The pastor of New Hope Baptist Church in Seneca, Kansas says President Barack Obama has gone too far in supporting same sex marriage and it’s time for the U.S. government to begin killing gay men and lesbians.
“Terrorists are dangerous, the economy is a real and present danger,” Pastor Curtis Knapp told his congregation on Sunday. “But there is simply nothing other than the holocaust of the unborn which imperils the safety of our country or places our people in jeopardy as does the leader of the Western world publicly raising his fist at the heavens and declaring that the bedrock institution of society, ordained of God and meant to be protected by the state, is little more than a convention of convenience with the children of Sodom to transform the meaning of something, which is precious to Jesus Christ, and a living picture of his love for the church into a legally protected justification for perversion and a vehicle of hatred aimed directly at that love.”
Knapp went on to read from Leviticus 20: “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.”
“They should be put to death,” Knapp declared. “‘Oh, so you’re saying we should go out and start killing them, no?’ — I’m saying the government should. They won’t, but they should.”
“You say, ‘Oh, I can’t believe you, you’re horrible. You’re a backwards neanderthal of a person.’ Is that what you’re calling scripture? Is God a neanderthal, backwards in his morality? Is it His word or not? If it’s His word, he commanded it. It’s His idea, not mine. And I’m not ashamed of it.”
“He said put them to death,” he continued. “Shall the church drag them in? No, I’m not say that. The church has not been given the power of the sort; the government has. But the government ought to [kill them]. You got a better idea? A better idea than God?”
Listen to Knapp’s entire 1-hour sermon on “The Curse of Homosexuality” here.
Calls to the New Hope Baptist Church were not returned by the time of publication.
Listen to this audio of Pastor Curtis Knapp via Good As You, recorded May 26, 2012.
Lovely. This person makes me upset that he calls himself conservative. I wonder if he will go on a shooting rampage if the gay marriage act is passed. I think the economy is more important than same sex marriage but this is too far. He should be killed for being a moron.
So me and my kind have to die so that him and is ilk can live in a world of fear, I think not. And just a month before the Stonewall riots anniversary. Could be doing it just to gain some puplic light or just becouse he is a tool. Either way the LGBT community wont stand for it.
purplefood wrote:Is it not Leviticus?
Either way he's a tool...
Yeah spellig fail.
Ribon Fox wrote:So me and my kind have to die so that him and is ilk can live in a world of fear, I think not. And just a month before the Stonewall riots anniversary. Could be doing it just to gain some puplic light or just becouse he is a tool. Either way the LGBT community wont stand for it.
No you tell those pricks to turn the other cheek. I could go fishing for my pro gay bible quotes but I'm in the car. Suffice to say a religion of unbounded love and tolerance does not discriminate based on sexuality.
purplefood wrote:Is it not Leviticus?
Either way he's a tool...
Yeah spellig fail.
Ribon Fox wrote:So me and my kind have to die so that him and is ilk can live in a world of fear, I think not. And just a month before the Stonewall riots anniversary. Could be doing it just to gain some puplic light or just becouse he is a tool. Either way the LGBT community wont stand for it.
No you tell those pricks to turn the other cheek. I could go fishing for my pro gay bible quotes but I'm in the car. Suffice to say a religion of unbounded love and tolerance does not discriminate based on sexuality.
Ordenarly sure I would agree with you, but no, not this time.
40 years on from the battle of Stonewall and homophopic pricks like that are still spredding hate due to badly trasnslated book.
The phrase "never again" should be shouted at him.
Ribon Fox wrote:So me and my kind have to die so that him and is ilk can live in a world of fear, I think not. And just a month before the Stonewall riots anniversary. Could be doing it just to gain some puplic light or just becouse he is a tool. Either way the LGBT community wont stand for it.
No you tell those pricks to turn the other cheek. I could go fishing for my pro gay bible quotes but I'm in the car. Suffice to say a religion of unbounded love and tolerance does not discriminate based on sexuality.
Those who love god and who love their neighbor will get in to heaven, for those are the two greatest commandments, all other rules and laws of Christianity are predicated on those-- to use any of the lesser laws of the religion to violate these two is thus to act against the Word of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
At any rate, this kind of person has existed for a while now, including pastors. It's only a pity that they're getting national attention...
purplefood wrote:Is it not Leviticus?
Either way he's a tool...
Yeah spellig fail.
Ribon Fox wrote:So me and my kind have to die so that him and is ilk can live in a world of fear, I think not. And just a month before the Stonewall riots anniversary. Could be doing it just to gain some puplic light or just becouse he is a tool. Either way the LGBT community wont stand for it.
No you tell those pricks to turn the other cheek. I could go fishing for my pro gay bible quotes but I'm in the car. Suffice to say a religion of unbounded love and tolerance does not discriminate based on sexuality.
Ordenarly sure I would agree with you, but no, not this time.
40 years on from the battle of Stonewall and homophopic pricks like that are still spredding hate due to badly trasnslated book.
The phrase "never again" should be shouted at him.
It depends on which edition of the book you read. Each bible is a different translation, at High School(Australian one different system) we found a bible which condems gays but not lesbians. Most of the bible's passages are irrelevant today.
At first I thought it was the Onion, but then I looked and was sad instantly.
I'm fine with rounding them all up and throwing them into a forced labor camp, but killing them? That seems a bit far-fetched. Why would you waste such an excellent and stylish workforce?
AustonT wrote:I'm going to have to find out what that is.
What what is? My statement? It's from Matthew, probably the best book in the new testament.
Matthew 22:34-40 wrote:Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
When I saw the title, I knew exactly which church and which guy they were talking about. I don't even need to read the articles anymore. This guy is either insane or just starved for attention. He pulls some crazy stunt like this 4 or 5 times a year.
The only way to get this guy to go away is to ignore him, unfortunately "we" do not have the ability. I think it would just take twice.
Imagine this:
- He pulls some outrageous stunt.
- News crews arrive and start reporting on the weather, interview him and his people and ask them all about the weather.
- Edit coverage to simply be a weather report with a single picture of the youngest member of the group that looks "normal".
- He will go nuts and start screaming at the world
- He will pull another outrageous stunt.
- News crews don't even show up.
- He self-destructs
- Problem solved.
AustonT wrote:I'm going to have to find out what that is.
What what is? My statement? It's from Matthew, probably the best book in the new testament.
Matthew 22:34-40 wrote:Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Chowderhead wrote:At first I thought it was the Onion, but then I looked and was sad instantly.
I'm fine with rounding them all up and throwing them into a forced labor camp, but killing them? That seems a bit far-fetched. Why would you waste such an excellent and stylish workforce?
I'm fairly impressed, Off-Topicers. We're almost a page in and this hasn't devolved into an argument over religion.
This person is absolutely evil and his views are hateful. And, that's something Christians, Atheists, Jews, Buddhists, and everyone else can all come together and agree on.
Funny, I was a non-church going, disinterested but happy to be called Christian until I was about 23, then an athiest until I was about 28, and now Im 32, im an utterly disinterested anti-theist who kinda doesnt really give a feth anymore.
These stories used to annoy me when I was a young fiery chap, now they don't even interest me anymore. I mean, this gak happens every day.
People are stupid, they listen too much to ancient desert scribblings and not enough to their brains, nothing to see here folks move along.
Grakmar wrote:I'm fairly impressed, Off-Topicers. We're almost a page in and this hasn't devolved into an argument over religion.
It isn't just infamous nutjobs like this guy who say stuff like this. I hear some version of this a couple of times a year from people in my own town and/or travels or on forums,etc. and an array of less homicidal homophobic idiocy crops up regularly everywhere the discussion on gay issues take place.
Some people are just smarter about knowing when to shut and lay low...
Mixed company produces a different dialogue then when these types think they freely say what they really think.
So it isnt time to hold hands and sing spirituals just quite yet...
Considering Ron Paul wants to make homosexuality illegal again, it's hardly surprising that there's ones that go to the extreme and want to have it be a death penalty.
Grakmar wrote:I'm fairly impressed, Off-Topicers. We're almost a page in and this hasn't devolved into an argument over religion.
This person is absolutely evil and his views are hateful. And, that's something Christians, Atheists, Jews, Buddhists, and everyone else can all come together and agree on.
That's because this thread isn't about religion. This thread is about hate. Religion factors into this about as much as the postal system would if it was a mailman who had made these statements.
Grakmar wrote:I'm fairly impressed, Off-Topicers. We're almost a page in and this hasn't devolved into an argument over religion.
This person is absolutely evil and his views are hateful. And, that's something Christians, Atheists, Jews, Buddhists, and everyone else can all come together and agree on.
That's because this thread isn't about religion. This thread is about hate. Religion factors into this about as much as the postal system would if it was a mailman who had made these statements.
Excellent post, I agree. I personally feel Religion isn't what makes nuts, nuts. It's just another thing to "focus" them, or give them excuses.
The Stonewall riots were a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations against a police raid that took place in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn, in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of New York City. They are frequently cited as the first instance in American history when people in the homosexual community fought back against a government-sponsored system that persecuted sexual minorities, and they have become the defining event that marked the start of the gay rights movement in the United States and around the world.
“Terrorists are dangerous, the economy is a real and present danger,” Pastor Curtis Knapp told his congregation on Sunday. “But there is simply nothing other than the holocaust of the unborn which imperils the safety of our country or places our people in jeopardy as does the leader of the Western world publicly raising his fist at the heavens and declaring that the bedrock institution of society, ordained of God and meant to be protected by the state, is little more than a convention of convenience with the children of Sodom to transform the meaning of something, which is precious to Jesus Christ, and a living picture of his love for the church into a legally protected justification for perversion and a vehicle of hatred aimed directly at that love.”
Pick a point already! Terrorists, economy... abortion... gay men? It's like a sentence that wavers through 4-5 different ideas and tries to link them all to one another.
"We should kill them homos because of terorrism! And our dangerous economy!!!"
What?
But I like the idea of a goverment sponsored execution program... simply because the idea of a so-called Christian supporting such a thing is hilarious (ly awful).
“You say, ‘Oh, I can’t believe you, you’re horrible. You’re a backwards neanderthal of a person.’ Is that what you’re calling scripture? Is God a neanderthal, backwards in his morality? Is it His word or not? If it’s His word, he commanded it. It’s His idea, not mine. And I’m not ashamed of it.”
Sure. I'm more than willing to say Scripture is backwards and primitive. It's stories that people who lived 1000s of years ago came up with to cope with their short lives, a scary world, and natural forces they couldn't possibly comprehend. It's a tool for dealing with their own frailty and lack of power, a way to find meaning in their tiny human existence. I guess it's still nice for that in some ways. However it certainly is a relic and one I think we'll outgrow eventually. It'd be nice if dicks stopped using to be cruel to people, and just stuck to the whole community building aspect in the meantime though.
“You say, ‘Oh, I can’t believe you, you’re horrible. You’re a backwards neanderthal of a person.’ Is that what you’re calling scripture? Is God a neanderthal, backwards in his morality? Is it His word or not? If it’s His word, he commanded it. It’s His idea, not mine. And I’m not ashamed of it.”
Sure. I'm more than willing to say Scripture is backwards and primitive. It's stories that people who lived 1000s of years ago came up with to cope with their short lives, a scary world, and natural forces they couldn't possibly comprehend. It's a tool for dealing with their own frailty and lack of power, a way to find meaning in their tiny human existence. I guess it's still nice for that in some ways. However it certainly is a relic and one I think we'll outgrow eventually. It'd be nice if dicks stopped using to be cruel to people, and just stuck to the whole community building aspect in the meantime though.
Dude. I'm no friend of religion either, but seriously. You broke the magic. This isn't about religion. This is about hate. This guy is just trollface wearing preacher's robes.
“You say, ‘Oh, I can’t believe you, you’re horrible. You’re a backwards neanderthal of a person.’ Is that what you’re calling scripture? Is God a neanderthal, backwards in his morality? Is it His word or not? If it’s His word, he commanded it. It’s His idea, not mine. And I’m not ashamed of it.”
Sure. I'm more than willing to say Scripture is backwards and primitive. It's stories that people who lived 1000s of years ago came up with to cope with their short lives, a scary world, and natural forces they couldn't possibly comprehend. It's a tool for dealing with their own frailty and lack of power, a way to find meaning in their tiny human existence. I guess it's still nice for that in some ways. However it certainly is a relic and one I think we'll outgrow eventually. It'd be nice if dicks stopped using to be cruel to people, and just stuck to the whole community building aspect in the meantime though.
Dude. I'm no friend of religion either, but seriously. You broke the magic. This isn't about religion. This is about hate. This guy is just trollface wearing preacher's robes.
but it is also about religion, preacher's god tells him gays should be put to death, and he wants to see that happen. he's spreading his hatred to everyone in his church, including the children. Think of the children hearing this nonsense.
Now let say he's actually able to convince some republicans to draft a law for rounding up the gays and killing them, would that guy still just be a trollface in a robe? it would be funny to see the gay republicans who fight against marriage equality and support this bill, get rounded up though because they always seem to be the ones getting caught in bathrooms trolling for some good gay lovin.
But if he is so unchristian, Why isn't he being excommunicated? where are all the true christians coming out and saying he doesn't represent them, that his interpretation of the bible is wrong?
Frazzled wrote:Well good to see the prediction about page 2 was correct.
It's a pity, too. Because in the end we could use scripture as a great argument AGAINST homophobia.
Although it so rarely seems to work, but that might just be the internet talking (does ANY form of argument work on the internet?). Still... I kinda like how Mr. Rogers put it in regards to homosexuals: “God loves you just the way you are.”
Life is like an ocean voyage and our bodies are the ships
And without a moral compass we would all be cast adrift
So to keep us on our bearings, the Lord gave us a gift
And like most gifts you get, it was a book
I only read one book, but it's a good book, don't you know
I act the way I act because the Good Book tells me so
If I wanna known how to be good, it's to the Good Book that I go
'Cos the Good Book is a book and it is good and it's a book
I know the Good Book's good because the Good Book says it's good
I know the Good Book knows it's good because a really good book would
You wouldn't cook without a cookbook and I think it's understood
You can't be good without a Good Book 'cos it's good and it's a book
And it is good for cookin'
I tried to read some other books, but I soon gave up on that
The paragraphs ain't numbered and they complicate the facts
I can't read Harry Potter 'cos they're worshipping false gods and that
And Dumbledore's a poofter and that's bad, 'cos it's not good
Morality is written there in simple white and black
I feel sorry for you heathens, got to think about all that
Good is good and evil's bad and goats are good and pigs are cr*p
You'll find which one is which in the Good Book, 'cos it's good
And it's a book, and it's a book
I had a cat, she gave birth to a litter
The kittens were adorable and they made my family laugh
But as they grew they started misbehavin'
So I drowned the little f**kers in the bath
When the creatures in your care start being menaces
The answers can be found right there in Genesis!
Chapter 6, Verse 5-7!
Swing your partner by the hand
Have a baby if you can
But if the voices your head
Say to sacrifice your kid
To satiate your loving God's
Fetish for dead baby blood
It's simple fate, the Book demands
So raise that knife up in your hand!
Before the Good Book made us good, there was no good way to know
If a thing was good or not that good or kind of touch and go
So God decided he'd give writing allegoric prose a go
And so he wrote a book and it was generally well-received
The Telegraph said, "This God is reminiscent of the Norse."
The Times said, "Kind of turgid, but I liked the bit with horses."
The Mail said, "Lots of massacres, a violent tour de force.
If you only read one book this year, then this one is a book
And it is good, and it's a book!"
Swing your daughter by the hand
But if she gets raped by a man
And refuses then to marry him
Stone her to death!
If you just close your eyes and block your ears
To the accumulated knowledge of the last two thousand years
Then morally, guess what? You're off the hook
And thank Christ you only have to read one book
Just because the book's contents
Were written generations hence
By hairy desert-dwelling gents
Squatting in their dusty tents
Just because what Heaven said
Was said before they'd leavened bread
Just 'cos Jesus couldn't read
Doesn't mean that we should need
When manipulating human genes
To alleviate pain and fight disease
When deciding whether it's wrong or right
To help the dyin' let go of life
Or stop a pregnancy when it's
Just a tiny blastocyst
There's no reason why we should take a look
At any other book
But the Good Book
'Cause it's good
And it's a book
And it's a book
And it's quite good!
Good is good and evil's bad
And kids get killed when God gets mad
And you'd better take a good look
At the Good Book
“You say, ‘Oh, I can’t believe you, you’re horrible. You’re a backwards neanderthal of a person.’ Is that what you’re calling scripture? Is God a neanderthal, backwards in his morality? Is it His word or not? If it’s His word, he commanded it. It’s His idea, not mine. And I’m not ashamed of it.”
Sure. I'm more than willing to say Scripture is backwards and primitive. It's stories that people who lived 1000s of years ago came up with to cope with their short lives, a scary world, and natural forces they couldn't possibly comprehend. It's a tool for dealing with their own frailty and lack of power, a way to find meaning in their tiny human existence. I guess it's still nice for that in some ways. However it certainly is a relic and one I think we'll outgrow eventually. It'd be nice if dicks stopped using to be cruel to people, and just stuck to the whole community building aspect in the meantime though.
Dude. I'm no friend of religion either, but seriously. You broke the magic. This isn't about religion. This is about hate. This guy is just trollface wearing preacher's robes.
It is about religion, at least a little. The stuff is printed pretty black and white in the bible, I've read it myself. This is hardly the only rather unfortunate stance available in the text. This guy also isn't alone, I mean these attitudes are fairly common here in the US, and religon is used as a justification for them a fair bit. Most of them aren't so extreme as to call for a government extermination program, but the general spirit of it is the same. There are a lot of people out there doing and saying some very nasty things, and they are if not driven by religion, at least use it as a shield.
All that said...
I'd hardly call myself an enemy of religion. Yes I do personally find the idea of the supernatural to be fairly quaint, and just a little bit silly. Yes, I think it's an antiquated (backwards) way to approach the world, given our current understanding of it. Religious or not, people are still going to find ways to be dicks. A lot of folks are driven to positive things by their faith, and it it's useful for building communities. It's not an inherently *bad* thing, even if it is a tad doofy. I'm not going to think all that much less of your average, reasonable religous person.
I just think it would be nice if so long as folks do hang on to these beliefs systems, they used them for the positive things I mentioned rather than be a colossal dick with them.
“You say, ‘Oh, I can’t believe you, you’re horrible. You’re a backwards neanderthal of a person.’ Is that what you’re calling scripture? Is God a neanderthal, backwards in his morality? Is it His word or not? If it’s His word, he commanded it. It’s His idea, not mine. And I’m not ashamed of it.”
You know what, this guy can be a bigot. feth it, whatever, it shouldn't come as any surprise that there's people out there that like hating on other people for stupid reasons. Fortunately when it comes to this particularly piece of hate, this bigot is part of an ever decreasing minority, so I'm happy to just ignore his stupid gak.
But for feth's sake, this guy's job is to know the bible. And he's there claiming the Bible is the word of God. I'm an atheist with the most basic understanding of the Bible, and I know that the book isn't the direct word of God, which is why it must be studied in context, and interpreted. And even more, I know that after Leviticus we have the story of Peter's vision, in which the old rules are changed, and replaced "God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean". It's why everyone gets to ignore the bit in Leviticus about eating seashells. It's why Jews no longer prohibit themselves from sharing their households with Gentiles. And it's why Christianity moved past thinking of any of the stuff in Leviticus as absolute, unquestionable rules.
This guy's job is to know the Bible, much like it's a bus driver's job to know how to drive a bus. Is it too much to ask people, bigots or not, to just be halfway decent at their chosen professions?
Kovnik Obama wrote:That this happened barely more than 40 years ago seriously saddens me...
40 years ago? 40 years ago here in Australia we'd only just given aboriginals the vote*. Nostalgia makes us think otherwise, but 40 years ago was a whole other place when it comes to civil liberties. That gay people were brave enough to make a stand like the Stonewall Riot was a truly exceptional thing.
*That's not like the Voting Rights Act, that looked to give protection to minorities who had been prevented from voting by power groups. I mean allowed to vote at all, because before that they weren't actually thought of as actual Australian citizens.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote:But if he is so unchristian, Why isn't he being excommunicated? where are all the true christians coming out and saying he doesn't represent them, that his interpretation of the bible is wrong?
He isn't being excommunicated because Protestant Christianity doesn't work like that.
And his interpretation of the bible is flat out wrong, a ridiculously narrow reading on a single verse that ignores everything that comes after it. Unfortunately, religion isn't as simple as reading a holy book and learning from it, instead it gets mired in politics, and in this case it's the politics of the 'culture war'. This idea has driven the right wing of the evangelical community into ever and ever more nonsensical, and biblically illiterate, hatred of homosexuality, because they simply define themselves as being opposed to whatever the other side of politics is for.
Sure, the Bible may have been inspired by a divine being. The Old Testament was written down by a bunch of sheepherders whose understanding of physics was on a par with a modern preschoolers. Then it got modified by the people in charge for a couple thousand years so they could keep control over their people. Then the New Testament was written (along with a BUNCH of other stuf that may have been divinely inspired), and edited by people who took charge of the religion to make it say what they wanted it to say (consider the implications of them removing the Book of Mary Magdeline and the subsequent poor treatment of women for the next 1500 years, give or take a century) so they could keep control of their people.
The Bible is basically 4000+ years of political brainwashing wrapped around a precious few jewels of wisdom. And waaaaaaaaayyy too many people focus on the political brainwashing rather than the jewels of wisdom.
It's probably because hate is easy, and love is hard. But I imagine there will be quite a few very surprised (and subsequently disappointed, then agonized) people out there when they hit the afterlife...
(Yes, I do take a certain perverse pleasure in the thought. I never said I was a Christian, much less a good one.)
I am a white men that is married to a black woman.
Through all this nonsense I try to keep in mind that 40 years ago I would not have been able to marry the woman I love if it were up to the same type of people pushing against the LGBT population.
Thou shall not eat shellfish or any matter of creatures that scurries on the ground.. or something like that.
Thou shall not wear mixed fiber clothing.
I know there are some other gems in that book.
Now the most important thing that needs to be corrected. I have read the phrase several times and I can not let it pass. "assless chaps" Seriously?!?! That phrase is a reduntancy, all chaps are assless.
Sure, the Bible may have been inspired by a divine being. The Old Testament was written down by a bunch of sheepherders whose understanding of physics was on a par with a modern preschoolers. Then it got modified by the people in charge for a couple thousand years so they could keep control over their people. Then the New Testament was written (along with a BUNCH of other stuf that may have been divinely inspired), and edited by people who took charge of the religion to make it say what they wanted it to say (consider the implications of them removing the Book of Mary Magdeline and the subsequent poor treatment of women for the next 1500 years, give or take a century) so they could keep control of their people.
Yeah, I recently learned that 1 Corinthians 14, "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church" was actually added in later manuscripts, and is absent in the earliest known copies of the text.
I can completely see some blokes finally getting sick of women piping up during theological discussions and adding a new bit to shut them up once and for all
The Bible is basically 4000+ years of political brainwashing wrapped around a precious few jewels of wisdom. And waaaaaaaaayyy too many people focus on the political brainwashing rather than the jewels of wisdom.
I think there's more than few jewels of wisdom, it really is a wonderful text. It really is a wonderful text. But yeah, a lot of people focus on the parts that let them hate on other people, and not the jewels of wisdom.
Well as long as he doesn't eat shellfish, wear fabric blend clothing, exile himself if he gets a spot etc then I think he's free to murder anyone. Then those who murder should be stoned in return! So lets all get some rocks.
Althogh I'm not surprised that not many of you know of the Stonewall Riots (well the younger ones on this site) it was the hair pin that broke the trannies back so to speek. It was not only the actions of police that night that sparked it but ever since the end to the second world war in the US (and to some degree the UK) all forms of homosexualty were persecuted to such a degree that it was likened to the atrocities of the Nazis with chemical castration, shock treatment, advertion threopy, lobtomisations and just locking them away in mental hospitals that where no better than concentration camps. (If I could find the wiki page I would but for the life of me can't find it just so you don't think I'm making this up!)
What this foul pittyful excuse for a human is proposing is that they should retrurn to those days, the dark days. I for one would go down fighting than have that happen.
Religion isn't the problem here (thogh it isn't helping), it's ignorance. Ingnorance and fear.
Ingnorance becouse they don't know any thing about the LGBT mind set (if any of you have gone to a gay bar you'll find that is a friendly and welcoming place and not every one wants to jump your bones ). Fear becouse of ingnorance.
Education is the key here, threw education you can change people.
No child is born with hate in them its only what we pour into their sponge like minds. (but since I can't get pregnent like I care )
Every one has the right to exist no matter whom they love, want to look like and act (baring afew that wish to harm others).
sirlynchmob wrote:But if he is so unchristian, Why isn't he being excommunicated? where are all the true christians coming out and saying he doesn't represent them, that his interpretation of the bible is wrong?
Priorities: because if they spoke out people might think they like "the gays", and they cant have that...
Better to have a guy calling for murder in your god's name then have the guy beside you on the pew think your a homo...
Here's a solution: lets find the "gay gene" and allow pregnant women to get tested to see if their kid will be born gay. Then if they want to abort them, they can.
I think that should make everyone happy: the pro-choice crowd gets rid of some kids and the anti-gay crowd gets rid of some homosexuals.
biccat wrote:Here's a solution: lets find the "gay gene" and allow pregnant women to get tested to see if their kid will be born gay. Then if they want to abort them, they can.
I think that should make everyone happy: the pro-choice crowd gets rid of some kids and the anti-gay crowd gets rid of some homosexuals.
Seems like a win-win to me.
OH SNAP!
The libertarian in me shrugs and says "meh, just get off my lawn."
(Raises an eyebrow at the callousness then remembers what these two are like)
Don't make me take out a rediculesly high interst lone so I can go over there and re-educate you to and convert you to gayisim.
Gayisim, just like every other -isim but with more sparkles and we sing this;
Ribon Fox wrote:(Raises an eyebrow at the callousness then remembers what these two are like)
Don't make me take out a rediculesly high interst lone so I can go over there and re-educate you to and convert you to gayisim.
Gayisim, just like every other -isim but with more sparkles and we sing this;
Better bring sequins buddy!*
*Because sequins would be perfect for the disco ball and lava lamp party we have every year. Do the hustle oh yea!
Its just the logical conclusion of some recent threads. As the immortal bard once said: Be careful of slippery slopes. You may not land where you expect.
Better belive it Joey, being fablous in't just adding sequins to every thing you own, or owning a pair of chaps (funny thing is I don't own any) but its all about dressing with style. That and looking better than most of the real girls in the club
Ribon Fox wrote:That and looking better than most of the real girls in the club
Damn, that would be so easy to just reply.... NOOOO I need to control myself!
Control? Whom needs control when your six feet tall and half of that is legs (basic anatomy that is ).
As Bloodfever wrote: Ribon Fox, systematically making DakkaDakka members gay, 1 by 1.
Ribon Fox wrote:That and looking better than most of the real girls in the club
Damn, that would be so easy to just reply.... NOOOO I need to control myself!
Control? Whom needs control when your six feet tall and half of that is legs (basic anatomy that is ).
As Bloodfever wrote: Ribon Fox, systematically making DakkaDakka members gay, 1 by 1.
I was actually talking about making a humorous reply referencing the relative difficulty level of looking better than the club frequenting female crowd, considering your geographic location...
Also, is it still considered gay to appreciate your physical "fitness" (shall we say), if you look like a girl?
Yeah, I recently learned that 1 Corinthians 14, "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church" was actually added in later manuscripts, and is absent in the earliest known copies of the text.
I can completely see some blokes finally getting sick of women piping up during theological discussions and adding a new bit to shut them up once and for all
I always liked 1 timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." and if the republicans ever put up a woman for president I will gladly put her face on a T-shirt with this phrase on it
Ribon Fox wrote:PV, I wasn't sure if it was a complment or an insult or both at the same time
Wasn't meant as either, was just trying to make a joke because of that comparison between Swedish and British night clubs that appears on the net from time to time.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:I love how he's quoting Leviticus and raging against lesbians. As far as I can see it only deals with men sleeping with men, so what gives?
AlmightyWalrus wrote:I love how he's quoting Leviticus and raging against lesbians. As far as I can see it only deals with men sleeping with men, so what gives?
He just hates women, too.
Some of the people who contributed to the Bible really hated women.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:I love how he's quoting Leviticus and raging against lesbians. As far as I can see it only deals with men sleeping with men, so what gives?
He just hates women, too.
Some of the people who contributed to the Bible really hated women.
Saying to the adulteress "Now go, and sin no more" was actually considered a highly liberal religious doctrine compared to the religions at the time, even if it would be an odd thing in today's time.
Spoiler:
[from the New International Version (wording varies widely between versions), John 8:3-11]
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group
and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.
When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.
Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
There is a deeper meaning in this passage, of course-- "no one is without sin, so do not judge, for you are not worthy of the task". Condemnation is itself relatively un-Christian in nature, although it is natural for humans to do it...
It's just a little detail that stands out. The Pharisees (the lawyers, you might say) are standing there demanding some kind of complicated legalistic debate. And Jesus just starts writing in the sand with his finger. The "lawyers" keep badgering him until he says something which totally undermines their question. These lawyers have a "jury" with them, too: the people, the woman's peers, are there and they have handed down a verdict of guilty. So the Pharisees demand that Jesus, acting as the judge, hand down the sentence, namely death. But instead of condemning her, Jesus tells the people to be the judges themselves -- and to judge themselves whether they can be judges.
And there's this tension at that moment. Will the people ignore Jesus? Will they go ahead and kill the woman, goaded on by the lawyers? Will they attack Jesus, too, for daring to say this? This is a dramatic moment of confrontation but the Lord kneels back down and once more writes in the sand. The Pharisees and the people have tried to put together a court, drawing on their understanding of their cultural laws, and want to force Jesus to condemn the woman. But Jesus concisely and quietly repudiates their law and their court. This gentleness in the face of a mob is astounding. Jesus has certainly acted as a judge before the people but the accused is not the one the people thought.
Saint Ambrose believed the Lord was writing the names of the accusers in the sand, condemning the ones who wanted to condemn the woman. And as they left by and by I suppose, following Ambrose, that Jesus erased their names. Jesus was not just reminding the people that they were sinners but also that they had received mercy. After all, every single one of the people left and so recognized themselves as a sinner and yet they had not been killed by their neighbors like they wanted to kill the woman. Had they been spared just to condemn another? Jesus writing in the sand was sparing them again. He did not only save the woman who would have been killed but he saved her would-be murderers as well.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:I love how he's quoting Leviticus and raging against lesbians. As far as I can see it only deals with men sleeping with men, so what gives?
He just hates women, too.
Some of the people who contributed to the Bible really hated women.
And the people doing the editing, don't forget them. They put in what they wanted - excuses to keep women as property - and removed everything they could that was to the contrary. Post-ressurection, Jesus revealed himself to Mary Magdalene before anyone else. This implies he thought she was something very special... and then the early Church went deleted her writings from the bible and tied her to the whore who washed Jesus' feet. Tells you a lot about how the people running the early Church thought right there.
I think it would be hilarious if someone discovered that Jesus had been gay. The Religious Right would have a collective stroke! Hey, he was a Roman... well, not 'citizen', which means something very specific to Romans, but he lived under a Roman government influeneced by Roman culture, where homosexuality was hardly unusual. He was apparently unmarried despite being in his mid-30s, which was HIGHLY unusual for people of the period - and hung out with a bunch of guys. All we're missing is the fantastic sense of style to make it a slam-dunk.
EDIT: RibbonFox... assuming that is actually your pic for your avatar... I do have to say you look pretty good, if a bit skinny. But then I prefer curvy girls so I'm probably not the best one to judge.
@Vulcan; Yes that is me, I have no need to fib when it comes to avatars. I'm not ashamed of whom and what I am. As for curves, I'm as flat as an aircraft carrier. The curse of being born male with out the funds to grow...curves. What money I have goes on food, bills, and some times my little plastic men habbit
Manchu wrote:It's just a little detail that stands out. The Pharisees (the lawyers, you might say) are standing there demanding some kind of complicated legalistic debate. And Jesus just starts writing in the sand with his finger. The "lawyers" keep badgering him until he says something which totally undermines their question. These lawyers have a "jury" with them, too: the people, the woman's peers, are there and they have handed down a verdict of guilty. So the Pharisees demand that Jesus, acting as the judge, hand down the sentence, namely death. But instead of condemning her, Jesus tells the people to be the judges themselves -- and to judge themselves whether they can be judges.
And there's this tension at that moment. Will the people ignore Jesus? Will they go ahead and kill the woman, goaded on by the lawyers? Will they attack Jesus, too, for daring to say this? This is a dramatic moment of confrontation but the Lord kneels back down and once more writes in the sand. The Pharisees and the people have tried to put together a court, drawing on their understanding of their cultural laws, and want to force Jesus to condemn the woman. But Jesus concisely and quietly repudiates their law and their court. This gentleness in the face of a mob is astounding. Jesus has certainly acted as a judge before the people but the accused is not the one the people thought.
Saint Ambrose believed the Lord was writing the names of the accusers in the sand, condemning the ones who wanted to condemn the woman. And as they left by and by I suppose, following Ambrose, that Jesus erased their names. Jesus was not just reminding the people that they were sinners but also that they had received mercy. After all, every single one of the people left and so recognized themselves as a sinner and yet they had not been killed by their neighbors like they wanted to kill the woman. Had they been spared just to condemn another? Jesus writing in the sand was sparing them again. He did not only save the woman who would have been killed but he saved her would-be murderers as well.
Would the argument and outcome have been any different if the woman was a murderer? Would Jesus have even stepped in at all?
I've never understood where 'turning the other cheek' ends and living in a lawful society begins.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Would the argument and outcome have been any different if the woman was a murderer? Would Jesus have even stepped in at all?
I think he would have. That is the message of Christianity, at least.
So a Christian society would turn a blind eye to any crime? This essentially sounds like a happy-go-lucky sort of anarchy.
I've never understood where 'turning the other cheek' ends and living in a lawful society begins.
I don't think those things are mutually exclusive. But to the extent that they seem to be, there is a difference between a court and a church.
If murderers go free and crimes go unpunished they do sound mutually exclusive. I don't think I need to tell you that there's a huge difference between justice and mercy, which is part of the attraction to the movement in the first place I guess.
However if you are saying that churches have always been separate from courtrooms I'd disagree. Biblical law is quite clearly that, law. Either the bible provides us with a guideline on how people and society should act and behave or its completely irrelevant.
I don't think you know about the thing that you are talking about. Christians, or at least Catholics, don't really speak about "biblical law." We have Church law, which is a matter of running an institution. And the canons are in no way a matter of "sacred text" and no one conceives of them as revealed by God. It is merely a matter of legislation. As for Christian societies being anarchic, unless you are completely ignorant of history, you will know this is not the case. But that does not mean that civil authority and religious authority are synonymous in a Christian society. You seem to want to take Jesus as a political figure, a man who came to show us how to build a perfect state. That was what the Jews expected, too.
I find people like this pastor ridiculous. He's just quoting stuff out of the bible to suit his needs. Yes, Christianity frowns upon gay marriage, but it also tells us not to judge others does it not? So why should we be the ones to cast the first stone so to speak if according to the Bible everyone has done some wrong? Being a Christian I'm actually offended by what that pastor is saying even if I feel LGBT are doing wrong things, but then again aren't we all?
Christianity, if you purely take views from the bible, does not "frown" on gay marriage. It has no opinion on the subject unless you interpret it one way or the other-- the very concept of gay marriage did not exist back then as we know it now. There were concepts of gay unions, some even permanent, but marriage was something different back then than it is today. Even the modern heterosexual marriage did not exist back then truth be told, and the writers of the bible would be find even the "nuclear family" to be alien to what they know of.
And that's just gay men. I'm fairly certain that the idea of two women marrying would just confuse them.
Of course, it's easy to make the argument of condemnation based off of the modern text, and easy to make the argument of inclusion based off of the original text. Which you use is a matter of politics usually, rather than religion.
Manchu wrote:I don't think you know about the thing that you are talking about. Christians, or at least Catholics, don't really speak about "biblical law." We have Church law, which is a matter of running an institution. And the canons are in no way a matter of "sacred text" and no one conceives of them as revealed by God. It is merely a matter of legislation. As for Christian societies being anarchic, unless you are completely ignorant of history, you will know this is not the case.
Of course it isn't, because they imposed law on the people living within their Christian society. This would happen to include punishing murders, adulterers and sodomites, which seems contrary to the whole concept of turning the other cheek.
But that does not mean that civil authority and religious authority are synonymous in a Christian society. You seem to want to take Jesus as a political figure, a man who came to show us how to build a perfect state. That was what the Jews expected, too.
Then if the teachings of Jesus cannot be used to build a perfect society doesn't that prove his teachings are completely irrelevant with regards to matters of state, and should be entirely a matter of personal opinion rather than a guideline how people should behave in a society?
Melissia wrote:Christianity, if you purely take views from the bible, does not "frown" on gay marriage. It has no opinion on the subject unless you interpret it one way or the other-- the very concept of gay marriage did not exist back then as we know it now. There were concepts of gay unions, some even permanent, but marriage was something different back then than it is today. Even the modern heterosexual marriage did not exist back then truth be told, and the writers of the bible would be find even the "nuclear family" to be alien to what they know of.
Maybe it didn't have an opinion on gay marriage, but Paul arguably did have a low opinion of "soft men" (or however you wish to translate Arsenokoitai). The subject of what this word means is largely up for debate, so you're correct in that regard. But what do you mean by modern heterosexual marriage? Lex Julia laid out the laws for marriage in fairly explicit terms.
Melissia wrote:And that's just gay men. I'm fairly certain that the idea of two women marrying would just confuse them.
If by them, you mean Romans at large, it would disgust them.
Melissia wrote:Of course, it's easy to make the argument of condemnation based off of the modern text, and easy to make the argument of inclusion based off of the original text. Which you use is a matter of politics usually, rather than religion.
I'm not sure what you mean by modern vs. original, but the epistles in both the Greek and the Vulgate contain condemnatory language. The Septuagint closely followed the Hebrew in it's condemnatory language as well. Despite what Steven Greenberg claims, the Hebrew is not nebulous in Leviticus. What he has going in his favor is an argument of context that depends on the power dynamics between the two males in question. That however, does not take into account the kind of homosexual relationships we have today-- a subject on which both the Hebrew and Greek testaments are silent, because such relationships were largely unknown at the time.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Then if the teachings of Jesus cannot be used to build a perfect society doesn't that prove his teachings are completely irrelevant with regards to matters of state, and should be entirely a matter of personal opinion rather than a guideline how people should behave in a society?
The teachings of Christ are a matter of conscience, not opinion. Doesn't Jesus enjoin us to render under Caesar what is Caesar's? Doesn't he tell us that his kingdom is not of this earth? Does the Great Commandment sound like an enforceable matter of criminal or civil law to you? And do you not remember how he commends us to obey: "if you love me, keep my commandments"? I can hardly believe that you would take the ravings of an irascible charlatan like the "pastor" in question as authentic Christian teaching over and against the clarity of the Gospel.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Then if the teachings of Jesus cannot be used to build a perfect society doesn't that prove his teachings are completely irrelevant with regards to matters of state, and should be entirely a matter of personal opinion rather than a guideline how people should behave in a society?
The teachings of Christ are a matter of conscience, not opinion. Doesn't Jesus enjoin us to render under Caesar what is Caesar's? Doesn't he tell us that his kingdom is not of this earth? Does the Great Commandment sound like an enforceable matter of criminal or civil law to you? And do you not remember how he commends us to obey: "if you love me, keep my commandments"? I can hardly believe that you would take the ravings of an irascible charlatan like the "pastor" in question as authentic Christian teaching over and against the clarity of the Gospel.
I don't think the pastor is in the right here, but isn't the bible contradictory if in one instance it argues that we should adhere to the laws of the land, like paying taxes and perhaps not killing gay people, but then extolling the virtues of people like Daniel who defied the law to continue to follow god's teachings and show worship to God?
I'm honestly confused here. How did Jesus ask us to treat murderers and thieves, because the teachings of a man who does't seem to hold justice in a very high regard isn't the sort of man I'd listen to.
deathholydeath wrote:Maybe it didn't have an opinion on gay marriage, but Paul arguably did have a low opinion of "soft men" (or however you wish to translate Arsenokoitai).
Arsenokoite, from what I've read, referred to temple prostitution and was listed in a series of "economic sins" or sins for money.
deathholydeath wrote:The subject of what this word means is largely up for debate, so you're correct in that regard. But what do you mean by modern heterosexual marriage?
Easy access to divorce, equal partnership between men and women, both men and women working for a living, stay at home dads as the moms work. Heck, divorce alone was strongly and undeniably condemned by the texts and it's considered acceptable today.
A man who divorces his wife is far stronger condemned by biblical texts than a homosexual.
deathholydeath wrote:If by them, you mean Romans at large, it would disgust them.
I doubt they'd care that much, although society was rigidly misogynistic back then so who knows?
As it is, aside from possibly Sappha (and that is less of a lover and more of a woman taking on the role of tutor to younger women in the same style as the man did to a younger man in Rome), the concept was pretty nonexistent back then.
deathholydeath wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by modern vs. original, but the epistles in both the Greek and the Vulgate contain condemnatory language.
The vulgate was politically translated and is not the oldest known records of the texts. As for the epistles, even Paul didn't condemn homosexual sex directly. In other epistles (Matthew, for example), it's suggested that homosexuals can and will get in to heaven so long as they follow the two greatest commandments..
deathholydeath wrote:The Septuagint
Doesn't matter to Christians. That is the old covenant, not the new one. No one who argues from the old testament actually follows all of its laws any more any way, and we have no need to listen to hypocrites do we?
The relationship between same sex lovers in ancient Rome was based on power dynamics. It was acceptable for a man of higher position to act as the *ahem* "top" but never the "bottom."
Melissia wrote:Arsenokoite, from what I've read, referred to temple prostitution and was listed in a series of "economic sins" or sins for money.
Possibly, that's why I said the term was nebulous.
deathholydeath wrote:The subject of what this word means is largely up for debate, so you're correct in that regard. But what do you mean by modern heterosexual marriage?
Melissia wrote:Easy access to divorce, equal partnership between men and women, both men and women working for a living, stay at home dads as the moms work. Heck, divorce alone was strongly and undeniably condemned by the texts and it's considered acceptable today.
Divorce is not acceptable in Catholic doctrine, and Catholics account for roughly 50% of the world's Christian population.
Most scholars today consider the concept of holy prostitutes the result of the overactive imaginations of 19th century writers.
Under the law of the late empire, women had the right to divorce. The divorce rate was actually quite astronomical in late western Rome. The other things you listed have more to do with women's role in the culture at large, but I see your point.
Melissia wrote:A man who divorces his wife is far stronger condemned by biblical texts than a homosexual.
Again, the idea of homosexuality as such did not exist.
deathholydeath wrote:If by them, you mean Romans at large, it would disgust them.
Melissia wrote:I doubt they'd care that much, although society was rigidly misogynistic back then so who knows?
It has more to do with the Roman view on oral sex. Oral sex was considered shameful, a practice fit only for the deliberate humiliation of prisoners and slaves. If you're at all interested in the Romans views on sex and homosexuality, I'd check out Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity by Craig A. Williams. It's a pretty entertaining read.
deathholydeath wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by modern vs. original, but the epistles in both the Greek and the Vulgate contain condemnatory language.
Melissia wrote:The vulgate was politically translated and is not the oldest known records of the texts. As for the epistles, even Paul didn't condemn homosexual sex directly. In other epistles (Matthew, for example), it's suggested that homosexuals can and will get in to heaven so long as they follow the two greatest commandments.
If you're referring to Matt 8: 5-13 and the interpretation of pais, that's a highly contested view. Also the references to eunuchs in chapter 19 are generally considered to refer to asexuals or men who wish to remain celibate. Not marrying was considered... odd by the standards of the time.
deathholydeath wrote:The Septuagint
Melissia wrote:Doesn't matter to Christians. That is the old covenant, not the new one. No one who argues from the old testament actually follows all of its laws any more any way, and we have no need to listen to hypocrites do we?
Paul's views on the law are also rather nebulous:
Romans 3:31 wrote: Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
It's easy to contest that quote with some of Paul's other quotes on the subject. What did he really think? We may never know.
Paul's rather confusing views on the subject of the Law are the basis for Christians' odd relationship with the Hebrew bible.
Much of the basis for conservative Christian condemnation of homosexuality comes out of reading into the text, rather than reading out from it as well as the blase assumption that the concepts we associate with homosexuality existed or mattered to the inhabitants of the Roman territories.
Anyway, it's clear we have entrenched views on the subject, so perhaps we should just get back to flaming this "pastor"?
I was actually referring to the "eunouchos" term in the original greek, which didn't actually explicitly or exclusively refer to castrated males and often referred to homosexuals as well (the comparison given that a man introducing himself as a "eunouchos" is like introducing yourself as a hair dresser from san francisco), as they were trusted to guard the wives whenever the husband was not (castrated males were not so trusted as they could still have sexual activity with women).
Thus, the meaning of those who are "born eunouchos" (homosexuals), versus those who are "made eunouchos by men" (castrated), and those who "are eunouchos in the name of heaven" (monks and other such non-sexual members of religious society). This is disputed of course, but most of the time those who say that "eunouchos" only means castrated never actually pay attention to the meaning of the word during the time of writing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
It has more to do with the Roman view on oral sex.
So women using dildos or strap-ons (yes, they did exist back then... long before then even) on each other would be okay?
Melissia wrote:I was actually referring to the "eunouchos" term in the original greek, which didn't actually explicitly or exclusively refer to castrated males and often referred to homosexuals as well (the comparison given that a man introducing himself as a "eunouchos" is like introducing yourself as a hair dresser from san francisco), as they were trusted to guard the wives whenever the husband was not (castrated males were not so trusted as they could still have sexual activity with women).
Thus, the meaning of those who are "born eunouchos" (homosexuals), versus those who are "made eunouchos by men" (castrated), and those who "are eunouchos in the name of heaven" (monks and other such non-sexual members of religious society). This is disputed of course, but most of the time those who say that "eunouchos" only means castrated never actually pay attention to the meaning of the word during the time of writing.
I never said it referred solely to castrated men. I only wrote that it designates men who do not desire women. Born eunochos could also mean someone born without the desire for women, or anyone else. An asexual.
Melissia wrote:So women using dildos or strap-ons (yes, they did exist back then... long before then even) on each other would be okay?
Given the views on women at the time it would probably be viewed a bit like dogs humping in the dirt. Curious but not terribly disgusting.
Actually they'd probably think "hey look she's trying to act like a man" or something.
deathholydeath wrote:I never said it referred solely to castrated men. I only wrote that it designates men who do not desire women. Born eunochos could also mean someone born without the desire for women, or anyone else. An asexual.
There really wasn't any evidence it meant asexual, as eunouchos was used in combination with references of homosexuality on the part of the eunouchos (especially recieving), and was associated with stereotypical homosexual traits at the time.
Of course, this means that the bible contradicts itself in some ways if you interpret Paul in certain ways.
Hazardous Harry wrote:How did Jesus ask us to treat murderers and thieves, because the teachings of a man who does't seem to hold justice in a very high regard isn't the sort of man I'd listen to.
Again, what are you listening for? Jesus for president? Jesus the cop?
Actually they'd probably think "hey look she's trying to act like a man" or something.
That's the most likely conclusion-- something odd, but not terribly disgusting.
Melissia wrote:
deathholydeath wrote:I never said it referred solely to castrated men. I only wrote that it designates men who do not desire women. Born eunochos could also mean someone born without the desire for women, or anyone else. An asexual.
There really wasn't any evidence it meant asexual, as eunouchos was used in combination with references of homosexuality on the part of the eunouchos (especially recieving), and was associated with stereotypical homosexual traits at the time.
Of course, this means that the bible contradicts itself in some ways if you interpret Paul in certain ways.
It doesn't help that we have at least two, possibly three or more people writing epistles using Paul's name
Hazardous Harry wrote:How did Jesus ask us to treat murderers and thieves, because the teachings of a man who does't seem to hold justice in a very high regard isn't the sort of man I'd listen to.
Again, what are you listening for? Jesus for president? Jesus the cop?
I'm not listening for a particular brand of Jesus, I'm asking how he thinks we should treat criminals.
Hazardous Harry wrote:I'm not listening for a particular brand of Jesus, I'm asking how he thinks we should treat criminals.
And I keep telling you, Christianity is not about laying out a criminal code.
Then it's even more useless than Sharia law. How could a Christian ever be a police officer, a judge or hell even a soldier? Even the most extreme liberal hippie will recognise that criminals have to have their freedoms and actions limited to some extent, even if its only to rehabilitate them and ensure they don't hurt others again. If what you're saying is true, then Christianity refuses to acknowldge that any society needs law and order to function in the most basic manner. Even a heavenly kingdom not of this world must have rules and laws of some kind. The only altenative is that there is absolutely no free will in this heavenly kingdom, because as long as there is free will there will be people that will operate in a manner harmful to society.
If a religion is to provide any sort of guidance it can't ignore important matters like this. "Love thy neighbour" and "Love God", while lovey-dovey and sweet sounding, simply won't cut it. Even if you personally adhere to these two requirements, there will be people who don't love their neighbors, people who will see fit to kill and steal from their fellows and you will have to do more than love them or love god to prevent them from continuing to hurt innocent people.
What kind of book lays out a set of guidelines and rules to follow in instance and then tells us that they're completely irrelevant and we should ignore them the next? At least Judaism and Islam has some consistency about it.
... for the purposes of law, yes. But that's precisely what is being stated. It SHOULDN'T be used to determine law.
Religion, and more importantly one's relationship with a god or gods that may or may not exist, is an inherently personal thing. Matters of faith are matters between a person and their god(s), especially for Christianity
Civil matters, on the other hand, serve an entirely different purpose-- civil laws are for the safe, orderly running of society that benefits everyone within the society. They are earthly, secular matters that, while they can be motivated by religious beliefs, are still not the laws of a god or gods, but the laws of human beings.
Even if you personally adhere to these two requirements, there will be people who don't love their neighbors
And you are to love them, too, and try to help them.
Jesus never said the Christian path was easy.
What kind of book lays out a set of guidelines and rules to follow in instance and then tells us that they're completely irrelevant and we should ignore them the next?
A book whose first half is a historical record (the Old Testament) which allows people to understand the background that the religion believes it had at the time of the gathering of the collection of books, and whose second half contains the relevant set of philosophies for the religion.
Harry, you seem to value a religion only to the extent that it can deliver us into theocracy. Fair enough, Christianity will rank pretty low for you. Rule of the state was not the goal of Christ.
... for the purposes of law, yes. But that's precisely what is being stated. It SHOULDN'T be used to determine law.
Religion, and more importantly one's relationship with a god or gods that may or may not exist, is an inherently personal thing. Matters of faith are matters between a person and their god(s), especially for Christianity
Can you really have a Christian judge then? If on one hand they are directed to love, forgive and show mercy how can they possibly administer justice? Does one's personal belief stop at their job, can one really show mercy and justice at the same time? I'd imagine not, given that mercy is showing leniency where none is deserved.
Civil matters, on the other hand, serve an entirely different purpose-- civil laws are for the safe, orderly running of society that benefits everyone within the society. They are earthly, secular matters that, while they can be motivated by religious beliefs, are still not the laws of a god or gods, but the laws of human beings.
Just out of interest then what kind of laws would a heavenly kingdom have?
Even if you personally adhere to these two requirements, there will be people who don't love their neighbors
And you are to love them, too, and try to help them.
Jesus never said the Christian path was easy.
You're right, I had just thought that a Christian society would be possible if not pleasant.
What kind of book lays out a set of guidelines and rules to follow in instance and then tells us that they're completely irrelevant and we should ignore them the next?
A book whose first half is a historical record (the Old Testament) which allows people to understand the background that the religion believes it had at the time of the gathering of the collection of books, and whose second half contains the relevant set of philosophies for the religion.
But when Jesus discusses the old testament does he really say that people are no longer bound by the 10 commandments? I know he regarded a lot of the additional laws and regulations with scorn, but the very basic commands set down in stone by God himself?
Manchu wrote:Melissia pretty well covered it.
Harry, you seem to value a religion only to the extent that it can deliver us into theocracy. Fair enough, Christianity will rank pretty low for you. Rule of the state was not the goal of Christ.
Since I have a keen interest in a career within the criminal justice system I suppose you're right. Like Melissia I'd like to ask you the same question though, what laws would a heavenly kingdom have?
... for the purposes of law, yes. But that's precisely what is being stated. It SHOULDN'T be used to determine law.
Religion, and more importantly one's relationship with a god or gods that may or may not exist, is an inherently personal thing. Matters of faith are matters between a person and their god(s), especially for Christianity
Can you really have a Christian judge then? If on one hand they are directed to love, forgive and show mercy how can they possibly administer justice? Does one's personal belief stop at their job, can one really show mercy and justice at the same time? I'd imagine not, given that mercy is showing leniency where none is deserved.
You shouldn't have a Christian judge, but you can have plenty of judges that are Christian.
To the extent that one can conceive of heaven as a place similar to a state that is ruled by God, please remember that all of the subjects are morally perfect and the society between them is utterly without conflict. In other words, there is no need for metaphorical law with regard to this metaphorical country.
The early Christians had no problems with the Roman law and the more philosophically inclined among them had no problem with the Roman idea of justice as a matter of civil law. When Saint Justin wrote to the emperor asking him to cease the persecutions, he did not write a condemnation of the system. Rather he said that Christians were ideal citizens because they followed the law in every respect excepting only the worship of idols.
Saint Augustine went on to contrast the "city of man" with the "city of God" and criticized the notion that Earth could be made into Heaven by human politics. Saint Thomas More, a lawyer and Chancellor of England, coined the term "utopia" ("no place") over one thousand years later to describe the earthly state that was perfectly good. In the West, we have considered civil and religious authority to be separate matters of jurisdiction. Even the Inquisition, after finding an individual guilty of some doctrinal fault, had to hand over the convict to the secular authorities for punishment.
Manchu wrote:To the extent that one can conceive of heaven as a place similar to a state that is ruled by God, please remember that all of the subjects are morally perfect and the society between them is utterly without conflict. In other words, there is no need for metaphorical law with regard to this metaphorical country.
If Jesus forgives us for our imperfections (which undoubtedly everyone has to a greater or lesser extent) how can everyone in the metaphorical kingdom be morally perfect?
Either this heavenly kingdom is completely depopulated of human spirits, or the 'forgiven' spirits allowed in have been altered to such an extent it would make the basis of a 1984 plot with angels.
The early Christians had no problems with the Roman law and the more philosophically inclined among them had no problem with the Roman idea of justice as a matter of civil law. When Saint Justin wrote to the emperor asking him to cease the persecutions, he did not write a condemnation of the system. Rather he said that Christians were ideal citizens because they followed the law in every respect excepting only the worship of idols.
Saint Augustine went on to contrast the "city of man" with the "city of God" and criticized the notion that Earth could be made into Heaven by human politics. Saint Thomas More, a lawyer and Chancellor of England, coined the term "utopia" ("no place") over one thousand years later to describe the earthly state that was perfectly good. In the West, we have considered civil and religious authority to be separate matters of jurisdiction. Even the Inquisition, after finding an individual guilty of some doctrinal fault, had to hand over the convict to the secular authorities for punishment.
While interesting, I don't disagree with any of this. But I don't see what it has to do with whether or not there would in fact be some kind of law in heaven.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
Can you really have a Christian judge then? If on one hand they are directed to love, forgive and show mercy how can they possibly administer justice? Does one's personal belief stop at their job, can one really show mercy and justice at the same time? I'd imagine not, given that mercy is showing leniency where none is deserved.
You shouldn't have a Christian judge, but you can have plenty of judges that are Christian.
Good answer. But can (or should) one always separate their personal conscience and their public role?
Hazardous Harry wrote:Can you really have a Christian judge then?
You can have a judge who is Christian, who judges based off of civil law but does not judge others on spiritual matters.
Because judging others on spiritual matters is only in the realm of god, according to the new testament.
Hazardous Harry wrote:If on one hand they are directed to love, forgive and show mercy how can they possibly administer justice?
Because justice doesn't have to be retribution. Many judges assign rehab for addicts, for example, and time off for good behavior is quite well known. The judges, however, stay within secular laws to do this. Because civil, secular laws are not the laws of god, they are the laws of humanity-- and as judges are human, they are thus able to interpret them properly (usually) and are authorized to judge them.
Hazardous Harry wrote:given that mercy is showing leniency where none is deserved.
Mercy has nothing to do with whether or not someone deserves anything. It is, and I quote, "[c]ompassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm". Whether or not any particular person deserves mercy/compassion/leniency is an entirely different philosophical concept.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Just out of interest then what kind of laws would a heavenly kingdom have?
A sort of anarchic communistic society where everyone is equal and good and everyone has plenty of everything is, essentially, the concept of heaven as I understand it. As such a thing cannot exist in the real world, and as I'm a scientist who looks at the real world, not a hypothetical heavenly one, I honestly don't know if it would even have laws as you understand them. Somehow, I think not.
Hazardous Harry wrote:You're right, I had just thought that a Christian society would be possible if not pleasant.
You remind me of another biblical conversation:
Spoiler:
A rich man was asking how to get in to heaven. "What do I still lack?"
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"
"With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
An ideal "Christian society" would be a practical impossibility on all but some relatively small scales (a few dozen people as a "society"). Thus why Jesus is tolerant of secular laws-- because they are the best we can manage with our imperfect efforts on this imperfect Earth.
Hazardous Harry wrote:I know he regarded a lot of the additional laws and regulations with scorn, but the very basic commands set down in stone by God himself?
He had this to say, specifically:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
In other words, the other eight commandments spring from these two in some way or other. The most important thing to keep in mind is that we must love one another and love god, and we should try to act in accordance with this, rather than through judging and condemnation.
edit: I feel like a preacher, but hey, this is just my understanding of the concepts, as I said I'm not a theologian.
Hazardous Harry wrote:If Jesus forgives us for our imperfections (which undoubtedly everyone has to a greater or lesser extent) how can everyone in the metaphorical kingdom be morally perfect?
This is a complex theological question. The general term for it is "justification." The discipline that studies it is called soteriology, in case you want to do some further reading. Very, very basically, heaven is the status of the human person made morally perfect. In Catholic tradition, this is the sum of people trying to be better, people helping each other be better, and (giving rise to and underlying the rest) God helping us be to be better and helping us to help others. The experience of this moral "betterment" is called grace and the striving of conscience is cooperation with grace. Moral goodness, in the course of human life, is a work in progress. The notion of "purgatory" stands for this work still being in progress after the death of the body. Heaven, also called salvation, is the completion in the sense of perfection of this process.
Either this heavenly kingdom is completely depopulated of human spirits, or the 'forgiven' spirits allowed in have been altered to such an extent it would make the basis of a 1984 plot with angels.
This is indicative of total misunderstanding. You should stop trying to conceive of heaven as a place, as if it were some other planet or dimension.
Thanks Melissia, I'm pretty happy with your response, just one point I have an issue with.
Hazardous Harry wrote:given that mercy is showing leniency where none is deserved.
Mercy has nothing to do with whether or not someone deserves anything. It is, and I quote, "[c]ompassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm". Whether or not any particular person deserves mercy/compassion/leniency is an entirely different philosophical concept.
You must be looking at a different definition. The one we have in Social Justice and Ethics argues that mercy is showing compassion, leniency or kindness to someone who has absolutely no right or grounds to be given such.
Melissia wrote:You remind me of another biblical conversation:
This is very true. Harry, your reaction to the story of Jesus and the adulteress, this whole demand that God be some kind of benevolent dictator, is the same position as the Pharisees in that very story.
Hazardous Harry wrote:If Jesus forgives us for our imperfections (which undoubtedly everyone has to a greater or lesser extent) how can everyone in the metaphorical kingdom be morally perfect?
This is a complex theological question. The general term for it is "justification." The discipline that studies it is called soteriology, in case you want to do some further reading. Very, very basically, heaven is the status of the human person made morally perfect. In Catholic tradition, this is the sum of people trying to be better, people helping each other be better, and (giving rise to and underlying the rest) God helping us be to be better and helping us to help others. The experience of this moral "betterment" is called grace and the striving of conscience is cooperation with grace. Moral goodness, in the course of human life, is a work in progress. The notion of "purgatory" stands for this work still being in progress after the death of the body. Heaven, also called salvation, is the completion in the sense of perfection of this process.
Either this heavenly kingdom is completely depopulated of human spirits, or the 'forgiven' spirits allowed in have been altered to such an extent it would make the basis of a 1984 plot with angels.
This is indicative of total misunderstanding. You should stop trying to conceive of heaven as a place, as if it were some other planet or dimension.
I'm going to back off now because I am definitely way in over my head on this one. Thank you for being so cordial and informative in your responses, Manchu.
Hazardous Harry wrote:I'm going to back off now because I am definitely way in over my head on this one. Thank you for being so cordial and informative in your responses, Manchu.
Justification is a complex topic; just look at the Reformation! Feel free to ask if you have any other questions.
Melissia wrote:You remind me of another biblical conversation:
This is very true. Harry, your reaction to the story of Jesus and the adulteress, this whole demand that God be some kind of benevolent dictator, is the same position as the Pharisees in that very story.
I'd like to think I wouldn't be seen stoning people to death for adultery, maybe keying their car but that's it.
As you've already guessed I don't really 'get' the relevance of a following that doesn't instruct us on how to go about building a perfect (or as close as possible) society in the real material world.
From my personal walk with Christ I give you my understanding of the message and purpose of the Old Testament as it relates to Christians (the way I see it):
The main purpose of the Old Testament was to set up the scene for the coming of Christ, to show why he needed to come and why we needed him. Starting with creation, then the fall, and then the continuing struggle.
The main purpose of the Old Testament Laws was to show us that we needed Christ for redemption and justification. The purpose was not "Follow these laws and you will be justified and go to Heaven. Just be good enough!", the purpose of these laws was "Look at all the stuff you would have to do, look how perfect you would have to be, everyone will fail, there is nothing man can do to justify himself." The Law didn't exist so that we would follow it, The Law exists to show us that we can never follow it and that Salvation by works is not anything we could accomplish. The only person that could follow the Law and be good enough for God was God himself (insert story of Jesus here).
And just for perspective (and again just personal opinion:
Reading the Old Testament it seems like no matter how often God himself came down and told Israel to follow His Law, Israel always managed to break the laws and land herself in trouble.
If God himself could not get a country to follow His Law, what makes us think that we could do better at making people follow His Law?
d-usa wrote:From my personal walk with Christ I give you my understanding of the message and purpose of the Old Testament as it relates to Christians (the way I see it):
The main purpose of the Old Testament was to set up the scene for the coming of Christ, to show why he needed to come and why we needed him. Starting with creation, then the fall, and then the continuing struggle.
The main purpose of the Old Testament Laws was to show us that we needed Christ for redemption and justification. The purpose was not "Follow these laws and you will be justified and go to Heaven. Just be good enough!", the purpose of these laws was "Look at all the stuff you would have to do, look how perfect you would have to be, everyone will fail, there is nothing man can do to justify himself." The Law didn't exist so that we would follow it, The Law exists to show us that we can never follow it and that Salvation by works is not anything we could accomplish. The only person that could follow the Law and be good enough for God was God himself (insert story of Jesus here).
The Old Laws, while rigorous, would not be impossible to adhere to. Unless we're including thought crimes.
If God himself could not get a country to follow His Law, what makes us think that we could do better at making people follow His Law?
We could try it his way. Fire, brimstone and lots of flammable examples.
Melissia wrote:You remind me of another biblical conversation:
This is very true. Harry, your reaction to the story of Jesus and the adulteress, this whole demand that God be some kind of benevolent dictator, is the same position as the Pharisees in that very story.
I'd like to think I wouldn't be seen stoning people to death for adultery, maybe keying their car but that's it.
As you've already guessed I don't really 'get' the relevance of a following that doesn't instruct us on how to go about building a perfect (or as close as possible) society in the real material world.
I think the focus of Christianity is on your relationship with God, then your relationship with others. If you live a Christ-centered and Christ-inspired life, then you will do your part in building a as-close-as-perfect society as you can.
I also think that sharing Christ should be the main focus of Christianity, not "passing Biblical laws", if we want people to act Godly we need to share the message of God.
If I had the options between:
1) A country where every sin is legal, but people choose to live a Christ-centered life and try not to sin.
2) A country based on Biblical law where nobody sins, but nobody knows God.
I would always choose #1. What is the point of living a sin-less live if there is no relationship with God?
Hazardous Harry wrote:I'd like to think I wouldn't be seen stoning people to death for adultery, maybe keying their car but that's it.
In their own society, stoning an adulteress was not conceived of as a terrible thing. Jesus told the people: "You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but I say to you do not resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on the right cheeck, turn to him the other one." In Jesus's day, the idea of "an eye for an eye" was very "liberal." Basically, instead of killing the person who offended you, along with their entire family, and confiscating all their property that you could, you would only exact a proportionate vengeance from them. For Jesus, this was no kind of progression. Taking any kind of vengeance is not the prerogative of man but rather of God ("vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" from Ecclesiastes). And even more, Jesus seems to advocate a kind of active pacifism here. It must have shocked his listeners at the time. And even now, I can see that it shocks you! Similarly, stoning the adulteress to death would have been no more "wrong" in the sense of civil law than executing the murderer, as you suggest. But Jesus will not have it. Notice that he does not command them to cease, as if he were some kind of law man. In telling them that the one without sin should cast the first stone, he does not tell them that they are sinners. He makes it a matter of conscience. He says to them, you know whether you are sinners or not in your heart of hearts.
As you've already guessed I don't really 'get' the relevance of a following that doesn't instruct us on how to go about building a perfect (or as close as possible) society in the real material world.
Oh, it does. Please think even of this example: the adulteress doesn't get off "scott free." The people all know that she is an adulteress. Do you think they will simply forget that and treat her well? But they did not murder her and make themselves murderers. In that moment, for that society, the world was better than it had been mere moments before because of Jesus. Now, when you think of the way some Muslim families treat their mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters even to this day, consider what the Sharia has on this simple appeal to conscience.
1) A country where every sin is legal, but people choose to live a Christ-centered life and try not to sin.
2) A country based on Biblical law where nobody sins, but nobody knows God.
I would always choose #1. What is the point of living a sin-less live if there is no relationship with God?
What about:
1) A country where every sin is legal, and some people choose to live a Christ-centered life and try not to sin.
2) A country based on Biblical law where nobody sins, and pretty much everybody has a healthy relationship with God.
d-usa wrote:I think the focus of Christianity is on your relationship with God, then your relationship with others.
To me, this is a big problem and probably the cause of the kind of hate speech that pastor had. Where is Christ now? Where do you encounter him and have this "personal experience"? He told us himself: "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me." We encounter Jesus in the ones who hunger and thirst, the strangers, the ones who need clothing and shelter, the sick and the imprisoned. Jesus is our neighbor. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor -- what else can this mean, coming from God who became man, other than "you will find me in your neighbor and that is where you will love me"?
Hazardous Harry wrote:I'd like to think I wouldn't be seen stoning people to death for adultery, maybe keying their car but that's it.
In their own society, stoning an adulteress was not conceived of as a terrible thing. Jesus told the people: "You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but I say to you do not resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on the right cheeck, turn to him the other one." In Jesus's day, the idea of "an eye for an eye" was very "liberal." Basically, instead of killing the person who offended you, along with their entire family, and confiscated all their property if you could, you would only exact a proportionate vengeance from them. For Jesus, this was no kind of progression. Taking any kind of vengeance is not the prerogative of man but rather of God ("vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" from Ecclesiastes). And even more, Jesus seems to advocate a kind of active pacifism here. It must have shocked his listeners at the time. And even now, I can see that it shocks you! Similarly, stoning the adulteress to death would have been no more "wrong" in the sense of civil law than executing the murderer, as you suggest. But Jesus will not have it. Notice that he does not command them to cease, as if he were some kind of law man. In telling them that the one without sin should cast the first stone, he does not tell them that they are sinners. He makes it a matter of conscience. He says to them, you know whether you are sinners or not in your heart of hearts.
But in doing so he all but challenges the crowd to assert that they are not sinners.
If I say to a group of people "Let the man who hasn't had carnal relations with a goat step forward" I'm very probably implying that that group have all had carnal relations with goats.
As you've already guessed I don't really 'get' the relevance of a following that doesn't instruct us on how to go about building a perfect (or as close as possible) society in the real material world.
Oh, it does. Please think even of this example: the adulteress doesn't get off "scott free." The people all know that she is an adulteress. Do you think they will simply forget that and treat her well? But they did not murder her and make themselves murderers.
If the law at the time was that adulterers would be stoned then I don't think they would be considered murderers.
In that moment, for that society, the world was better than it had been mere moments before because of Jesus. Now, when you think of the way some Muslim families treat their mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters even to this day, consider what the Sharia has on this simple appeal to conscience.
If they were 'Christian' in the sense you argue they would be obliged to refrain from judging her for her adultery, and it would be the same for a murderer or child rapist. Personally I'd think that Sharia law at least sees Justice in such cases done. A proper 'Christian' can never achieve that, as dispensing justice invariably means passing judgement on someone, in a public capacity or no.
Hazardous Harry wrote:You must be looking at a different definition. The one we have in Social Justice and Ethics argues that mercy is showing compassion, leniency or kindness to someone who has absolutely no right or grounds to be given such.
That is a very weird, skewed, and disturbing definition and I wonder about the sanity of those who wrote it.
No, I'm using a general dictionary's definition, and perhaps a bit from Tolkien's book as well.
Mercy is a matter of showing compassion. One can be merciful to those deserving or undeserving.
Hazardous Harry wrote:You must be looking at a different definition. The one we have in Social Justice and Ethics argues that mercy is showing compassion, leniency or kindness to someone who has absolutely no right or grounds to be given such.
That is a very weird, skewed, and disturbing definition and I wonder about the sanity of those who wrote it.
No, I'm using a general dictionary's definition.
It is being used in reference to judicial decisions so maybe there's that factor.
Hazardous Harry wrote:[But in doing so he all but challenges the crowd to assert that they are not sinners.
They could have but they did not, such was the authority of this simple man writing in the sand.
If the law at the time was that adulterers would be stoned then I don't think they would be considered murderers.
And yet they would have been anyway, no matter what other men considered them.
If they were 'Christian' in the sense you argue they would be obliged to refrain from judging her for her adultery, and it would be the same for a murderer or child rapist.
They would have refrained as individuals and left the matter to civil authorities. The issue at hand is that they wanted to murder her for religious reasons, which is why the Pharisees ask Jesus about what we call the Old Testament. Jesus creates a distinction that they did not expect: the distinction between civil and religious authority.
Personally I'd think that Sharia law at least sees Justice in such cases done. A proper 'Christian' can never achieve that, as dispensing justice invariably means passing judgement on someone, in a public capacity or no.
Hazardous Harry wrote:You must be looking at a different definition. The one we have in Social Justice and Ethics argues that mercy is showing compassion, leniency or kindness to someone who has absolutely no right or grounds to be given such.
That is a very weird, skewed, and disturbing definition and I wonder about the sanity of those who wrote it.
No, I'm using a general dictionary's definition.
It is being used in reference to judicial decisions so maybe there's that factor.
That would explain why it is so bizarre...
An example I give is of a nobleman having a peasant mother come to him begging him to show her family mercy and allow them to keep a bit more of their food instead of having it all taxed away. He decides to show her mercy and sends her off.
Is she undeserving? No, her pleas have merit, after all, family members could die if they don't have enough to eat. She simply is powerless to really force him to give her anything, so she asks for his mercy-- his compassion-- instead.
d-usa wrote:I think the focus of Christianity is on your relationship with God, then your relationship with others.
To me, this is a big problem and probably the cause of the kind of hate speech that pastor had. Where is Christ now? Where do you encounter him and have this "personal experience"? He told us himself: "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me." We encounter Jesus in the ones who hunger and thirst, the strangers, the ones who need clothing and shelter, the sick and the imprisoned. Jesus is our neighbor. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor -- what else can this mean, coming from God who became man, other than "you will find me in your neighbor and that is where you will love me"?
I think a Christ-centered life would make you more Christ-like. I do not think that the Pastors statements were Christ-like though.
A lot of it is because of the corruption of the bible as it gets translated, mistranslated, retranslated from the mistranslation, and then translated from the mistranslation that was retranslated from the mistranslation that was mistranslated from the original translation which was translated from a language whose contexts are long since lost, leaving words whose meanings ahve been changed over time, lost over time, or just have never been used since.
To say nothing of the political corruptions-- such as adding references to witchcraft in the KJV because the governing body which commissioned the KJV really hated witches at the time of its translation.
It's not that bizarre a definition. In fact, it's Christian: God's disposition to humanity is merciful in that it is totally gratuitous; it has not been merited in any sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Is she undeserving? No, her pleas have merit, after all, family members could die if they don't have enough to eat. She simply is powerless to really force him to give her anything, so she asks for his mercy-- his compassion-- instead.
I think the concept you are talking about is more like the Roman virture "clementia" or maybe what we call equity ("fairness").
Didnt at the turn of the century(1899-1900)
People only started to marry for love? Didnt they used to marry for connivance and love was considered childish.
And then when the industrial revolution happend, back breaking labor on the farm was replaced with factory work, allowing the living in cities and therefore marrying for love. And the oldies thought that would destroy marriage?
Manchu wrote:It's not that bizarre a definition. In fact, it's Christian: God's disposition to humanity is merciful in that it is totally gratuitous; it has not been merited in any sense.
Maybe, but I think it odd to say that mercy can only be shown to those who don't deserve it...
Manchu wrote:I think the concept you are talking about is more like the Roman virture "clementia" or maybe what we call equity.
d-usa wrote:I think the focus of Christianity is on your relationship with God, then your relationship with others.
To me, this is a big problem and probably the cause of the kind of hate speech that pastor had. Where is Christ now? Where do you encounter him and have this "personal experience"? He told us himself: "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me." We encounter Jesus in the ones who hunger and thirst, the strangers, the ones who need clothing and shelter, the sick and the imprisoned. Jesus is our neighbor. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor -- what else can this mean, coming from God who became man, other than "you will find me in your neighbor and that is where you will love me"?
I think a Christ-centered life would make you more Christ-like. I do not think that the Pastors statements were Christ-like though.
How is the pastor's statements not christ like? He obviously has a relationship with god, living a christ centered and inspired life, so he's trying to build a perfect society. Just like you pointed out on the previous page.
Maybe you should work on your relationship with others first, then your relationship with god would work itself out.
d-usa wrote:I think the focus of Christianity is on your relationship with God, then your relationship with others.
To me, this is a big problem and probably the cause of the kind of hate speech that pastor had. Where is Christ now? Where do you encounter him and have this "personal experience"? He told us himself: "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me." We encounter Jesus in the ones who hunger and thirst, the strangers, the ones who need clothing and shelter, the sick and the imprisoned. Jesus is our neighbor. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor -- what else can this mean, coming from God who became man, other than "you will find me in your neighbor and that is where you will love me"?
The kingdom of god is within man, not one man nor a group of men but in all men - Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator. Paraphrasing Luke 17:21, I believe.
Manchu wrote:I think the concept you are talking about is more like the Roman virture "clementia" or maybe what we call equity.
No, I'm using the concept of "showing mercy".
Again, I think you are mislabeling the action. If the tax would destroy the woman's family then the state will lose all future revenue from her and she will become an expense instead. As a matter of common sense and fairness, her tax burden is decreased. Because the woman is relieved by this outcome, she could see the tax man as "good" in that his decision benefited her and she might call him "merciful." To the extent that he really is "merciful" it is because the woman's plea is legally without merit: that is, if she does not qualify under the law for any decrease in taxes and the tax assessor has acted beyond his authority.
d-usa wrote:I think the focus of Christianity is on your relationship with God, then your relationship with others.
To me, this is a big problem and probably the cause of the kind of hate speech that pastor had. Where is Christ now? Where do you encounter him and have this "personal experience"? He told us himself: "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me." We encounter Jesus in the ones who hunger and thirst, the strangers, the ones who need clothing and shelter, the sick and the imprisoned. Jesus is our neighbor. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor -- what else can this mean, coming from God who became man, other than "you will find me in your neighbor and that is where you will love me"?
I think a Christ-centered life would make you more Christ-like. I do not think that the Pastors statements were Christ-like though.
How is the pastor's statements not christ like? He obviously has a relationship with god, living a christ centered and inspired life, so he's trying to build a perfect society. Just like you pointed out on the previous page.
Maybe you should work on your relationship with others first, then your relationship with god would work itself out.
The pastor is preaching hate, something Christ never did.
d-usa wrote:I think the focus of Christianity is on your relationship with God, then your relationship with others.
To me, this is a big problem and probably the cause of the kind of hate speech that pastor had. Where is Christ now? Where do you encounter him and have this "personal experience"? He told us himself: "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me." We encounter Jesus in the ones who hunger and thirst, the strangers, the ones who need clothing and shelter, the sick and the imprisoned. Jesus is our neighbor. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor -- what else can this mean, coming from God who became man, other than "you will find me in your neighbor and that is where you will love me"?
I think a Christ-centered life would make you more Christ-like. I do not think that the Pastors statements were Christ-like though.
How is the pastor's statements not christ like?
I do not find a statement by Christ where he advocates that the ruling government kill LGBT people, or where he advocates the killing of any group of people for that matter.
sirlynchmob wrote:He obviously has a relationship with god, living a christ centered and inspired life, so he's trying to build a perfect society. Just like you pointed out on the previous page.
Maybe you should work on your relationship with others first, then your relationship with god would work itself out.
I don't think that his actions are Christ-centered or Christ-inspired. His actions are a lot closer to the Old Testament model that Christ came to replace IMO.
sirlynchmob wrote:Maybe [one] should work on your relationship with others first, then your relationship with god would work itself out.
It seems to me that they need to be simultaneous. If you can't treat other human beings with dignity then you cannot treat God, who became man, with dignity, either. At the same time, why bother to treat human beings with dignity if God is some completely alien thing whose very existence makes humanity pathetic and worthless?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Maybe, but I think it odd to say that mercy can only be shown to those who don't deserve it...
Yes, that conception is wrong. "Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy."
sirlynchmob wrote:Maybe [one] should work on your relationship with others first, then your relationship with god would work itself out.
It seems to me that they need to be simultaneous. If you can't treat other human beings with dignity then you cannot treat God, who became man, with dignity, either. At the same time, why bother to treat human beings with dignity if God is some completely alien thing whose very existence makes humanity pathetic and worthless?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Maybe, but I think it odd to say that mercy can only be shown to those who don't deserve it...
Yes, that conception is wrong. "Blessed are the merciful for they shall be shown mercy."
That's the point though, life is not meaningless and worthless without god. Without a god, life if more meaningful, because you just have this short time on earth and that's it. Why waste what little time you have ignoring those around you while you just work on your relationship with god and some afterlife? God makes life meaningless, and completely worthless, because you are robbed of the only life you have preparing for your next life that you'll never get. Especially considering the odds, he's not real in any sense, and just an idea dreamed up by man.
But ideally, you WOULDN'T be ignoring those around you. Showing compassion to others is one of the things which is supposed to make the big guy happy. Or the big girl, or the big it, depending on your interpretation.
Although the "gender" of god is something that isn't really discussed enough. Always referred to in the masculine because of tradition I suppose, but in truth, if the god exists it likely doesn't have a gender as we understand it.
Melissia wrote:Although the "gender" of god is something that isn't really discussed enough. Always referred to in the masculine because of tradition I suppose, but in truth, if the god exists it likely doesn't have a gender as we understand it.
It's actually pretty explicit on the first page of the bible that God created man in his own image, and by man of course we mean humanity since in Gen 1:27 Man and woman are created simultaneously and in God's image. Thus as Mel says God doesn't have a gender until edited to have one.
Melissia wrote:But ideally, you WOULDN'T be ignoring those around you. Showing compassion to others is one of the things which is supposed to make the big guy happy. Or the big girl, or the big it, depending on your interpretation.
Manchu wrote:@sirlynchmob: I don't think that is an accurate description of a Christian life.
Well there is no definitive example of christian life. If there was you'd think all christians could agree on it. So we look at the followers and see how their opinions are all over the spectrum, and they'll all claim to be right, based on the bible and the teachings of jesus.
And from his teachings we get pastor Knapp asking the government to kill the gays. And the other christians who show up to a rally defending that guy. Then the vast majority of christians voting to make their bigotry legal and constitutional.
And from his teachings we get pastor Knapp asking the government to kill the gays. And the other christians who show up to a rally defending that guy. Then the vast majority of christians voting to make their bigotry legal and constitutional.
You seem to be the odd man out Manchu.
Those people aren't following JC's teachings, they're following the stuff which he came down to replace.
sirlynchmob wrote:And from his teachings we get pastor Knapp asking the government to kill the gays. And the other christians who show up to a rally defending that guy.
No one can draw a straight line between the Gospel and this pastor's hate speech. We have already established as much in the thread. I'd argue that the things he suggests, except inasmuch as they recognize the separate jurisdictions of civil and religious authorities, cannot be based at all on Christianity.
You seem to be the odd man out Manchu.
Not in my experience, thankfully. But I suppose I put little stock in the sheep's clothing some wolves wear.
sirlynchmob wrote:And from his teachings we get pastor Knapp asking the government to kill the gays. And the other christians who show up to a rally defending that guy.
No one can draw a straight line between the Gospel and this pastor's hate speech. We have already established as much in the thread. I'd argue that the things he suggests, except inasmuch as they recognize the separate jurisdictions of civil and religious authorities, cannot be based at all on Christianity.
You seem to be the odd man out Manchu.
Not in my experience, thankfully. But I suppose I put little stock in the sheep's clothing some wolves wear.
I wouldn't call them wolves. We wolves don't want these "people" either. I like the term scum, though that might be insulting to some algae.
sirlynchmob wrote:And from his teachings we get pastor Knapp asking the government to kill the gays.
Nope.
Actually, according to his teachings, those who do not marry because they have no natural inclination towards the opposite sex will get in to heaven if they love god and love their neighbor as themselves.
As noted previously in this thread, one of the meanings of the term "eunouchos" as used in the book of Matthew was "homosexual"; it indicated those who had no desire for women, and thus were safe to leave to guard the wives/concubines when the man of the house was away. As an aside, merely castrating them via cutting their balls off will not remove the desire for women, and men are still capable of having sex even castrated like this, even if they will not procreate. Thus they were still not trusted around the women because they would still have been tempted to rape them.
To further illustrate this, Matthew makes a distinction between three kinds of "eunouchos"-- those born, those made by man, and those who become for the sake of heaven.. Those who are "born eunouchos" would be homosexuals and asexuals (a term I find odd in this context because of my biology/chemistry background). Those who are "made eunouchos" would be those who are emotionally or physically scarred to be unable to have such desires. Those who "become eunouchos for heaven" are those who live a life of celibacy for religious reasons.
Unfortunately, modern translations of this particular part of the bible vary WILDLY, and are oftentimes incomprehensible and inaccurate to the original text, especially with the insistence of using "eunuch" in the modern sense instead of taking in to context the original term's usage. There is a similar problem with other terms, such as "abomination" or "sodomite". Hell, the Sin of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality until Emperor Justinian decided to try to influence the interpretation to become homosexuality so that he could attack his (Roman non-Christians with homosexual partners) political rivals. The Sin of Sodom was actually inhospitality-- yes, this was a vitally important issue at the time. Inhospitality was almost universally loathed by every single religion at the time and Judaism and Christianity were no exceptions.
Hazardous Harry wrote:[But in doing so he all but challenges the crowd to assert that they are not sinners.
They could have but they did not, such was the authority of this simple man writing in the sand.
If the law at the time was that adulterers would be stoned then I don't think they would be considered murderers.
And yet they would have been anyway, no matter what other men considered them.
A hangman, acting on the authority of the state (even a theocracy) is not a murderer.
If they were 'Christian' in the sense you argue they would be obliged to refrain from judging her for her adultery, and it would be the same for a murderer or child rapist.
They would have refrained as individuals and left the matter to civil authorities.
Judging a person and personally refusing to deal with them on the basis that they have committed horrific crimes is a bad thing?
The issue at hand is that they wanted to murder her for religious reasons, which is why the Pharisees ask Jesus about what we call the Old Testament. Jesus creates a distinction that they did not expect: the distinction between civil and religious authority.
Was adulterous behaviour punishable under Roman law?
Regardless, what if the state is dysfunctional to the point where there is a break down in social order? How does a Christian react towards criminals if there is no actual authorities for them to be brought to account before.
*snip*
Confronting, but you know that's not what I was arguing here. Sharia law, like any law based on a 2000 year old law system, is not fair and just in all or even most cases. But it would at least see justice done in cases of murderers and child molesters (one would hope), which is far more than can be said for Christianity.
Christianity is about forgiveness, redemption, charity, mercy, and etc, as opposed to "justice" (or, more accurately, retribution").
From Romans 12:
Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”* says the Lord. On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
*[alternatively, from KJV: "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay"]
Melissia wrote:Christianity is about forgiveness, redemption, charity, mercy, and etc, as opposed to "justice" (or, more accurately, retribution").
From Romans 12:
Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”* says the Lord.
But if anyone can be forgiven for what they've done, completely irregardless of what they've done their whole life up until the moment of their death, is vengeance really exacted?
This is one of the reasons I don't like much of the Bible, the first half is full of what amounts to a racial superiority complex and the second half doesn't really value the idea of Justice.
biccat wrote:Here's a solution: lets find the "gay gene" and allow pregnant women to get tested to see if their kid will be born gay. Then if they want to abort them, they can.
I think that should make everyone happy: the pro-choice crowd gets rid of some kids
Uh uh. So you've basically decided to be a nasty little malcontent, and declare that people with different political opinions to yours like killing babies. Well, the decline has been slow and steady, but it looks like this is pretty much rock bottom for biccat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:The teachings of Christ are a matter of conscience, not opinion. Doesn't Jesus enjoin us to render under Caesar what is Caesar's? Doesn't he tell us that his kingdom is not of this earth? Does the Great Commandment sound like an enforceable matter of criminal or civil law to you? And do you not remember how he commends us to obey: "if you love me, keep my commandments"? I can hardly believe that you would take the ravings of an irascible charlatan like the "pastor" in question as authentic Christian teaching over and against the clarity of the Gospel.
Good post. Well said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:A lot of it is because of the corruption of the bible as it gets translated, mistranslated, retranslated from the mistranslation, and then translated from the mistranslation that was retranslated from the mistranslation that was mistranslated from the original translation which was translated from a language whose contexts are long since lost, leaving words whose meanings ahve been changed over time, lost over time, or just have never been used since.
To say nothing of the political corruptions-- such as adding references to witchcraft in the KJV because the governing body which commissioned the KJV really hated witches at the time of its translation.
Or the example I gave earlier in the thread, of 1 Corinthians 14 where the following just does not exist in earlier copies; "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:Didnt at the turn of the century(1899-1900)
People only started to marry for love? Didnt they used to marry for connivance and love was considered childish.
And then when the industrial revolution happend, back breaking labor on the farm was replaced with factory work, allowing the living in cities and therefore marrying for love. And the oldies thought that would destroy marriage?
One of history's dirty little secrets is that for much of history there was no religious component to marriage, it was a contract between two families, most commonly with consent from the bride and groom also required. It was, basically, a way of sorting out how property inheritance worked.
And now we get all this stuff about how gay people marrying would destroy a religious ritual. It's very weird.
biccat wrote:Here's a solution: lets find the "gay gene" and allow pregnant women to get tested to see if their kid will be born gay. Then if they want to abort them, they can.
I think that should make everyone happy: the pro-choice crowd gets rid of some kids
Uh uh. So you've basically decided to be a nasty little malcontent, and declare that people with different political opinions to yours like killing babies. Well, the decline has been slow and steady, but it looks like this is pretty much rock bottom for biccat.
.
No. Its a valid line of argument and one brought up here. If its ok to wack fetuses, then it should be ok to wack fetuses that have a predisposition to homosexuality. Just because you don't like the conclusion to your argument doesn't mean you get to call other posters names.
Myself, I think abortion should be legal provided there's a good reason for the abortion. Killing a fetus if it was going to be born with a horrific deformation, or if allowing the fetus to survive would kill the mother, or if the fetus was the product of rape is fair enough. Killing a fetus because it was going to be born with red hair is not.
Squigsquasher wrote:I take it you're pro-life then?
If by prolife you mean that I could care less, then you would be right. The less people there are means the less chance they will stray onto my lawn.
Myself, I think abortion should be legal provided there's a good reason for the abortion. Killing a fetus if it was going to be born with a horrific deformation, or if allowing the fetus to survive would kill the mother, or if the fetus was the product of rape is fair enough. Killing a fetus because it was going to be born with red hair is not.
As noted, I'm a Libertarian. Irregardless of my personal views, I don't care what you do. Just: 1) don't ask me to pay for it; and 2) stay the hell off my lawn!
This nutjob isn't a Christain. He may say he is, but he tramples on the #1 rule of Christ, for whom the religion is named: that the ability to love others is the greatest one of them all. Also, treat your neighbor as you would want yourself to be treated. Simple.
Seriously, this guy should just leave the US and go live the middle-east --his rhetoric is completely in line with that of the super radical Islamists in that part of the world. But wait! Islam is the religion of hate, remember?
biccat wrote:Here's a solution: lets find the "gay gene" and allow pregnant women to get tested to see if their kid will be born gay. Then if they want to abort them, they can.
I think that should make everyone happy: the pro-choice crowd gets rid of some kids
Uh uh. So you've basically decided to be a nasty little malcontent, and declare that people with different political opinions to yours like killing babies. Well, the decline has been slow and steady, but it looks like this is pretty much rock bottom for biccat.
I thought there was a sense of poetic irony in forcing gay haters who are typically also pro life to choose betwixt the convictions they hold so dear. In fact the ONLY losers would be the social conservatives that biccat normally represents. If rock bottom is poking fun at his own base using the policies of another position he dislikes there are quite a few posters of the opposite stripe that are decidedly more acidic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: God we ARE like conservative super villains plotting together...
I want my comfo chair to have cool massagers in it. It has to be love seat sized to accomodate Rodney and Tbone on each side. No frankly it needs to be sofa length so Rusty the Tank can be on there as well. Plus we need a nice puffy cushion for Tbone to land on when he jumps off the sofa. Whats that TBone? Oh yes he reminds us that at the next meeting we need more butter for the popcorn, and maybe some M&Ms too. Also bacon.
True story from last Sunday:
In June one of the church groups sell breakfast tacos. The Wife cooked 6lb of bacon Saturday night to bring Sunday morning as part of that, but she forgot to get it (went in earlier than). So GC and I get the bacon. Rusty sees GC with this giant bag of bacon, does some quick math and figures he can take her. He goes up with his front paws on her shoulders trying to bring her down. So there she is in the middle of the kitchen, literally wrestling one dog for the bacon while the wiener dogs are trying to trip her up... awesome.
Frazzled wrote:I want my comfo chair to have cool massagers in it. It has to be love seat sized to accomodate Rodney and Tbone on each side. No frankly it needs to be sofa length so Rusty the Tank can be on there as well. Plus we need a nice puffy cushion for Tbone to land on when he jumps off the sofa. Whats that TBone? Oh yes he reminds us that at the next meeting we need more butter for the popcorn, and maybe some M&Ms too. Also bacon.
True story from last Sunday:
In June one of the church groups sell breakfast tacos. The Wife cooked 6lb of bacon Saturday night to bring Sunday morning as part of that, but she forgot to get it (went in earlier than). So GC and I get the bacon. Rusty sees GC with this giant bag of bacon, does some quick math and figures he can take her. He goes up with his front paws on her shoulders trying to bring her down. So there she is in the middle of the kitchen, literally wrestling one dog for the bacon while the wiener dogs are trying to trip her up... awesome.
Although this is somewhat more related to the Diamond Jubilee thread, were you aware the Queen in addition to her Corgis also has a couple (or more) Corgi Dashhund mixes?
That chair I used in whatever other thread was $3000!!! like 2 years ago. I want mine to be a wingback with a lockable rocker function. Sometimes I like to swing. I also require a perch for my current pet Cat Dracula. He prefers to sit at or above 5' which should make him both safe from and suitably superior to the hunds.
5 feet? Your cat is safe, for now. But Rodney is patient...very patient. This patience can often be misinterpreted as "sleeping" especially when he fiendishly lays on his back and fiegns snoring. But its a trap!
Frazzled wrote:5 feet? Your cat is safe, for now. But Rodney is patient...very patient. This patience can often be misinterpreted as "sleeping" especially when he fiendishly lays on his back and fiegns snoring. But its a trap!
I wondered this before. Is that a real picture, and where? I seem to remember there was an African preserve somewhere in coastal Texas.
Frazzled wrote:5 feet? Your cat is safe, for now. But Rodney is patient...very patient. This patience can often be misinterpreted as "sleeping" especially when he fiendishly lays on his back and fiegns snoring. But its a trap!
I wondered this before. Is that a real picture, and where? I seem to remember there was an African preserve somewhere in coastal Texas.
Just the back 40. Rodney sometimes has to run off the local varmints.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Besides, even if a person willingly reforms on their own and is unlikely to ever again commit an offence, doesn't atone for past misdeeds.
That's what we have reparations, community service ,and so on for.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Besides, even if a person willingly reforms on their own and is unlikely to ever again commit an offence, doesn't atone for past misdeeds.
That's what we have reparations, community service ,and so on for.
Which is different from the process of reformation.
How can one reform without at least attempting to atone for their actions in the first place?
If a person reforms, or is reformed, that is nothing more than ensuring they have changed their behaviour and will not reoffend.
For example a medieval knight may join a monastic order, takes vows and change his behaviour of killing peasants and razing villages. But that alone does not atone for the peasants he has already killed, and the villages he has already razed.
biccat wrote:
I don't think we should abort any children. Sebster, like most liberals, don't like the conclusions that their preferred policies create.
Spoken as though such a condition ended at right where the Right end of the spectrum began.
Squigsquasher wrote:Biccat was being sarcastic. I highly doubt he thinks we shoukd abort gay children
I'm well aware of biccat's stance, and his conclusion, and how there is a serious line of discussion that vaguely relates to the troll post he threw into the thread from pretty much out of nowhere.
The issue is biccat saying 'I think that should make everyone happy: the pro-choice crowd gets rid of some kids'. That is biccat saying he actually thinks the reason people support pro-choice is not because they actually like the idea of the unborn being killed. Not because they recognise it's a difficult choice that is best left to the mother and not the state or anything else, but because the idea of an unborn being killed would make them happier.
It'd be like me saying 'that should make everyone happy: the pro-life said get to force raped women to carry their babies to term'. It's just abusing the other side for no reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:No. Its a valid line of argument and one brought up here. If its ok to wack fetuses, then it should be ok to wack fetuses that have a predisposition to homosexuality. Just because you don't like the conclusion to your argument doesn't mean you get to call other posters names.
There is a valid line of argument there, on exactly where you draw a line between giving parents a choice and eugenics. Exactly where is the line between allowing the abortion of a child with a chronic heart condition, and allowing the abortion of a child because of their sex? It's certainly a difficult situation, even for the pro-life people - exactly how dangerous does a pregnancy have to be to the mother before they'll allow the baby to be aborted?
But none of that has anything to do with biccat saying pro-choice people would be happier if more children were aborted. That's just cheap, nasty, gakky name calling.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Sebster, like most liberals, don't like the conclusions that their preferred policies create.
No, I recognise the complexity of the issue. And given it is a complex issue, I recognise the need for sensible, level headed discussion, and the need to avoid cheap shots and people we might not agree with.
Which is one of the bigger reasons your gakky little digs need to be highlighted, so that hopefully you'll either grow up fast and stop making them, or just stop posting ni threads that need some level of maturity..
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:As noted, I'm a Libertarian. Irregardless of my personal views, I don't care what you do. Just: 1) don't ask me to pay for it; and 2) stay the hell off my lawn!
So you're in favour of the current system, in which abortion is left up to the mother, but there is no government support for the process?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:I thought there was a sense of poetic irony in forcing gay haters who are typically also pro life to choose betwixt the convictions they hold so dear. In fact the ONLY losers would be the social conservatives that biccat normally represents.
There is some kind of fun to be had at both sides (the flipside being pro-choice people caught between supporting the choice of the mother, and being horrified at the actual reason the mother is making that choice), provided we're willing to suspend disbelief and pretend the gay gene is a thing (which is hard to do given biccat has made arguments on this forum before that he kind of actually believes in it).
Unfortunately all of that is shat away when you claim pro-choice people are happier that babies are aborted.
If rock bottom is poking fun at his own base using the policies of another position he dislikes there are quite a few posters of the opposite stripe that are decidedly more acidic.
Rock bottom is claiming pro-choice people are happier when babies are aborted. Anyone else who posts anything that needlessly nasty should get condemned as well, no matter what side of politics they're on. But I personally can't think of anyone else who's ever said their political opponents are actually happy at the death of babies, can you think of anyone who said anything that nasty?
Pro-choice =/= pro-death. Selective abortions based on race, gender, sexuality, etc are different to those based on deformity, disease etcas said, the line can sometimes be hard to draw, especially if one supports the mother/potential parents should they choose to terminate simply because they do not want a childs, however, there certainly is a line.
But that's the topic of a different thread. Here, I thought we were having a reasonable, intelligent discussion, but that might have just been because I'm ignoring Biccat.
Hazardous Harry wrote:For example a medieval knight may join a monastic order, takes vows and change his behaviour of killing peasants and razing villages. But that alone does not atone for the peasants he has already killed, and the villages he has already razed.
Then how exactly has he reformed? He's just using the monastic order to escape from the consequences of his actions.
Melissia wrote:But that's the topic of a different thread. Here, I thought we were having a reasonable, intelligent discussion, but that might have just been because I'm ignoring Biccat.
Hazardous Harry wrote:For example a medieval knight may join a monastic order, takes vows and change his behaviour of killing peasants and razing villages. But that alone does not atone for the peasants he has already killed, and the villages he has already razed.
Then how exactly has he reformed? He's just using the monastic order to escape from the consequences of his actions.
Is he? I can imagine plenty of cases where he would be normally justified under the laws of that day, or at least no one would punish him. Perhaps a peasant spoke out of turn and in anger the knight struck and killed him. Personally the knight knows that he is in the wrong, but either he is pardoned by law or no authority is going to prosecute a noble for killing a peasant.
As for how you can know whether somehow has or hasn't truly reformed, you really can't unless they reoffend or refrain from r-offending for the rest of their lives. But a change in attitude and behavior does not equal atonement.
Hazardous Harry wrote:I'm just pointing out that there wouldn't necessarily be consequences for his actions.
You're confusing consequences with legal consequences.
If the knight in question forgos all the rights and priveledges of a knight (which were considerable for the time) and becomes a monk in a bare little cell... I'd say that's some pretty significang consequences. And clear proof of a change of heart as well.
Vulcan wrote:If the knight in question forgos all the rights and priveledges of a knight (which were considerable for the time) and becomes a monk in a bare little cell... I'd say that's some pretty significang consequences. And clear proof of a change of heart as well.
And yet, he's not facing up to the consequences of his actions.
He's escaping them. In that little cell, he doesn't have to face the widows of the men he killed, or the hungry children; he doesn't feel any obligation to help them rebuild their lives, or somehow repay them for what happened.
Where is the reformation here? Where is the proof that he is changed? He's just sitting there wallowing in his guilt.
Which itself is a sin under Christianity, I should note.
Vulcan wrote:If the knight in question forgos all the rights and priveledges of a knight (which were considerable for the time) and becomes a monk in a bare little cell... I'd say that's some pretty significang consequences. And clear proof of a change of heart as well.
He's escaping them. In that little cell, he doesn't have to face the widows of the men he killed, or the hungry children; he doesn't feel any obligation to help them rebuild their lives, or somehow repay them for what happened.
There may not be any widows left, or hungry children. Let's say he was one knight of many in an army that massacred a village. He didn't kill everyone himself, but he knew (at least afterwards) that what he'd taken part in was wrong.
Where is the reformation here? Where is the proof that he is changed? He's just sitting there wallowing in his guilt.
Which itself is a sin under Christianity, I should note.
As I've already told you, you can never have conclusive proof that someone really has changed their ways. Religious figures like Jesus may claim to know the hearts of men, but in the real present world there is no one that can definitely tell whether someone has reformed.
This is why reformation is different from redemption. The knight may truly have changed his ways, but he can only redeem himself by taking actions that go some way in repairing the damage done or which help others.
Yeah. I think the same page as that homophobic stuff also has kosher rules, yet Christians don't believe it..
I hate racist people a lot, but I almost hate homophobes more than them because at least racism has perverse pseudo science to it, while homophobes just seem really juvenile. No "science" behind it, just way more similar to elementary school kids calling each other gay and acting like "gay" people have cooties. Homophobes are just really immature.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:I hate racist people a lot, but I almost hate homophobes more than them because at least racism has perverse pseudo science to it, while homophobes just seem really juvenile. No "science" behind it, just way more similar to elementary school kids calling each other gay and acting like "gay" people have cooties. Homophobes are just really immature.
That's also kind of dumb.
Racism and the "pseudo science" invented to rationalize has been and continues to be far, far more destructive than thinking that two blokes having at it is gross.
Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:I hate racist people a lot, but I almost hate homophobes more than them because at least racism has perverse pseudo science to it, while homophobes just seem really juvenile. No "science" behind it, just way more similar to elementary school kids calling each other gay and acting like "gay" people have cooties. Homophobes are just really immature.
That's also kind of dumb.
Racism and the "pseudo science" invented to rationalize has been and continues to be far, far more destructive than thinking that two blokes having at it is gross.
Yeah, that's why I said almost. Racism definitely has caused way more suffering and violence than homophobes. There haven't been nearly as many anti gay lynchings or as many attempts to wipe out all gays as there has been with racism.
The account seems to be that God, who is some kind of ancient alien, arranged materials on the planet and from time to time told the inhabitants of the planet that they should do something (what is not dealt with). The alien is pleased by the resultant material progress but does not seem to understand the attendant problems of that development. Instead, the alien characterizes the weaker inhabitants as inventing worship of the alien to rise against the naturally legitimate leaders (the strong ones) in order to commit atrocities against one another and, far more worryingly, to exhaust some of the materials the alien had originally provided. Also, the alien makes a "media apology," emphatically implying it is not actually at fault for anything except bothering with humans in the first place.
Manchu wrote:The account seems to be that God, who is some kind of ancient alien, arranged materials on the planet and from time to time told the inhabitants of the planet that they should do something (what is not dealt with). The alien is pleased by the resultant material progress but does not seem to understand the attendant problems of that development. Instead, the alien characterizes the weaker inhabitants as inventing worship of the alien to rise against the naturally legitimate leaders (the strong ones) in order to commit atrocities against one another and, far more worryingly, to exhaust some of the materials the alien had originally provided. Also, the alien makes a "media apology," sarcastically implying it is not actually at fault for anything while simultaneously covering its ass.
Pretty damn dumb.
So according to the song God is a 12 year old playing a Civ clone?
Seems legit...
I don't know of any wolves who became men (outside of metaphor). That video makes a lot of sense, I'm sure, to people who find James Cameron's Avatar to be deeply meaningful in a religious sense.
Melissia wrote:What about people who find James Cameron's Avatar to be deeply meaningful in any sense.
I think it is fair to say I find the same level of deeply alien, unknowable thought processes in God as I do in people who find James Cameron's Avatar to be deeply meaningful.
Melissia wrote:Do you equate justice with retribution, or with redemption?
Retribution, redemption is something else entirely.
That's a rather sad opinion.
Reforming criminals is one off the more important aspects of the justice system.
Had much to do with the criminal justice process?
Reformation is given lip-service only. And a lot of the time it doesn't even get that.
Melissia wrote:
Hazardous Harry wrote:For example a medieval knight may join a monastic order, takes vows and change his behaviour of killing peasants and razing villages. But that alone does not atone for the peasants he has already killed, and the villages he has already razed.
Then how exactly has he reformed? He's just using the monastic order to escape from the consequences of his actions.
Reformation, by definition, only deals with future events. A murderer who never re-offends is reformed, even if he continues to crow about the deaths of his victims until his dying day.
It is about changing your ways, not making amends.
Melissia wrote:On the contrary, if he never makes amends, then it's rather hard to argue he's reformed.
But that's not a requirement of being reformed. The ways the word 'reform' could be used (that pertain to this discussion) are:
1 - the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.: social reform; spelling reform.
2 - to cause (a person) to abandon wrong or evil ways of life or conduct.
3 - to abandon evil conduct or error: The drunkard promised to reform.
(I just pulled these from dictionary.com)
Now, none of these make any mention of redressing past wrongs or making amends. Point 1 does mention the word 'amendment' but in that context it doesn't mean making reparations so much as simply changing something.
If a person wants to say they are reformed, they only need to address future actions, not past ones. It's "I'll never do it again" not "I'm sorry I did it"
It's harder to believe them if they aren't remorseful, but it's not strictly necessary. Think of someone like Keith Richards - He might not take drugs any more. Which would mean he's reformed. He doesn't also need to regret all the partying he did in his younger years.
Hazardous Harry wrote:For example a medieval knight may join a monastic order, takes vows and change his behaviour of killing peasants and razing villages. But that alone does not atone for the peasants he has already killed, and the villages he has already razed.
Then how exactly has he reformed? He's just using the monastic order to escape from the consequences of his actions.
Reformation, by definition, only deals with future events. A murderer who never re-offends is reformed, even if he continues to crow about the deaths of his victims until his dying day.
It is about changing your ways, not making amends.
Kaldor wrote:Now, none of these make any mention of redressing past wrongs or making amends.
On the contrary, "abandoning evil conduct" very much involves making amends. Simply saying that you will never do it again does not change the fact that you are avoiding cleaning up all the gak you caused to hit the collective fans. You're still committing evil acts by avoiding making amends for past mistakes, especially in the context of this thread's discussion on Christianity's morals.
Melissia wrote:I think that definition is overly specific, and perhaps a bit pointless. Because everyone is alien to everyone else by that definition.
well women are from venus, and men are from mars
But I say Unnatural is a better description for god. As god does not inhabit the natural universe.
But since god created the natural universe, doesn't that mean that the natural universe is an unnatural creation?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Kaldor wrote:Now, none of these make any mention of redressing past wrongs or making amends.
On the contrary, "abandoning evil conduct" very much involves making amends. Simply saying that you will never do it again does not change the fact that you are avoiding cleaning up all the gak you caused to hit the collective fans.
"Abandoning evil conduct" involves ceasing the evil activities you were previously carrying on with. It does not necessarily entail repairing the damage already done.
Likewise, making reparations doesn't necessarily mean that the person is going to cease their evil conduct. This is why the two are different things.
Kaldor wrote:Now, none of these make any mention of redressing past wrongs or making amends.
On the contrary, "abandoning evil conduct" very much involves making amends. Simply saying that you will never do it again does not change the fact that you are avoiding cleaning up all the gak you caused to hit the collective fans. You're still committing evil acts by avoiding making amends for past mistakes, especially in the context of this thread's discussion on Christianity's morals.
That word you keep using. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Funny, I feel the exact same way about your misuse of the term.
Hazardous Harry wrote:"Abandoning evil conduct" involves ceasing the evil activities you were previously carrying on with. It does not necessarily entail repairing the damage already done.
Hazardous Harry wrote:"Abandoning evil conduct" involves ceasing the evil activities you were previously carrying on with. It does not necessarily entail repairing the damage already done.
Not doing so is, itself, evil conduct.
Perhaps, which is why repairing the damage you have done, absolving you of your wrongdoings, is about redemption. Reformation, as has been pointed out to you several times, is about the individual refraining from causing such damage in the future.
I'll try another example. Let's say a man robs an old lady.
Reformation: The man never robs anyone again (I believe this has to be his own choice, ie locking him up to prevent him from robbing anyone is not reformation).
Redemption: The man pays back the old lady, helping and assisting her to the extent that he has repaired any damage he might have done. This has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he robs anyone in the future.
If the real life Christian church took a more 40K approach to things (armoured nuns with bobs and guns, preachers with massive chainswords, power armoured knights with psychic powers so great even Daemons gak themselves with fear at them) I'd respect them a lot more.
I really dislike this style or pacing or what have you of his preaching. He sounds like he's hyperventilating and I think I'm having a seizure; neither one of us wins. He's message is a good one though.
Also...ankh on the pulpit confuses brain.
I really dislike this style or pacing or what have you of his preaching. He sounds like he's hyperventilating and I think I'm having a seizure; neither one of us wins. He's message is a good one though.
Also...ankh on the pulpit confuses brain.
I can understand that. Not a fan of that style either. My preacher is of the calm collected teaching kind.
because they always seem to be the ones getting caught in bathrooms trolling for some good gay lovin.
). Fear becouse of ingnorance.
