask them they'll probably tell you it's not yours either. What can you do?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I guess the one the United Church of Christ uses, or any of the other Christian denominations which do not condemn homosexuality.

And yes, you can tell us that they're wrong and incorrect, but that's not my business to decide. And if you ask them they'll probably tell you it's not yours either. What can you do?

The Bible is pretty clear on homosexual behavior. It's a sin. The New Testament would have us to love the person anyway but to still understand that it is wrong what the person is doing. Any church that endorses something that is wrong, according to the Bible, is simply not a Christian church. You cannot pick and choose what parts of the Bible you adhere to.

This is much more difficult for an individual to do than a church to do. A person is very likely going to want to say, "that part doesn't apply to me" or "this is what was really meant" and that's where the trouble begins and why the church must be the final word on the topic and why they must follow the Bible as it's source of direction. The leaders must be strong in those beliefs and in leading the members of the church to the same viewpoint.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by rowech

The Bible is pretty clear on homosexual behavior. It's a sin... You cannot pick and choose what parts of the Bible you adhere to.

I'm sure this is well-tread territory, but that means that you don't eat pig? Shrimp?

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by rowech

The Bible is pretty clear on homosexual behavior. It's a sin. The New Testament would have us to love the person anyway but to still understand that it is wrong what the person is doing. Any church that endorses something that is wrong, according to the Bible, is simply not a Christian church. You cannot pick and choose what parts of the Bible you adhere to.

Alrighty, let's think about that, shall we?

Were you ever disobedient to your parents?

If so, you should be dead right now.

Have you ever seen a non-believer near a church?

If so, you should have killed that person.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'm sure this is well-tread territory, but that means that you don't eat pig? Shrimp?

That's Old Testament. In the book of Acts the Old Testament laws of Moses were revoked.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by rowech

The Bible is pretty clear on homosexual behavior. It's a sin. The New Testament would have us to love the person anyway but to still understand that it is wrong what the person is doing. Any church that endorses something that is wrong, according to the Bible, is simply not a Christian church. You cannot pick and choose what parts of the Bible you adhere to.

This is much more difficult for an individual to do than a church to do. A person is very likely going to want to say, "that part doesn't apply to me" or "this is what was really meant" and that's where the trouble begins and why the church must be the final word on the topic and why they must follow the Bible as it's source of direction. The leaders must be strong in those beliefs and in leading the members of the church to the same viewpoint.

I understand that viewpoint, but it's clearly not agreed upon by all people or churches who call themselves Christian. I think people apply a common sense principle at times like this, there are groups that most everybody would agree are not Christian even if they claim to be, there are a wide swath that people can't agree about, there are some that everybody can agree on. Most of us are going to accept most of the wide swath of churches and agree that they're Christian even if htey don't meet your criteria, or somebody else's criteria.

Clearly there are many Christian churches who say "a church is not Christian if they don't X", and some you would agree with and some you wouldn't.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Alrighty, let's think about that, shall we?

Were you ever disobedient to your parents?

If so, you should be dead right now.

Have you ever seen a non-believer near a church?

If so, you should have killed that person.

Wait, what? So...you break a commandment and you immediately die?

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Wait, what? So...you break a commandment and you immediately die?

There are passages in the bible that call for the death of children who disobey their parents, among other equally ridiculous things.

I'm calling rowech out on his little statement of "you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible to adhere to".

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Wait, what? So...you break a commandment and you immediately die?

That's goddamn cra ... arrrrrrrggggghh ....

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

That's Old Testament. In the book of Acts the Old Testament laws of Moses were revoked.

Was the infamous passage from Leviticus 18 not revoked? I'm certainly no Biblical scholar though I do find it very interesting.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'm sure this is well-tread territory, but that means that you don't eat pig? Shrimp?

Those laws were changed through Peter through the book of Acts if I remember correctly.

[molson]

Originally Posted by rowech

The Bible is pretty clear on homosexual behavior. It's a sin. The New Testament would have us to love the person anyway but to still understand that it is wrong what the person is doing. Any church that endorses something that is wrong, according to the Bible, is simply not a Christian church. You cannot pick and choose what parts of the Bible you adhere to.

This is much more difficult for an individual to do than a church to do. A person is very likely going to want to say, "that part doesn't apply to me" or "this is what was really meant" and that's where the trouble begins and why the church must be the final word on the topic and why they must follow the Bible as it's source of direction. The leaders must be strong in those beliefs and in leading the members of the church to the same viewpoint.

A lot of Christians recognize that the bible was written by man and is thus flawed.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

There are passages in the bible that call for the death of children who disobey their parents, among other equally ridiculous things.

I'm calling rowech out on his little statement of "you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible to adhere to".

Don't you understand, you can only pick and choose the parts if it helps solidify your beliefs. Or if you are picking apart another religious book! DUH!

[CraigSca]

I may have painted too broad a picture. In Acts, the food laws and God's grace being solely for the Israelites were changed.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

There are passages in the bible that call for the death of children who disobey their parents, among other equally ridiculous things.

I'm calling rowech out on his little statement of "you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible to adhere to".

I must admit, I've never heard of such a passage. Can you please quote where from so I can read it?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

A lot of Christians recognize that the bible was written by man and is thus flawed.

So what's the whole point then?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

What was the process for revoking Laws in the Bible? Can anyone do this? How can you trust the fidelity of any of this if major laws have been changed hundreds of years after they were first written?

[molson]

I've heard a lot of people describe it like this - god (or not even god, just spirtuality) is like a radio station that we can't really pick up that well. Churches, bibles, praying, can get us a whiff of it, but we really don't have all the answers. Every religion is really just trying to get this signal, and of course, their own culture is going to be reflected in whatever they come up with, and those attempts are going to be wildly different when different cultures are trying to do it.

So it's not that any religion is "right" or "wrong". All we have is a bunch of inherently flawed attempts to connect with a spirtuality that people get a sense of, can occasionally feel, but is outside the understanding of our flawed human brains.

Sure, some people think that they've figured it all out. But that individual confidence is just a small part of a collective group of people that clearly don't agree on much of anything. As a whole, it's chaos - many different ideas and beliefs and opinions. As a whole, humanity has clearly not come to any kind of consensus.

[Coffee Warlord]

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by molson

A lot of Christians recognize that the bible was written by man and is thus flawed.

This is why it's a debate not worth getting into. Those who consider themselves Christian churches can't agree on an inclusive definition of the faith. We certainly don't need an outside authority deciding what it means to be a Christian church, that was why so many splinter churches fled to America. I'm sure many churches have definitions of Christianity they'd like to be universal, but it's not going to happen.

And this is precisely why religious reasons shouldn't be used in secular law, because it forces the government to show preference for one sect over another.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

This just in: God is redundant.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

I'm glad my parents missed that part.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

This just in: God is redundant.

And I'm tears from laughing so hard at this.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

What was the process for revoking Laws in the Bible? Can anyone do this? How can you trust the fidelity of any of this if major laws have been changed hundreds of years after they were first written?

I don't know if there was an official process for revoking the laws - I'll have to check the the FAQ.

Anyway - in the book of Acts when Jesus was resurrected and taken into heaven his disciples were given the edict to preach the word of the Gospels. In Acts 10, the Holy Spirit fell upon those hearing the word of Peter and he explained to the followers that that grace of God was now open to the Gentiles, not just the Israelites. Mind you, that's paraphrased - but it looks like the Holy Spirit has the ability to change His law.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

This just in: God is redundant.

Well maybe it's so we don't confuse it with stoning him with pot?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Well maybe it's so we don't confuse it with stoning him with pot?

Good point, God was foreseeing the birth of Dylan and trying to cut him off at the pass.

[Karlifornia]

I could only make it through four pages until hunger overcame my thirst for insanity.

The way I look at it, Tarcone can't lose. He either earns his brownie points with Jesus by converting some lost souls, later cashing them in at the pearly gates, or he can get crucified (pun intended), and be the martyr that the Bible tells him he will be.

"Oh, they will laugh at you. They will mock you. They will try to tell you you are wrong."

Yes. All of these things will happen. Not because we're "tests of faith", but because most people with any shred of critical thinking are at least past the rudimentary Evangelism "cold-calling" stage. We're human beings just like you. We aren't tackling dummies getting in the way of your messianic touchdown run. We have our own positions on this. Coming in and saying "Jesus Is Love" may be what your Evangelical Mega Church/Shopping Mall tells you is the honorable thing to do, but it's just annoying.

I'm gonna do Tarcone's thing from my perspective:

I don't think Jesus is love. I think Jesus sucks, and he's not the son of God. He's some schmoe that was so nice that people decided to make up bullshit stories about him. The Bible is pretty much the Old-Timey script for Forrest Gump. And guess what? I'm not going to hell, because it doesn't exist! When you die, you're going to the same place I am. Nowhere! We are both going to rot, and that's going to be the end of it. So enjoy it while you have it. I'd tell you to quit wasting your time on all of this Jesus stuff, but really, anything you do is a waste of time in this life when you get right down to the heart of it.

There. Now I just did what you did for two pages of this thread. I shat beliefs all over you. It's sanctimonious

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Thanks for quoting...I just found it actually. I had never read this. Three comments...

1. Very important point...the parents are the ones who initiate this. Society doesn't. God doesn't. The parents do. I would think 99.9% of parents would never bring their child to this point so the law was most certainly not used very often, if ever.

2. I think it is clear from the context this is not a child who disobeys once. This is a child who NEVER responds to discipline, etc. How few kids would this actually be? Again...99.9% of kids will respond to discipline at least sometimes.

3. It does seem brutal but given my thoughts on 1 and 2 I can't ever see that law even being used. I'm sure parents quoted these verses to their kids constantly then. Makes me wonder what kind of fear was invoked into them from an early age and wonder what would happen if so many of our kids had that same fear...let alone both parents.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I don't know if there was an official process for revoking the laws - I'll have to check the the FAQ.

Anyway - in the book of Acts when Jesus was resurrected and taken into heaven his disciples were given the edict to preach the word of the Gospels. In Acts 10, the Holy Spirit fell upon those hearing the word of Peter and he explained to the followers that that grace of God was now open to the Gentiles, not just the Israelites. Mind you, that's paraphrased - but it looks like the Holy Spirit has the ability to change His law.

That's correct. Peter had a vision of some sort where God basically told him that the food laws did not apply anymore and that Gentiles were now open to saving...that everyone was open to everyone.

As for an official process, I think it was pretty much that Jesus left Peter in control, Peter took the reigns, and what he said went.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I don't know if there was an official process for revoking the laws - I'll have to check the the FAQ.

Anyway - in the book of Acts when Jesus was resurrected and taken into heaven his disciples were given the edict to preach the word of the Gospels. In Acts 10, the Holy Spirit fell upon those hearing the word of Peter and he explained to the followers that that grace of God was now open to the Gentiles, not just the Israelites. Mind you, that's paraphrased - but it looks like the Holy Spirit has the ability to change His law.

Yeah, I was reading up on this as well. Has the Holy Spirit challenged anyone else to change the law since then? Anytime fairly recently? These are important questions since if the laws of the Bible are meant to followed literally, then how and why they get changed is a huge point.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by rowech

Thanks for quoting...I just found it actually. I had never read this. Three comments...

1. Very important point...the parents are the ones who initiate this. Society doesn't. God doesn't. The parents do. I would think 99.9% of parents would never bring their child to this point so the law was most certainly not used very often, if ever.

2. I think it is clear from the context this is not a child who disobeys once. This is a child who NEVER responds to discipline, etc. How few kids would this actually be? Again...99.9% of kids will respond to discipline at least sometimes.

3. It does seem brutal but given my thoughts on 1 and 2 I can't ever see that law even being used. I'm sure parents quoted these verses to their kids constantly then. Makes me wonder what kind of fear was invoked into them from an early age and wonder what would happen if so many of our kids had that same fear...let alone both parents.

Wait... you are analyzing this instead of treating it as fact? Wouldn't those parents that don't follow these rules themselves be sinners and need to be stoned as well? This is the problem people always want to pick and choose what they think is true and not true in the bible and what they should follow or not follow.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

The Bible is pretty much the Old-Timey script for Forrest Gump.

Hah, that's gold. it deserved to be separated from the post before it gets buried in response to the rest of it.