Pope sends direct message to Ben

[Kidlicious]

you can't unconditionally love your neighboor because he may be an assh@t.
else you'll end up like those polynesian tribes that got completely extinct because they have a non violence culture and didn't fight back at the corporations.

in all things moderation

Yes, you can unconditionally love everyone. You have your priorities messed up. Number one should be righteousness.

[Bereta_Eder]

[Bereta_Eder]

you can't unconditionally love your neighboor because he may be an assh@t.
else you'll end up like those polynesian tribes that got completely extinct because they have a non violence culture and didn't fight back at the corporations.

in all things moderation

[Kidlicious]

From one point of view, christianity is the absolut control tool for the elite.
A bunch of guilt - ridden people running around asking for forgiveness with all the introvert guillible, retractory, defitism mentality that that entails.

And on the other hand it's the greatest thing on earth:
love your neighboor, everyone can be saved, be kind, humble, have someone on your side when life gets difficult, believe in something greater

it's in the way that you use it

If you are guilty you should repent. Guilt, anxiety etc.. are good thing. Love your neighbor confirms that you have repented for your sin.

[ricketyclik]

It comes and it goes.

via Tapatalk

[Bereta_Eder]

From one point of view, christianity is the absolut control tool for the elite.
A bunch of guilt - ridden people running around asking for forgiveness with all the introvert guillible, retractory, defitism mentality that that entails.

And on the other hand it's the greatest thing on earth:
love your neighboor, everyone can be saved, be kind, humble, have someone on your side when life gets difficult, believe in something greater

it's in the way that you use it

[ricketyclik]

Finally, an answer. If conscience is all you need, why would you have any need to consult with the bible?

I don't.

I'm not even saying that. I'm saying you're making a case for Atheism in general, not Christianity. It's consistent with your convictions.

Your brand of Christianity. I didn't say I don't believe in God, I just don't believe all the mumbo-jumbo in the Bible, like Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead yada yada yada. But I'm sure there are many who do adhere to the words of Christ who don't necessarily believe everything in the Bible.

I don't care if the Bible is textually consistent with the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were written by people. Crazy, gullible people with their own agendas, like the rest of us. Does that answer your question as to which parts of the Bible ought to be retained?

[Elok]

Which is why many of us don't construe things like that, but instead see his call for you to love your neighbour as yourself and judge yourself before you judge others as a pretty clear sign that the whole 'ostrasize the gays' thing probably wasn't something he would have been a huge fan of.

Ostracism? No, and I've said already that I don't approve of our use of the Queer Menace as a whipping boy. But there is a rather large amount of room between ostracism and endorsement. Take straight fornicators, for example; we don't endlessly hassle them, and yet I don't think anybody believes traditional Christianity endorses one-night stands or concupiscence.

[Kidlicious]

Of course he does, his question goes to the heart of their "right" - which one of you is without sin? Let him carry out the punishment. Nobody was without sin, they dropped their stones and walked away. How can you read that as an endorsement of casting the first stone?



No, I'm saying its hypocritical for a bachelor who abstains from sex to tell everyone else to get married and have kids. Do as I say, not as I do. You are attributing to Jesus an obsession with marriage and children he didn't have to the point of making him out to be a hypocrite.



Jesus told the woman "sin no more", that confirms adultery was a sin to Jesus. He never said that about homosexuality and for good reason, adultery violates a promise or oath or commitment. Homosexuality does not.



Jesus didn't leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and have children... According to your logic Jesus was accusing himself of sin - along with your Catholic Church.

It's hard to be an ambassador for Christ (do his work), when you are engaging in homosexuality. Now if you have a testimony of repenting from that behavior, that's certainly being an ambassador for Christ. That's what makes homosexuality a sin. It's not hard to sin. Being a Christian is the hardest thing to do.

[kentonio]

I'm arguing that there's a big difference between something that happens just once and something that happens 4 or 5 times.

Ignoring for a second the point that no there is absolutely no difference, you didn't seem to care about it being '4 or 5 times' in this later quote from that thread..

What backpeddling? I also didn't say that was my reaction either. I stated that the natural response to, say, getting mugged by a black person you don't know is to be wary of other black people in the future. That's not prejudice, that's common sense.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, I'm saying its hypocritical for a bachelor who abstains from sex to tell everyone else to get married and have kids. Do as I say, not as I do. You are attributing to Jesus an obsession with marriage and children he didn't have to the point of making him out to be a hypocrite.

As opposed to a bachelor that has sex saying the same?

[Ben Kenobi]

So you're just going to try and dodge the part where you described it as 'irrational' and not something you would do, despite having previously (and now apparently) admitting to doing exactly that?

I'm arguing that there's a big difference between something that happens just once and something that happens 4 or 5 times.

[Berzerker]

Jesus does not challenge the right of the accusers to kill the adulteress according to the Mosaic law, Berz.

Of course he does, his question goes to the heart of their "right" - which one of you is without sin? Let him carry out the punishment. Nobody was without sin, they dropped their stones and walked away. How can you read that as an endorsement of casting the first stone?

Uh, exactly how?

Are you arguing that everyone who chooses not to marry someone is sinning?

No, I'm saying its hypocritical for a bachelor who abstains from sex to tell everyone else to get married and have kids. Do as I say, not as I do. You are attributing to Jesus an obsession with marriage and children he didn't have to the point of making him out to be a hypocrite.

Berz, there's a difference between saying homosexuality is a sin, and homosexuals should be stoned. He says, "let him without sin cast the first stone.". Don't you think adultery is a sin?

Jesus told the woman "sin no more", that confirms adultery was a sin to Jesus. He never said that about homosexuality and for good reason, adultery violates a promise or oath or commitment. Homosexuality does not.

He did. Matthew 19. "He made them male and female and for that reason a man will leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife". Already posted above.

Jesus didn't leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and have children... According to your logic Jesus was accusing himself of sin - along with your Catholic Church.

[kentonio]

So you're saying that one incident is the same as four or five? This makes no rational sense. I have had 4 or 5 instances where pot users have stolen from me to feed their habit. I (and my present landlady), share this opinion.

This is the second sober house that I've lived in. I'm thrilled. I like it here and I like that my landlady screens for drug use.

I am not sure why 4 or 5 instances are considered to be 'prejudice'. That's a rational assessment.

So you're just going to try and dodge the part where you described it as 'irrational' and not something you would do, despite having previously (and now apparently) admitting to doing exactly that?

[Kidlicious]

It wasn't intended to. I was just pointing out that when you accuse people who don't take the Bible literally of not being Christian it's a pretty one-eyed view.

Personally I think of the Bible as a very large body of work written, re-written, and selectively edited over thousands of years by many different people. I prefer to think of my conscience as God's voice. You know, that little but persistent voice inside you that says "You know you're doing the wrong thing here".

I know you're not in agreement with such a notion, but I'm not asking you to be, so don't even bother asking me to believe in the Bible. I'm not even a Christian, I can just see that one could be without being a literalist.

A couple of points I would like to make about our conscience. The human conscience is a very complex thing. Yes, it is useful to condemn us of sin and help us do good. However, there are a lot of things that influence our thinking, not just our conscience. For one, there is whatever is socially acceptable by our culture. Whenever we choose what is right we always say that's what our conscience tells us. That's not always true, although it seems that way. Our conscience can be drowned out by our own selfish desires and the influence of our culture.