Pope says...will the more conservative follow his lead?

[buckshot24]

I never claimed I was an expert. I made the claim that I read it and I know what it says, I know what it says because I read it. I am pretty darn sure that I understand it because I assume that it was inspired/written/meant for the common man to understand.

How you've used the passage in your last post tells me differently. Knowing what it says and understanding it are two different things.

Romans 10:9 is all you really need to understand.

 

[Eli]

Fair.

Just so you understand, the ban on same sex marriage was never discriminatory anyway. People need to understand that heterosexual persons also were not allowed to marry someone of the same sex just like gay people were not.

Heterosexuals were allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, and so were gay people. Everyone was treated fairly under law.

That's why the gay lobby made this about "love" because they wanted to attempt to make it discriminatory when by definition, it wasn't because no one could marry persons of the same sex.

Just wanted to make sure I put that out there...

Holy shit.

Religious logic in action folks.

 

[Darwin333]

This is what I'm talking about, you have a cursory understanding so you make these kinds of mistakes.

I am not the government of a recently liberated Hebrew people. God does not want me to kill anybody. I wasn't the government and I am not that people.

I don't ignore anything, you apply them to situations that NO LONGER EXIST and act as if I am ignoring the passage. This is how your little bit of knowledge becomes an actual hindrance.

Am I ignoring the command to go to Nineveh to call them to repentance? According to your logic here, I have been. Except God told Jonah, not me. The Acts passage is after the ascension of the Lord and does apply to our age. Dispensations is something you should look up.
All ripped out of context. If you don't want me to discuss passages then don't bring them up!

Oh yeah, conditions and all that. God messed up the first time around and had to send his son to fix all of his massive mistakes by taking the religion in a complete 180.

How about a good passage:

"Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same."

You know, I don't see Christians doing this very often. Sure they are a bit charitable but they still love their stuff while there are tons of people with literally nothing in the world. I can really do this all day long and I am sure you will come up with something to try and defend the horrible parts of your religion.

BTW, isn't the passage that is used against gays the most Old Testament too? Pretty sure it's in Leviticus which has all a few other gems I could post that are happily ignored. I don't recall reading anything about Jesus saying "All are welcome in the house of the Lord, except those gay bastards, fuck them".

 

[Darwin333]

How you've used the passage in your last post tells me differently. Knowing what it says and understanding it are two different things.

Romans 10:9 is all you really need to understand.

Even if you are gay? If so then why all the hubbub about gay folk?

 

[werepossum]

Very well said yourself my friend.

Thanks.

Holy shit.

Religious logic in action folks.

How dare those dastardly gay activists try to make marriage about love!

Oh yeah, conditions and all that. God messed up the first time around and had to send his son to fix all of his massive mistakes by taking the religion in a complete 180.

How about a good passage:

"Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same."

You know, I don't see Christians doing this very often. Sure they are a bit charitable but they still love their stuff while there are tons of people with literally nothing in the world. I can really do this all day long and I am sure you will come up with something to try and defend the horrible parts of your religion.

BTW, isn't the passage that is used against gays the most Old Testament too? Pretty sure it's in Leviticus which has all a few other gems I could post that are happily ignored. I don't recall reading anything about Jesus saying "All are welcome in the house of the Lord, except those gay bastards, fuck them".

Exactly. It's simply human tendency to minimize the things that affect us and maximize the things that don't affect us. "I may be a Mafia hired killer, but my shirts never mix wool and linen!" Being a near-universal coping mechanism, it should be easy to identify and circumvent. Feel the urge to tell some gay person he's going to Hell? Slip a twenty (or whatever you can afford) to some homeless person instead. You'll all three be happier and likely G-d will be happier too.

Reminds me of the comedian who talked about sorting through otherwise identical cigarette packs for the best warning labels. "May cause lung cancer - don't want that. Oral cancer - nope. Emphysema - no. Here we go: "Smoking may cause low birth weight. Score!"

Remember, kiddies, the judging is the easy part. Pretty sure G-d has that covered. However, I'm sure He would appreciate a hand with the heavy lifting here on Earth.

 

[buckshot24]

If you want to deliberately misunderstand (maybe it isn't deliberate?) there really is no sense in talking about this. If you want to know what I think then try and be a bit more honest.

Oh yeah, conditions and all that.

Its right there in the passages! These are the laws given to these people to be carried out by these other people.

God messed up the first time around and had to send his son to fix all of his massive mistakes by taking the religion in a complete 180.

There is no "complete 180" you simply don't know what you're talking about.

How about a good passage:

"Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same."

You know, I don't see Christians doing this very often. Sure they are a bit charitable but they still love their stuff while there are tons of people with literally nothing in the world.

Now you're saying there is hypocrisy among Christians? So what? What does that have to do with Christianity? People who say they are Christians aren't necessarily so. You should know that since you read the bible a few times.

I can really do this all day long and I am sure you will come up with something to try and defend the horrible parts of your religion.

No, you tried say what "my religion" commands of me and I told you why you were wrong. And what you, a meat machine, "thinks" is horrible is absolutely irrelevant. You're just a machine trying to propagate its genes. Nothing is wrong or right.

BTW, isn't the passage that is used against gays the most Old Testament too?

Just because you think we ignore the OT when it is convenient doesn't make it a fact. You are building strawmen after strawmen. But you have read the bible a few times, right?

Pretty sure it's in Leviticus which has all a few other gems I could post that are happily ignored.

Nobody is ignoring anything, commands given to people that I am not a part of are not commands given to me.

I don't recall reading anything about Jesus saying "All are welcome in the house of the Lord, except those gay bastards, fuck them".

He did say you must give up yourself if you want to be His disciple. He did say repentance was required. He never said, "if you have the desire to do something then it is wonderful that you do it, who am I to judge?"

 

[buckshot24]

Even if you are gay? If so then why all the hubbub about gay folk?

Even if you have same sex attractions, yes.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Even if you are gay? If so then why all the hubbub about gay folk?

Matthew 25:31-46 established the necessary and sufficient conditions for entering the kingdom of heaven. Why so many supposed "Christians" focus so intently on the writings of Paul to the exclusion of Jesus' (alleged) words will never make sense to me. It truthfully amounts to idolatry of the bible (a sin punishable by death, of course).

 

[agent00f]

This pope is smart. He doesn't want his church to be on the wrong side of history over something that frankly brings little benefit. I wish the merican churches were that smart.

 

[Retro Rob]

Matthew 25:31-46 established the necessary and sufficient conditions for entering the kingdom of heaven. Why so many supposed "Christians" focus so intently on the writings of Paul to the exclusion of Jesus' (alleged) words will never make sense to me. It truthfully amounts to idolatry of the bible (a sin punishable by death, of course).

This is incorrect too. The only reason why you make this artificial separation between what Paul wrote and what Jesus is said to have said, is because Paul's words outright condemn same-sex relations, while Jesus words does not. Bottom line: you do not like what Paul said. That is all that's to it.

That logic is bad for another reason; Jesus did not outright condemn pedophilia either, so does that mean that Jesus approved of it, or that a pedophile can "sufficiently enter the Kingdom"? What you're saying carries the idea that if Jesus does not condemn a certain act, then it has his approval.

Here's the overall problem: If YOU are going to sit here and cherry pick based on who wrote what, then why not reject it all? Fact is, Jesus himself did not write a single word of the Gospel. So basically, you want us to accept what Matthew said, what Mark said, what Luke said, and what John said, but not what Paul said?

Why? Not because Paul wrote it, obviously, because Jesus did not write any of the Gospel. Its simply because you do not like what he said, but you like what the four aforementioned writers said.

Really, that the ONLY reason for this, not matter the mental gymnastics you're going pull in reply to this.

 

[werepossum]

This is incorrect too. The only reason why you make this artificial separation between what Paul wrote and what Jesus is said to have said, is because Paul's words outright condemn same-sex relations, while Jesus words does not. Bottom line: you do not like what Paul said. That is all that's to it.

That logic is bad for another reason; Jesus did not outright condemn pedophilia either, so does that mean that Jesus approved of it, or that a pedophile can "sufficiently enter the Kingdom"? What you're saying carries the idea that if Jesus does not condemn a certain act, then it has his approval.

Here's the overall problem: If YOU are going to sit here and cherry pick based on who wrote what, then why not reject it all? Fact is, Jesus himself did not write a single word of the Gospel. So basically, you want us to accept what Matthew said, what Mark said, what Luke said, and what John said, but not what Paul said?

Why? Not because Paul wrote it, obviously, because Jesus did not write any of the Gospel. Its simply because you do not like what he said, but you like what the four aforementioned writers said.

Really, that the ONLY reason for this, not matter the mental gymnastics you're going pull in reply to this.

Um, our objection to pedophilia is not that it is offensive to G-d, it's because children cannot make informed decisions. As always, what is offensive to G-d is between G-d and the individual, as is whether that individual accepts Jesus' sacrifice.

I'm not advocating that anyone decide that some particular part of the Bible is not applicable, but speaking just for myself I have a huge problem with the concept that Jesus came to Paul in a dream saying "Oh shit, I forgot that Dad told me to condemn the homosexuals. Paul, be a lamb and tell the queers I said to sod off, 'kay? Oh, and tell the thieves and prostitutes I said hey." We have a problem with what Paul wrote because it seems to fly in the face of Jesus' words and actions, not because we have any particular affinity for same-sex relations.

Even the Gospels were written by men, with all our prejudices, limitations and faults. We would all do well to remember that, lest we begin worshiping the Bible rather than G-d.

 

[buckshot24]

Um, our objection to pedophilia is not that it is offensive to G-d, it's because children cannot make informed decisions. As always, what is offensive to G-d is between G-d and the individual, as is whether that individual accepts Jesus' sacrifice.

Um, the point remains no matter what our objections are to pedophilia. Jesus didn't directly condemn it. Do you think God isn't offended by somebody molesting a 4 year old?

I'm not advocating that anyone decide that some particular part of the Bible is not applicable, but speaking just for myself I have a huge problem with the concept that Jesus came to Paul in a dream saying "Oh shit, I forgot that Dad told me to condemn the homosexuals. Paul, be a lamb and tell the queers I said to sod off, 'kay?

You don't need to use Paul to see how God wants things. Look at Genesis, man and woman, one flesh. Look at Jesus' referring to this in Matthew. God made them in the beginning male and female. Homosexuality wasn't a huge theme for Paul either.

Oh, and tell the thieves and prostitutes I said hey." We have a problem with what Paul wrote because it seems to fly in the face of Jesus' words and actions, not because we have any particular affinity for same-sex relations.

Not sure why you being so disrespectful and putting words in the Lord's mouth like this. I'm not offended but you may want to dial it back a bit.

 

[Perknose]

Some Christians, including Catholics, here in the US have been bashing the hell out of gays for quite a while so I wouldn't exactly call the pope "pushing into politics" when he says "cut that shit out and start acting the way Jesus instructed us to".

What is "bashing" in your eyes?

Well, for starters:

And, lest you think this is some tiny fringe minority, here is the underlying attitude of religious intolerance in which such bashing thrives:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This is incorrect too.

No, it isn't. Jesus says quite plainly how to get to heaven: feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, clothe the naked, etc.

That's all.

The only reason why you make this artificial separation between what Paul wrote and what Jesus is said to have said, is because Paul's words outright condemn same-sex relations, while Jesus words does not.

No, I distinguish them because Paul is not Jesus. Also, Paul does not condemn homosexuality.

Bottom line: you do not like what Paul said. That is all that's to it.

Bottom line: I think for myself instead of regurgitating what I've been told.

That logic is bad for another reason; Jesus did not outright condemn pedophilia either, so does that mean that Jesus approved of it, or that a pedophile can "sufficiently enter the Kingdom"?

Did the pedophile feed the hungry, care for the sick, etc?

What you're saying carries the idea that if Jesus does not condemn a certain act, then it has his approval.

Not in the slightest. Fuck's sake, Rob, do you know how to read?

Here's the overall problem: If YOU are going to sit here and cherry pick based on who wrote what, then why not reject it all? Fact is, Jesus himself did not write a single word of the Gospel. So basically, you want us to accept what Matthew said, what Mark said, what Luke said, and what John said, but not what Paul said?

Well, yes. When Paul and Jesus are in conflict, I'd think that "Christians" would side with Jesus. I guess you nutters have your reputations for these reasons, however.

Why? Not because Paul wrote it, obviously, because Jesus did not write any of the Gospel. Its simply because you do not like what he said, but you like what the four aforementioned writers said.

You seem to be really confused... again, and like always.

I've only pointed out that Jesus and Paul don't agree, and that Christians ignore Jesus and cling to Paul.

Really, that the ONLY reason for this, not matter the mental gymnastics you're going pull in reply to this.

You don't have the first fucking clue, Rob.

 

[buckshot24]

Well, for starters:

And, lest you think this is some tiny fringe minority, here is the underlying attitude of religious intolerance in which such bashing thrives:

I agree that these are bashing and I don't agree with them. But I find it interesting that you think "unfriendly" means they hold up these signs like this. What is the source of your graph?

 

[Perknose]

But I find it interesting that you think "unfriendly" means they hold up these signs like this. What is the source of your graph?

That's not what I said. Please don't twist my words. This is what I said:

And, lest you think this is some tiny fringe minority, here is the underlying attitude of religious intolerance in which such bashing thrives:

The source of the graph is stated right under the graph. Click enlarge.

 

[buckshot24]

That's not what I said. Please don't twist my words. This is what I said:



The source of the graph is stated right under the graph. Click enlarge.

I certainly don't agree with these signs. I'm not LGBT "friendly". This stuff wouldn't "thrive" around me. I guess I'll have to hunt down your source...

 

[buckshot24]

This chart is the perceptions of non-affiliated Americans view of these church's "friendliness" to LGBT issues. Seriously, why did you post this? Who cares how non-members view these groups?

I'm going to quote your exact words.

"And, lest you think this is some tiny fringe minority, here is the underlying attitude of religious intolerance in which such bashing thrives:"

How does other people's perceptions show attitude of religious intolerance? Then you link it with these disgusting placards?

http://www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/2014.LGBT_REPORT-1.pdf

 

[brycejones]

That logic is bad for another reason; Jesus did not outright condemn pedophilia either, so does that mean that Jesus approved of it, or that a pedophile can "sufficiently enter the Kingdom"? What you're saying carries the idea that if Jesus does not condemn a certain act, then it has his approval.

Pedophiles guess its another Retro Rob "discussion" about homosexuality.

 

[werepossum]

Um, the point remains no matter what our objections are to pedophilia. Jesus didn't directly condemn it. Do you think God isn't offended by somebody molesting a 4 year old?
You don't need to use Paul to see how God wants things. Look at Genesis, man and woman, one flesh. Look at Jesus' referring to this in Matthew. God made them in the beginning male and female. Homosexuality wasn't a huge theme for Paul either.
Not sure why you being so disrespectful and putting words in the Lord's mouth like this. I'm not offended but you may want to dial it back a bit.

I have zero problem with anyone believing that G-d is still as mightily offended by homosexuals as by pedophiles. I only have a problem when we begin to discriminate or worse, to formulate policy on that belief. We have a separation between church and state precisely for that reason, so that one sect or religion cannot impose its beliefs on others. Christianity is no longer unified on homosexuality equalling damnation (not to mention Judaism and Hinduism) so we no longer have even plausible deniability.

 

[MongGrel]

I agree that these are bashing and I don't agree with them. But I find it interesting that you think "unfriendly" means they hold up these signs like this. What is the source of your graph?

No, holding up signs with lynch ropes on them obviously means they are friendly and want to be your best buddy

I certainly don't agree with these signs. I'm not LGBT "friendly". This stuff wouldn't "thrive" around me. I guess I'll have to hunt down your source...

And it continues...

On that, everyone agrees. You've pretended to debate, all the while prattling on about strawmen and logical fallacies, intellectual dishonesty and self hate.

You pretend that it is "engaging in the conversation," while everyone else knows you are full of shit.

Now, some days later, you simply state "I am not getting into this debate."

buckshit: you have spent the last week in this thread claiming that you are debating, everyone has pointed out that you are not, you have continually lied about this, and now you are claiming that you will not debate.

You truly are a worthless piece of shit.

Stop lying to yourself and stop lying to us. Please lay out all of your lusts here so that you can begin to heal. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

 

[buckshot24]

And it continues...

There is help for your insanity.

 

[MongGrel]

There is help for your insanity.

Just repeating that over and over does not make your opinions any more valid by a long shot. I actually makes you sound like a parrot.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well, for starters:

And, lest you think this is some tiny fringe minority, here is the underlying attitude of religious intolerance in which such bashing thrives:

Hey I think I saw those guys at the Pride parade in Seattle last weekend!

You can't see it in the picture (maybe they weren't there yet, I don't recall), but there was a group from the Church of Satan standing next to them, putting their "Satan loves you" sign right beside the "GOD HATES YOU" sign. I wish I'd taken a picture of that. The juxtaposition of their messages was marvelous.

 

[buckshot24]

Just repeating that over and over does not make your opinions any more valid by a long shot. I actually makes you sound like a parrot.

I can't think of any other reason why you'd make the posts you make about me.