Ten Commandments monument controversy

[Firestarter 0]

<passes her hand over her head and makes a "whoosh" sound>

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

 

God can never lose. Greeks who didn't believe in him invented a certain concept BUT he must have put that concept in their heads because he's the source of everything; if Jesus said something that was clearly bigoted it's obvious that he meant something entirely different because Jesus COULDN'T have been a bigot; if the Church was once a font of immorality it doesn't matter anymore because it's CHANGED, and we'll just ignore the priests who still rape children; if the Old Testament tells you to torture, murder, and enslave, well that doesn't matter anymore because there's a New Testament which replaces it BUT we still have to revere the Ten Commandments which are in the Old Testament for some insanely delusional reason I can't be bothered to even speculate about.

 

What a reeking pile of unprovable, circular, self-justifying shit.

 

You two are a perfect spectrum of reasons for not taking Christians seriously. You're stupid, you're ignorant, you're illogical, you're deluded, you're intractable. Your minds are made up. You aren't arguing, you're preaching. Fuck you and fuck your childish dogma. I refused to blindly suck Jesus's cock when smelly old transvestites tried to make me believe this shit, and I won't blindly accept this garbage now. If being a Catholic means acting like a two year-old sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling at the top of his lungs, "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA I LOVE JESUS LA LA LA LA LA LA," then kindly take this post as my resignation from the Church.

You lose.

[Ripper 0]

A common slur for Canaanites at that time was to call them dogs. Jesus, and there is no way you can argue this, called her the equivilent of any racial slur that is used today. Now his motivation to this is unknown and forever will be, but the way it is written, it certainly seems he was talking down on her race not as a test of faith but as talking down on her. Jesus, was human, subject to the same temptations and such as any other man.

 

And once again, I have to call bullshit to every Christian that tries to ignore all of the horrid things in the Old Testament such as the advocating of rape, murder and such, by saying that Jesus and his teaches overrides them all, (which I agree with) but still base most of the other beliefs in the religion on things IN the Old Testement that got overriden. You can't have it both ways. Either you believe in Christ's divinity or you agree with the teachings of the old testament which completely say the opposite thing. Convieniently picking what parts to take literal and what parts to say "But Christ later said" makes you sound like the ultimate revisionist that will taylor make the religion fit whatever you are fighting for at the time.

[Guest EsotericMaster]

yes. when the conversation leads to that, it's normally a clear cut victory.

[Firestarter 0]

Indeed. Telling someone "you lose" or "I win" in an argument is the ultimate concession.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Convieniently picking what parts to take literal and what parts to say "But Christ later said" makes you sound like the ultimate revisionist that will taylor make the religion fit whatever you are fighting for at the time.

Maybe SP will back me up here... when studying the Bible, especially for Biblical Scholars, its pretty easy to differentiate between out-of-date terrible customs of the time and divine teachings.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

But it's the literal word of god, right?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Nope.

[Ripper 0]

Convieniently picking what parts to take literal and what parts to say "But Christ later said" makes you sound like the ultimate revisionist that will taylor make the religion fit whatever you are fighting for at the time.

Maybe SP will back me up here... when studying the Bible, especially for Biblical Scholars, its pretty easy to differentiate between out-of-date terrible customs of the time and divine teachings.

Sooo...the bibles stance on Homosexuality couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the fact that the survival of a entire people was built on every man procreating and if you were gay, you wouldn't procreate? You don't think that has ANYTHING to do with that?

 

Or the fact that Jesus specifically says, time and time again, that Love stands above all of the teachings...in other words, if two homosexuals are in love, then it isn't a sin, now is it?

 

We could really go over most of the stances on todays Christian beliefs and point out where it is no longer relevant or was overridden by Jesus's teachings.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Sooo...the bibles stance on Homosexuality couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the fact that the survival of a entire people was built on every man procreating and if you were gay, you wouldn't procreate? You don't think that has ANYTHING to do with that?

Of course it does. But one passage in Leviticus isn't the only reason that homosexual activity, not orientation, is prohibited. You first have to understand the Church's official line on the sexual act...then it's easy to understand why they can't possibly allow gay sex.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

homosexual activity, not orientation, is prohibited.

 

That's ridiculous, how can their feelings for each other be permissible if expressing that is prohibited? That's a completely two-faced and skewed way of looking at it.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Keep reading my post.

 

EDIT: Also, you can't control your attractions and feelings but you can control your actions.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Read mine again. If that's how the church sees things, it's completely despicable.

 

Sure, you can love whoever you want..but as soon as you fuck that person..shame shame.

[Ripper 0]

Sooo...the bibles stance on Homosexuality couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the fact that the survival of a entire people was built on every man procreating and if you were gay, you wouldn't procreate? You don't think that has ANYTHING to do with that?

Of course it does. But one passage in Leviticus isn't the only reason that homosexual activity, not orientation, is prohibited. You first have to understand the Church's official line on the sexual act...then it's easy to understand why they can't possibly allow gay sex.

Yes, the church believes that sex ultimate (and strangely only goal) is for procreation. Therefore they don't allow "gay" sex. Of course instead of saying we think this, they say "But GOD said so...he did...really...ignore that rest of the bible it says it here and here and here that being gay=go to hell."

 

And that is their same stance on marriage. That marriage, above all (and I mean all, even companionship) is to procreate. Of course that means old people and people unable to have kids with each other should either A: not get married or B: Go find someone that can give you kids.

 

The church’s stance on homosexuality and divorce, just to name two are built on dated necessities and misogyny. Yet they constantly point to the Old Testament to say "Well God said it". Then you point to the next verse where it says that if you take over an enemies land its cool to rape his children and wife and the EXACT same person will say "Oh...that’s the Old Testament, the New Testament teaches against that." It is the most incredibly stupid way of arguing that I have ever seen, honestly.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Yet they constantly point to the old testement to say "Well God said it". Then you point to the next verse where it says that if you take over a enemies land its cool to rape his children and wife and the EXACT same person will say "Oh...thats the old testement, the new testement teaches against that." It is the most incredibly stupid way of arguing that I have ever seen, honestly

 

Definitely, Ripper, and since that's almost always the case, I don't see how anyone can take a bit of it seriously.

[Ripper 0]

Yet they constantly point to the old testement to say "Well God said it". Then you point to the next verse where it says that if you take over a enemies land its cool to rape his children and wife and the EXACT same person will say "Oh...thats the old testement, the new testement teaches against that." It is the most incredibly stupid way of arguing that I have ever seen, honestly

 

Definitely, Ripper, and since that's almost always the case, I don't see how anyone can take a bit of it seriously.

I do have to respect the guys here for at least making points. Ususally I am hit with "Trust in the lord with all your heart, and lean not to your own understanding." and the other person walks off like they have won.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Yes, the church belives that sex ultimate (and strangely only goal) is for procreation. Therefore they don't allow "gay" sex. Of course instead of saying we think this, they say "But GOD said so...he did...really...ignore that rest of the bible it says it here and here and here that being gay=go to hell."

Wrong. The Church's stance is that every sexual act must serve a dual purpose of life-giving and love-giving. Sex purely for procreation is wrong. Sex purely for pleasure is wrong. Both the possibility of procreation and the expression of love between the wife and husband must be present.

 

The churchs stance on homosexuality and divorce, just to name two are built on dated necessities and mysoginy.

Bullshit on divorce. Marriage, which is divine in origin, is a Holy Sacrament. It is indissoluble until death. It is by nature above human law and cannot be ended by human law.

 

Yet they constantly point to the old testement to say "Well God said it". Then you point to the next verse where it says that if you take over a enemies land its cool to rape his children and wife and the EXACT same person will say "Oh...thats the old testement, the new testement teaches against that." It is the most incredibly stupid way of arguing that I have ever seen, honestly.

I've never done that.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

EDIT: Also, you can't control your attractions and feelings but you can control your actions.

 

And that just perpetuates some shame culture of a person feeling like a sinner BECAUSE of wanting to act on those feelings. It's not possible to have it one way but not the other.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

And that just perpetuates some shame culture of a person feeling like a sinner BECAUSE of wanting to act on those feelings. It's not possible to have it one way but not the other.

It's exactly the same as the Church's line on premarital sex.

 

I should note that I'm merely pointing out and defending the Church's official position. My views are a bit different.

[Guest SP-1]

Spicy's stance comes from what appears to be a somewhat Catholic viewpoint.

 

Most of us Protestants see marriage as a spiritual, emotional, and physical bond under God, with sex being a deep expression of love. It doesn't have to be about procreation only. It's also traditionally an act of sealing the deal, so to speak, between man and wife, which is why virginity until marriage is promoted.

 

Levitical stances on homosexuality are not the only instances where God expresses his disdain for it and declares it sinful. Sodom and Gamorrah were both embroiled in sexual sins among many other things, to the point where God took mercy on the righteous Lot and told him to leave before it was too late. The Apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration and leadership of the Holy Spirit, also wrote about homosexuality.

 

My heart bleeds for those whose hearts are hardened. Despite her obvious dislike for those of us who are vocal and active in our beliefs, and her refusal to believe that we believe anything other than what she thinks we believe, I still love her. Doesn't matter to her or to most anyone else but a Christian that has a heart full of spite and hate needs to check themselves out with Jesus to see what's up.

[Guest SP-1]

And also, don't confuse the Catholic Church's internal problems with how the Protestant church is operating. We all have our problems but the belief systems do differ quite a bit.

 

EDIT: Bad wording. I was just pointing out that there's a difference between catholics and protestants.

 

In the end, the problems both share come from unbiblical acts from people who have things to work out on their own with God.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I recommend temptation. What have you got to lose? Shame culture and woe? Fundies? Contradiction? Superstition?...

 

Sharing a faith with Spiderpoet?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Spicy's stance comes from what appears to be a somewhat Catholic viewpoint.

Yes. My background is a conservative Catholic one, but I've become pretty liberal, theologically.

 

It doesn't have to be about procreation only.

I'm saying that the Church says it has to be about both equally.

 

My view is that every sexual relationship should be open to life...meaning the couple can use contraception as long as they intend to have kids or will be open to a child if it fails.

[Guest SP-1]

Yeah, Spicy, I know alot of people that tend to look at it that way. I can't think of a reason why it isn't valid, myself, and it has it's good points.

 

 

And AoO, alot of the "Contradictions" that people tend to go on about are usually cultural or prophetic things that are fulfilled in ways that are unexpected. I certainly don't know all of them but there are books and theological/biblical resources out there that go through and explain how the Bible does indeed fit together.

 

But, naturally, someone who is hardened towards one viewpoint won't investigate the possibility that it's wrong. But there are resources if it ever interests anyone.

[Ripper 0]

Yeah, Spicy, I know alot of people that tend to look at it that way. I can't think of a reason why it isn't valid, myself, and it has it's good points.

 

 

And AoO, alot of the "Contradictions" that people tend to go on about are usually cultural or prophetic things that are fulfilled in ways that are unexpected. I certainly don't know all of them but there are books and theological/biblical resources out there that go through and explain how the Bible does indeed fit together.

 

But, naturally, someone who is hardened towards one viewpoint won't investigate the possibility that it's wrong. But there are resources if it ever interests anyone.

I say there are no REAL contradictions if you acknowledge that for the most part the Old Testament was disregarded by the teachings of Christ.

 

The teachings of Paul and others afterwards still were filled with obvious additions due to their own feelings (john and revelations being the MOST obvious one.) and not 100% the word of God. The main point of the Moses story was to show that sometimes, no matter how good of a person he might be, Gods messengers might just take his instruction and change it for their own means. The bible remains full of situations and sins that are were necessary to call wrong at the time.

 

I believe that Christ WAS the Son of God and therefore I believe that his teachings are the only unfiltered word of God. Not by the obviously violent, close-minded teachings of the Old Testament or the beliefs built upon the old way that the New Testament falls back onto after Christ returns to heaven.

[EricMM 0]

SP have you ever questioned anything regarding your faith?

 

What if Paul wasn't inspired by the Spirit on the day he wrote those passages on homosexuality, but perhaps basic homophobia?

 

As someone who grew up Jewish and learning the basic OT, he would have been taught that it was wrong the same way we are today.

 

And HE may have believed it.

[Guest MikeSC]

homosexual activity, not orientation, is prohibited.

 

That's ridiculous, how can their feelings for each other be permissible if expressing that is prohibited? That's a completely two-faced and skewed way of looking at it.

Priests aren't supposed to marry.

 

Thus, they can heterosexual but can't act on it.

 

They can have tendencies, but as long as they don't ACT on them, they're good.

 

Same with gays in the church.

 

But, dare to state that the problems in Boston were due to homosexual priests and their activities and you get ripped to shreds.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

homosexual activity, not orientation, is prohibited.

 

That's ridiculous, how can their feelings for each other be permissible if expressing that is prohibited? That's a completely two-faced and skewed way of looking at it.

Priests aren't supposed to marry.

 

Thus, they can heterosexual but can't act on it.

 

They can have tendencies, but as long as they don't ACT on them, they're good.

 

Same with gays in the church.

 

But, dare to state that the problems in Boston were due to homosexual priests and their activities and you get ripped to shreds.

-=Mike

A Guy that fucks 10 year old boys is no more "gay" than a guy that fucks 10 year old girls is "straight".

 

To try and attribute pedophilia to homosexuality is just plain stupid.

[Guest JMA]

A Guy that fucks 10 year old boys is no more "gay" than a guy that fucks 10 year old girls is "straight".

 

To try and attribute pedophilia to homosexuality is just plain stupid.

Agreed. It's often a tactic used by fundies.

[Guest SP-1]

If that were true for Paul, Eric, he would be operating out of a responsibility of living under the Law.

 

Considering Paul specifically wrote that we are to live under the Spirit, and NOT the Law, that kind of takes out that argument. The great part is that if the Spirit is working in a person, and that person is listening and living from that, then the way they live will begin to transform into a basic manifestation of what Jesus boiled all the law down to: Love God with all your heart and love everyone else the same.

 

Why do I believe that the Spirit can take over and give someone the words they need for a writing or a sermon or even a conversation? Because it happens to Christians who are paying attention more often than one would think. I've been faced with situations where I'm witnessing to someone, both online and offline, and I've found myself speaking clearly on scripture or doctrine and afterwards finding myself completely amazed that I knew it. And before anyone says it, the doctrine has been correct and the scripture. The reason most Christians who believe in the Spirit's power do so is because they've experienced the unmistakable power of the Spirit at work in themselves.

 

That's a pretty basic Christian POV.