Your Presidential Pick

Hate the sin and not the sinner is how I view Christ's teachings and try to live my life.
Sin is sin, there is no merit system as to how God views it or judges it.
My belief system revolves around Christ dying for all sinners cause of His grace and love. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So I don't see Him EVER having a change of heart regarding any sin. Be it murder, lying, cheating, stealing, or who you have sex with.

Misinterpretation is another term for justification, especially when it pertains to basic simple truths.

We (His Creation) all have a choice and like somebody already stated...All will stand before Him and give account for our lives and what we did with His Son. See how basic that is stated and it is truth. Yet many misinterpret that as well. The cop out goes along the lines of that is just between me and God.

Wurthless wrote:

The Book of Leviticus is composed of laws pertaining to the Jewish people and their practices that were appropriate as an extension of Mosaic Law (all having to do with the correct temple practices and procedures; the second temple was destroyed in 70 CE, though), and it's a little shaky if you're gonna try and condemn modern people's lifestyles based off of it (there are also condemnations included in Leviticus about staying away from women when they're on their periods, and restrictions on eating shellfish... so if you like shrimp, enjoy hell). you can't pick and choose.

Unfortunately, You can't really denounce Paul's claims as being interpreted incorrectly, because they do explicitly say homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God... but once again, because his letters were intended for a different time and place, you should take some of his suggestions to those early christian communities with a grain of salt. They are not all going to be directly applicable, or even morally appropriate, for the modern world we live in where acceptance of all peaceful lifestyles is the social norm.

I just feel it should be pretty easy to intuitively see that Christ's teachings would not exclude homosexuals (or more specifically, anyone who proclaims their acknowledgment of his sacrifice for humanity), because he advocated transcendent love for all people. Plus, Paul had never even met Jesus in the first place, and only claimed the knowledge he did have (emphasis on faith rather than the torah, the ekklesia (greek for "church") as the corporate body of the Christian people, the liturgy of the eucharist, etc.) on basis of divine revelation. Which is always gonna be at least a little fishy to me, regardless of how much stock you put in his claims.

Really though, at the end of the day if you discriminate against someone, or exclude them from a religion explicitly for gentiles and the meek merely on the basis of where they like to put their penises, you're a piece of shit, through and through. Obviously that's just my opinion, though.

Paul never met Christ? Then what do you call his experience/conversion on the road to Damascus? You know, the voice and blinding light thing...

Wait, what happened here?

brokentulsa wrote:

Fair enough wurthless...for me personally its most important to be true to ones political, religious and moral beliefs regardless of anyone elses views.. another words i dont care what others think as long as i am true to myself.. being called a racist, bigot, trumpster, piece of shit or whatever means nothing to me.. great chat though.

i think we can both agree on that. i also think being open to positive change is an important part of any worldview, though. thanks for the exchange of ideas, dude.

Troublezone wrote:

Wurthless wrote:

The Book of Leviticus is composed of laws pertaining to the Jewish people and their practices that were appropriate as an extension of Mosaic Law (all having to do with the correct temple practices and procedures; the second temple was destroyed in 70 CE, though), and it's a little shaky if you're gonna try and condemn modern people's lifestyles based off of it (there are also condemnations included in Leviticus about staying away from women when they're on their periods, and restrictions on eating shellfish... so if you like shrimp, enjoy hell). you can't pick and choose.

Unfortunately, You can't really denounce Paul's claims as being interpreted incorrectly, because they do explicitly say homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God... but once again, because his letters were intended for a different time and place, you should take some of his suggestions to those early christian communities with a grain of salt. They are not all going to be directly applicable, or even morally appropriate, for the modern world we live in where acceptance of all peaceful lifestyles is the social norm.

I just feel it should be pretty easy to intuitively see that Christ's teachings would not exclude homosexuals (or more specifically, anyone who proclaims their acknowledgment of his sacrifice for humanity), because he advocated transcendent love for all people. Plus, Paul had never even met Jesus in the first place, and only claimed the knowledge he did have (emphasis on faith rather than the torah, the ekklesia (greek for "church") as the corporate body of the Christian people, the liturgy of the eucharist, etc.) on basis of divine revelation. Which is always gonna be at least a little fishy to me, regardless of how much stock you put in his claims.

Really though, at the end of the day if you discriminate against someone, or exclude them from a religion explicitly for gentiles and the meek merely on the basis of where they like to put their penises, you're a piece of shit, through and through. Obviously that's just my opinion, though.

Paul never met Christ? Then what do you call his experience/conversion on the road to Damascus? You know, the voice and blinding light thing...

Divine revelation. I mentioned that explicitly in my post.
He never met Christ during his (Jesus') human lifetime, and most of Paul's letters are dated to around 20 years after the death of Christ. So that conversion on the road to Damascus was some sort of unverifiable spiritual experience that is sustained mostly by tradition, and probably didn't happen the way Paul describes. I should have noted, I'm a definite skeptic of Paul's experience.
After the second temple's destruction, it was likely that he thought Judaism was a sinking ship, so he jumped overboard. I think he saw early Christians as a group that needed some clear leadership, and claiming to be the 13th apostle would give him that authority. He then got to outline most of the formative Christian theology, because Christ was obviously never concerned with creating written accounts of his teachings. The only things in the New Testament that are traceable back relatively closely to Christ's teachings are some portions of Mark that were likely part of an early Christian oral tradition of supposed sayings of Christ.

First you must prove god(s) exist let alone a certain god. The bible does not offer any scientific proof and it was badly written/re-written to begin with. Yahweh is a limited barbaric sexist homophobic male tyrant. Who sounds just like the ideal bully if literally obeyed in a civilized world (today), you would see fundies sitting behind bars. Skeptics annotated bible explains further in detail the logical inaccuracy of the bible and quran. http://skepticsannotatedbible. com

Second you can not cherrypick which religious verses to follow, that's not how it works. If it is on the "official" finished product then, it means you must believe the bible is 100% the word of Yahweh. "Liberal christianity" is an oxymoron too, here is one thing I agree with the fundies on, either believe everything written or nothing at all. This site is useful too http://oocities. org/fuzzyquark/christian_index.html

Wurthless wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Wurthless wrote:

The Book of Leviticus is composed of laws pertaining to the Jewish people and their practices that were appropriate as an extension of Mosaic Law (all having to do with the correct temple practices and procedures; the second temple was destroyed in 70 CE, though), and it's a little shaky if you're gonna try and condemn modern people's lifestyles based off of it (there are also condemnations included in Leviticus about staying away from women when they're on their periods, and restrictions on eating shellfish... so if you like shrimp, enjoy hell). you can't pick and choose.

Unfortunately, You can't really denounce Paul's claims as being interpreted incorrectly, because they do explicitly say homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God... but once again, because his letters were intended for a different time and place, you should take some of his suggestions to those early christian communities with a grain of salt. They are not all going to be directly applicable, or even morally appropriate, for the modern world we live in where acceptance of all peaceful lifestyles is the social norm.

I just feel it should be pretty easy to intuitively see that Christ's teachings would not exclude homosexuals (or more specifically, anyone who proclaims their acknowledgment of his sacrifice for humanity), because he advocated transcendent love for all people. Plus, Paul had never even met Jesus in the first place, and only claimed the knowledge he did have (emphasis on faith rather than the torah, the ekklesia (greek for "church") as the corporate body of the Christian people, the liturgy of the eucharist, etc.) on basis of divine revelation. Which is always gonna be at least a little fishy to me, regardless of how much stock you put in his claims.

Really though, at the end of the day if you discriminate against someone, or exclude them from a religion explicitly for gentiles and the meek merely on the basis of where they like to put their penises, you're a piece of shit, through and through. Obviously that's just my opinion, though.

Paul never met Christ? Then what do you call his experience/conversion on the road to Damascus? You know, the voice and blinding light thing...

Divine revelation. I mentioned that explicitly in my post.
He never met Christ during his (Jesus') human lifetime, and most of Paul's letters are dated to around 20 years after the death of Christ. So that conversion on the road to Damascus was some sort of unverifiable spiritual experience that is sustained mostly by tradition, and probably didn't happen the way Paul describes. I should have noted, I'm a definite skeptic of Paul's experience.
After the second temple's destruction, it was likely that he thought Judaism was a sinking ship, so he jumped overboard. I think he saw early Christians as a group that needed some clear leadership, and claiming to be the 13th apostle would give him that authority. He then got to outline most of the formative Christian theology, because Christ was obviously never concerned with creating written accounts of his teachings. The only things in the New Testament that are traceable back relatively closely to Christ's teachings are some portions of Mark that were likely part of an early Christian oral tradition of supposed sayings of Christ.

I don't know what your beliefs are... you obviously are somewhat familiar with the bible, but you seem to discredit many parts in the book. Like the other guy said... you can't cherry pick. You either believe or you don't. If God allowed the bible to end up the way we have it today, then the message and authors that wrote it are valid. I just think certain parts are very uncomfortable and inconvenient for people that live a lifestyle that isn't what God or nature intended.

I'm not a Christian, though I was raised Catholic. I minor in Religious Studies in school, so I know a good deal of the content of the bible (amongst other sacred texts), but I don't view the book as a dogmatic set of rules for living. In turn, I view the book as a very very intriguing artifact with far reaching sociological and anthropological effects throughout time. It's important to be familiar with it, at least to some degree, just because it is so formative in Western thought.
There's also tons of really great passages contained within it that are great for finding spiritual guidance (or rather, for helping orient oneself to the world we live in, if spiritual guidance is too loose of a phrase); like the Psalms, for instance, that are great for meditative contemplation in the same way that things like Kabir poetry in the Islam tradition, and the Upanishads from the Hindu tradition are.

I think of myself as a spiritual person, and I feel all religious traditions contain beliefs, practices, rituals, and/or ethical understandings that have the potential to bring one closer to the personal experience of the sacred. Being in union with that transcendent experience of the liminal, I think, is what figures like the Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed were trying to get people to wake up to. "God," goodness, love, and light, etc. are present in every moment, but you have to be looking for them.

I have great respect for Christianity as a faith, but I feel that to this day, many people unjustly use it as a platform to hate others, which is cruelly ironic if you ask me.

As a Christian firmly rooted in the salvation of Christ, I find Wurthless to have the most compelling (and intelligent) argument here. Kudos.

Wurthless wrote:

I'm not a Christian, though I was raised Catholic. I minor in Religious Studies in school, so I know a good deal of the content of the bible (amongst other sacred texts), but I don't view the book as a dogmatic set of rules for living. In turn, I view the book as a very very intriguing artifact with far reaching sociological and anthropological effects throughout time. It's important to be familiar with it, at least to some degree, just because it is so formative in Western thought.
There's also tons of really great passages contained within it that are great for finding spiritual guidance (or rather, for helping orient oneself to the world we live in, if spiritual guidance is too loose of a phrase); like the Psalms, for instance, that are great for meditative contemplation in the same way that things like Kabir poetry in the Islam tradition, and the Upanishads from the Hindu tradition are.

I think of myself as a spiritual person, and I feel all religious traditions contain beliefs, practices, rituals, and/or ethical understandings that have the potential to bring one closer to the personal experience of the sacred. Being in union with that transcendent experience of the liminal, I think, is what figures like the Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed were trying to get people to wake up to. "God," goodness, love, and light, etc. are present in every moment, but you have to be looking for them.

I have great respect for Christianity as a faith, but I feel that to this day, many people unjustly use it as a platform to hate others, which is cruelly ironic if you ask me.  

Thanks for the info. To each their own.

James B. wrote:

Hate the sin and not the sinner is how I view Christ's teachings and try to live my life.
Sin is sin, there is no merit system as to how God views it or judges it.
My belief system revolves around Christ dying for all sinners cause of His grace and love. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So I don't see Him EVER having a change of heart regarding any sin.  Be it murder, lying, cheating, stealing, or who you have sex with.

Misinterpretation is another term for justification, especially when it pertains to basic simple truths.

We (His Creation) all have a choice and like somebody already stated...All will stand before Him and give account for our lives and what we did with His Son.  See how basic that is stated and it is truth.  Yet many misinterpret that as well.  The cop out goes along the lines of that is just between me and God.

Well said James! I believe and try to live my life like this. People get so caught up in Religion and forget the simple fact that it's a personal relationship with Jesus.

I have friends who are Christians that are so hate filled toward homosexuals. It's a sin in Gods eyes just like theives,liars and adulterers. No different in my opinion. We are all sinners.

Thrasher73 wrote:

I have friends who are Christians that are so hate filled toward homosexuals.

No different than the PC crowd hating racists or whatever/whomever else is on their list.

Hate is hate and it is wrong no matter what.

Wow,

this thread is full of revisionists/ morons.
First, if you are a Christian, then you know, Christ and the Father are ONE.

Yahweh does hate AND love.
"I Loved Jacob, but Esau I Hated". (Malachi 1:3; Romans 9:13)
Do you love criminals that murder and rape for example?

if you are quoting the Holy Bible, then you accept Christ is the same as the Father -
the "New" Testament  is the fulfillment of the "old" testament, which means it was kept FULFILLING, not recanting, not demolishing, NOT destroying the Father's will.
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever".(Hebrews 13:

I will not get into lengthy debates here,as i know they will be deleted.
If even JEWDEO-christians cannot study the Strong's Concordance, or bother to learn about the tribes (who were NOT called jews in ancient times, and the  Bible is about the Adamic, then the Israelite race) , or where they are today (not the the false jews of Revelation, now in Palestine,  than the prophecy of blindness has been fulfilled.
We still have a little time until the end.

mlotek wrote:

Wow,

this thread is full of revisionists/ morons.
First, if you are a Christian, then you know, Christ and the Father are ONE.

Yahweh does hate AND love.
"I Loved Jacob, but Esau I Hated". (Malachi 1:3; Romans 9:13)
Do you love criminals that murder and rape for example?

if you are quoting the Holy Bible, then you accept Christ is the same as the Father -
the "New" Testament  is the fulfillment of the "old" testament, which means it was kept FULFILLING, not recanting, not demolishing, NOT destroying the Father's will.
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever".(Hebrews 13:

I will not get into lengthy debates here,as i know they will be deleted.
If even JEWDEO-christians cannot study the Strong's Concordance, or bother to learn about the tribes (who were NOT called jews in ancient times, and the  Bible is about the Adamic, then the Israelite race) , or where they are today (not the the false jews of Revelation, now in Palestine,  than the prophecy of blindness has been fulfilled.
We still have a little time until the end.

Nice that you start off a micro-bible study by calling the lot of us morons. Very effective and relevant to your cause.

(wonders why a Presidential thread is still getting so much traffic)

....Oy. Never mind.

(exits)

corplhicks wrote:

Nice that you start off a micro-bible study by calling the lot of us morons. Very effective and relevant to your cause.

Sometimes the only way to be heard is to be blunt / hard hitting, and for you to think this is my "cause" , by being true to what the Word and historical evidence proves..wow.
There is a reason why the NIV Bible is called the HIV version.

Back to the topic, everything happens due to divine providence.
Obama was foisted to punish, and now Trump has been set as a reprieve.
If the USA's top agents in the system (senators, etc) and its citizens do not turn around and return to its roots (ie. 1776) , then who knows how long everything will continue.
Once this Queen of England is laid to rest (since the other family members are not pure Israelites), that means nobody truly chosen would be sitting in command on Jacob's Pillow / the Stone of Destiny;
then Christ should be returning to clean this mess up. I welcome it.

mlotek wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

Nice that you start off a micro-bible study by calling the lot of us morons. Very effective and relevant to your cause.

Sometimes the only way to be heard is to be blunt / hard hitting, and for you to think this is my "cause" , by being true to what the Word and historical evidence proves..wow.
There is a reason why the NIV Bible is called the HIV version.

Back to the topic, everything happens due to divine providence.
Obama was foisted to punish, and now Trump has been set as a reprieve.
If the USA's top agents in the system (senators, etc) and its citizens do not turn around and return to its roots (ie. 1776) , then who knows how long everything will continue.
Once this Queen of England is laid to rest (since the other family members are not pure Israelites), that means nobody truly chosen would be sitting in command on Jacob's Pillow / the Stone of Destiny;
then Christ should be returning to clean this mess up. I welcome it.

Actually all it did was turn me off to your message.

Gonna go outside and get some fresh air now.

Quote :

the Stone of Destiny

That should be the title of the next Indiana Jones movie.

Fat Freddy wrote:

Quote :

the Stone of Destiny

That should be the title of the next Indiana Jones movie.

nope. its the wheelchair of doom!

corplhicks wrote:

Actually all it did was turn me off to your message.

He had a message?

Boris2008 wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

Actually all it did was turn me off to your message.

He had a message?

LOL I honestly don't know, I got as far as "morons."

corplhicks wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

Actually all it did was turn me off to your message.

He had a message?

LOL I honestly don't know, I got as far as "morons."

Should I get you all some tampons? Is it that time of month, or did I hurt your feelings you pansies?
LOL

mlotek wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

Actually all it did was turn me off to your message.

He had a message?

LOL I honestly don't know, I got as far as "morons."

Should I get you all some tampons? Is it that time of month, or did I hurt your feelings you pansies?
LOL

Look pal, you can come here and spew all the arcane knowledge you want but quit with the namecalling. Not only does it cause people to ignore everything else you say it's also juvenile.