Pope Francis: Atheists can also go to heaven!

[+Sherapy]

And how does any of this address the question of whether a person is "inferior". Remember, these are your words, not mine!

Simply putting it in context. Either accept it, or buy a puppy and get over it. Your choice!

And of course my own possible "sin" has no part at all to play in this. You've neatly ignored my entire conundrum, all in order to support your ignorance. That says more about you than it does about me, to tell the truth.

1- Jesus died for my sins

2- He rose from the dead as proof that he conquered death.

3- It is by Grace we are saved, through faith, and this not from ourselves, it is the gift of God.

4- Live righteous lives free from sin.

Sorry, Shadowhive, as I was laying out what necessity made a person Christian, I got as far as Point 4. At this, I saw the claim and decided that righteous living was number 4 on God's scale. That includes the non-acceptance of gay relationships.

But that said, "taking care of itself" is simply my way of saying that if we can educate people to the point that they remove fear of the unknown, then the religious idea that the unknown is to be feared will sort itself out. After all, it happened in my society, why should I not expect it to happen in other societies!??!??!?!?!?

Pa, do you agree the choices one makes define them?

If you can agree to this then you can understand that Shadow is not "ignorant" for asking why you accept a belief that causes harm.

IMO that is what he is seeking clarity on?

[Irrelevant]

So truth be told Shadow, if I'm reading your words correctly ( and forgive me please if they are incorrect) in repeating them back, you are a Gay advocate who has decided Christianity should die , so have decided to confront the Christian apologist's such as Bluefinger who is a fine gentleman on UM and try strike at the very core of there beliefs? That's not going to happen dear. My advice is to try find peace in yourself, forgiveness to all and love, love that shown to you by PA..who went to great lengths and showed great heart. Even when its shown there's churches that encourage Gays into there congregation its not enough..no, you want Christianity to die, and replace it with what? Secularism?? Where by your own words you readily accept incest? Between fathers and kids and sisters and brothers...then say to PA by his own words he is convicted. Do you think such a argument has any merit? Do you think this brings glory to homosexuals and atheist such as yourself? Dear, you have galvanised your Christian brothers! You have strengthened there purpose..

I salute you! The lord works in mysterious ways..

[Irrelevant]

And I'll say it straight! This is why I fight for kids, that these relationships pose threat to children..I do what's right for the children ...

[shadowhive]

So truth be told Shadow, if I'm reading your words correctly ( and forgive me please if they are incorrect) in repeating them back, you are a Gay advocate who has decided Christianity should die , so have decided to confront the Christian apologist's such as Bluefinger who is a fine gentleman on UM and try strike at the very core of there beliefs? That's not going to happen dear. My advice is to try find peace in yourself, forgiveness to all and love, love that shown to you by PA..who went to great lengths and showed great heart. Even when its shown there's churches that encourage Gays into there congregation its not enough..no, you want Christianity to die, and replace it with what? Secularism?? Where by your own words you readily accept incest? Between fathers and kids and sisters and brothers...then say to PA by his own words he is convicted. Do you think such a argument has any merit? Do you think this brings glory to homosexuals and atheist such as yourself? Dear, you have galvanised your Christian brothers! You have strengthened there purpose..

I salute you! The lord works in mysterious ways..

No, christianity shouldn't die. It should adapt The church used to be rapidly racist. It adapted. It used to be sexist. It adapted, although it still has some gaping holes there. Some christians have already adapted the belief, so it is NOT a key component to christianity.

Homophbia has no place in this world and if christianity is enabling it than it needs to adpt to stop doing so. That will not 'kill off' christianity and to suggest it will is, in my opinion, madness and flawed.

I won't forgive those that keep a belief which enables harm to continue in such a manner. Showing 'love' like pa does is meaningless since he has loopholes which let him get out of acceptance of others at will.

But I will be honest with you. I would rather the human race grows out of religion. It has caused great pain and held humanity back. It continues to do so to this day (and not just christianity).

I won't let incest derail things like believers do. you want to discusss that we will do it elsewhere. But rememeber the bible was rife with incest. Especially Adam and eve.

Strengthen your purpose to do what? Bring harm and destruction to others?

And I'll say it straight! This is why I fight for kids, that these relationships pose threat to children..I do what's right for the children ...

People that use this arguement are not 'for children'.

First,if I have a relationship with a man, it has no impact on any children.

Second, if a gay couple have children they have to make the choice to do so. No accidental, unwanted or unloved children there.

Third, being against such relationships means you;re against the children already being cared for in such relationships.

Four,not once have I seen a logical reason why or how gay relationships will 'harm children'

It's in my experience that people that say relationships pose a threat to children, they really don't care about children at all. Not unless those children are in the cookiee cutter perfect family.

All you're doing is using children as weapons and you somehow think that makes your arguemnet a worthy one? No it does not.

Edited May 31, 2013 by shadowhive

[Bluefinger]

Matt, a few posts later you speak of how you do not think that the idea of "Hell" makes any sense to you.

that is how many feel about the 'homosexuality is a sin idea' also, it doesn't make sense in the context of our modern times.

Its not the same Sherapy. You can't use modern philosophy to interpret what the Bible says about something. You have to use the culture an hisorical context in which the texts were written. In addition, the Bible is inconsistent about what people have said about hell because their intepretation of hell did not come from the culture through hell was first mentioned.

In modern terms, the OT is Judaism and this religion changes to match the times and needs of its culture.

Unless God changes, His standards don't change. Even with modern times. If you want to keep up with the times, you have to call it by a new name. But, if you want to get what somebody in a historical document like a Bible text meant, you have to reference their culture and historical background, not yours.

Science,Psychology etc. have contributed so much to human understanding on so many levels, including sexuality, that when we are forming our conclusions we have to consider all the data.

I want to ask you why you think it is a good 'reason' to follow an idea that could cause harm to others?

I don't. I've never harmed a homosexual. When my brother had a sex change, I didn't have to stop being Christian in order to accept him. Nor did I have to drop my disagreement with homosexuality to accept him. That's because I don't think he's going to some 'pit of fire' for all eternity. I'm much more concerned about him knowing God and taking care of His creation. Everything I believe in applies to hear and now, not sometime someplace in the future. The kingdom of God is here now and I assure you that my brother, now my sister, has inherited that kingdom.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Bluefinger

[Bluefinger]

Sex CAN lead to pregnancy but it's not 100% effective. Sex with multiple partners can lead to those thingss but, again, not 100% of the time.

We 'cheat' the natural system every day. Ever been to the doctor? Taken medicine? Had surgery? You could say all those are cheats but I bet you wouldn't suggest they were in the same manner.

Helping someone overcome a cold and helping somone kill a fetus can be two separate things, especially when the sex was just for fun.

Unwanted pregnancy and STI's are common place in some areas due to lack of sex education or the church's reaction of it. Just loo at the HIV/AIDs epedemic in Africa, where contraception would stop the spread of the disease and has been offered, but the church has told everyone not to take it.

Because people shouldn't be having se with strangera and multiple people. Should be committed to one relationship. Now its gotten to the point where contraceptives are necessary cor even a pure committed couple because of people being born with the virus.

So in other words, the bible can ignore any fact it likes at will. Good to know.

The church ahs has a history off social control. For centuries it helped treat women as inferior and helped keep black people as slaves, so excuse me for not taking it as the best example when it comes to social decisions when the past has shown it's a poor fit for that at best.

You do realize that Christians were also at the forefrot of the activism that led to these reforms, right? William Wilberforce being one of them. Culture treated people bad because it failed to losten to Jesus, whom treated women with dignity and opened the kingdom of God to all people of every color. Like a budget, the Bible doesn't do any good if people don't use it and use it correctly. So this one doesn't fly by me. Wherever there is a dollar to be gained, rest assured that the earner will permit injustice and equality for the sake of it. Twas the benefit of keeping women and black people down.

I can't excuse you until Christians stop giving so much to the poor and volunteering so much for social activism. You pointing out crooked examples does not justify your argument any more than me calling out Stalin's brutality toward Chriatians justifies saying that atheism is dangerous. You don't get off the hook on this one.

Ah yes, so because Jews didn't join him, that's why they were the victims of a genocide. You're not selling me on anything with that.

If they had followed Him, they wouldn't have fought against Rome, leading to the slaughter or approximately a million Jews, many by their own hands during the seige-induced famine. So yea, I am correct.

The out that I mentioned, was marriage.

A sucessful society does not hold one family unit as perfect and label all others as inferior, nor does it ignore the reality that others exist.

Basically that's 'homosexual couples should have the same rights but christians teach that it's wrong to give them rights and treat them as equals'.

You're right, christianity doesn't look too highly on that or many other things either. But the funny thing is there seems to be an unhealthy focus by christians on gay rights, but none on the rest.

You can thank the 'religious right' for that one. They'll say anything to get a vote these days. Its all political shadowhive. All of it.

When was the last time you heard of christians wanting laws against people hoarding wealth?

All the time. Just because someone is Christian in America, it doesn't mean that they are Republicans.

I know several people whose hearts bleed for the poor and they zealously advertise their disgust at exploiting others for profit.

That is, of course, beside the point. It's a seperate issue.

But, if you want me to answer that simply. Yes they should. As long as both are consenting adults I don't think they should be stopped from doing it.

Where does it become wrong? Keywords. Consenting adults. That's where a line is drawn. Beyond that it becomes wrong.

So you are okay with a brother and a sister having sexual intercourse, getting married, and having children? Nothing about that seems disagreeable to you?

In some cultures, 13 years old is old enough to marry. What about that? What I'm trying to point out is that cultures everywhere are still trying to get it right. So we shouldn't assume that religion is wrong because its written in a book but the personal opinion of a liberal activist is correct because others see it the same. There has to be a standard for something to be called 'right.'

Additionally, it seems like you are saying that Christians shouldn't judge homosexuals as wrong because it causes harm whereas its okay to openly discriminate and slander (cause harm) to Christians. So you can say whatever you want but we can't? Am I understanding you correctly?

I don't kow why that's such a difficult concept for religious people to grasp.

Not too long ago it was wrong for interracial and interfaith couples to marry, because of religious groups. Maybe religions should stop focusing on who people marry and instead get down to bigger matters. You know, that little thing called helping others. There's homeless people, there's sick people, there's starving people. All those are more deserving of the church's focus than who people marry.

I assure you that the Church as a whole focuses on those issues more than homosexuality. Again, its about American politics and saying what it takes to get a vote. Why did it take a filibuster for William Wilberforce to slowly kill the slave trade? Because profits of a few individuals were given more esteem than the justice and equity of thousands. As usual.

Mercy, in my experience is not shown by christians. Judgement, in my experience, is. I see pretty much all chrstians as 'casting stones'. Maybe not physical ones, but definitely ones in terms of condemnation, judgement and causing suffering in others.

Unfortunately, you are correct. It is a side-affect of Greek philisophy-based Chriatian theology. The two aren't entirely compatible, but Orthodoxy insisted they were. We're still reeling from it. But prophecy said this would happen. (Rev. 11.)

When you have a theology that is open to interpretation, expect it to be (gasp) interpreted differently. The jews interpreted things one way, but that's not excuse for letting a million of them die or bringing that death upon them.

I agree with the first part. But the Jews killed Jesus and His followers. John the Baptist and Jesus warned that Judea's destruction was near. So, how could the Jews have prevented their deaths?

Also, with the end of the Jewish Nation came the suppression of Jewish thought, even within the Christian community. Remember, it was originally Greeks that suppressed Judaism years before. So, suppression of differing opinion is inherent to our culture and isn't necessarily a biproduct of Christian teaching.

If the original theology was Jewish and then it switched to Greek, is imperative that we understand that. It isn't a fact you should easily brush off.

What exactly should I be foriving the greeks for? For bringing hell int the equation? No because there has been well over a thousand years for that belief to have been corrected internally. Clearly the church saw value in such a thing which is why it still exists as a concept. That's not the fault of the greeks.

But we know now that they were wrong. So why is hell still an issue? It goes back to the theology...and the politics. Seriously, if money wasn't involved, it would have never become a big deal.

Ah, I find that christians always have a way of doing that. They want people to follow certain parts of the bible to the letter yet always have an exccuse why they don't follow the rest up their sleeves. For every part of the bible that says to do something a believer will always find a way not to do the thing. If the bible says not to do something, they will always find a way which allows them to do it. But if another believer does so, it's wrong.

Sin, to me, is an absurd concept.

Your entire argument can be summed up with a short response: Bad theology. It is evidently imperative that we labor to find the original and correct interpretation.

I'm going to use the example you said to illustrate my point. If an technician makes a minor error with no real impact, you can let it slide. If the the error the techincian makes results in a coworker being injured than something has to be done. If that co-worker is killed by that mistake than stronger action needs to taken. Now while all three of those examples made errors, the method for handling that error is very different. One error (reulting in death) is worse than another. You, I and everyne here would be able to clearly state that the death of a person is worse than making an error that effects nothing.

Now with god, god has a laundry list of sins and all of them result in the same punishment, regardless of how minor the sin may be. And that, to me does not make sense. No justice system on earth would function if it acted in such a manner so I fail to see why an entity that is supposedly wiser than us has such a poor grasp of morality and justice.

How 'clear' is the bible about that? It's mentioned very little and one of the major examples has been theorised to be a mistranslation.

Again, what the bible says shouldn't override facts outside it. And, again, acting like it does reeks off ignorance to the real world.

Calling a loving committed couple sinners has the intent of harming them and the impact of labelling them as a negative thing, neither of which is right or true. That's the real intent and impact. Words in a book used to cause people suffering. But it's ok, because that book is the bible.

Not all result in death penalty actually. But the arguments of the New Testament address this dilemma, if one would consider it.

On the latter part. I actually agree with you.

[+Sherapy]

Its not the same Sherapy. You can't use modern philosophy to interpret what the Bible says about something. You have to use the culture an hisorical context in which the texts were written. In addition, the Bible is inconsistent about what people have said about hell because their intepretation of hell did not come from the culture through hell was first mentioned.

Unless God changes, His standards don't change. Even with modern times. If you want to keep up with the times, you have to call it by a new name. But, if you want to get what somebody in a historical document like a Bible text meant, you have to reference their culture and historical background, not yours.

I don't. I've never harmed a homosexual. When my brother had a sex change, I didn't have to stop being Christian in order to accept him. Nor did I have to drop my disagreement with homosexuality to accept him. That's because I don't think he's going to some 'pit of fire' for all eternity. I'm much more concerned about him knowing God and taking care of His creation. Everything I believe in applies to hear and now, not sometime someplace in the future. The kingdom of God is here now and I assure you that my brother, now my sister, has inherited that kingdom.

Thank you for your response Matthew, I had a feeling if I asked you would answer honestly.

Its nice to to see you are guided by love and tolerance first and foremost.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Sherapy

[Bluefinger]

No, christianity shouldn't die. It should adapt The church used to be rapidly racist. It adapted. It used to be sexist. It adapted, although it still has some gaping holes there. Some christians have already adapted the belief, so it is NOT a key component to christianity.

I disagree. Nowhere in the New Testament is racism, forced bondage, or sexism promoted. Christianity didn't have to adapt. Culture did. It's important that Christ's teachings and cultural perspective be separated and not judged the same.

Homophbia has no place in this world and if christianity is enabling it than it needs to adpt to stop doing so. That will not 'kill off' christianity and to suggest it will is, in my opinion, madness and flawed.

That's like saying that Christians should stop believing in God once the world becomes predominantly atheistic.

I won't forgive those that keep a belief which enables harm to continue in such a manner. Showing 'love' like pa does is meaningless since he has loopholes which let him get out of acceptance of others at will.

I'll call the BS card on that one. Until you can accept Christians for they are and forgive them for their imperfections, you are just as bad as the people you criticize.

But I will be honest with you. I would rather the human race grows out of religion. It has caused great pain and held humanity back. It continues to do so to this day (and not just christianity).

So said the Russians before they killed hundreds of thousands of unarmed Christians during their Revolution. Religion doesn't hold humanity back. The love of money does. Take the dollar out of religion and you have nothing worth killing over. The love of money is indeed the root to all kinds of evil.

I won't let incest derail things like believers do. you want to discusss that we will do it elsewhere. But rememeber the bible was rife with incest. Especially Adam and eve.

Strengthen your purpose to do what? Bring harm and destruction to others?

People that use this arguement are not 'for children'.

First,if I have a relationship with a man, it has no impact on any children.

Second, if a gay couple have children they have to make the choice to do so. No accidental, unwanted or unloved children there.

Third, being against such relationships means you;re against the children already being cared for in such relationships.

Four,not once have I seen a logical reason why or how gay relationships will 'harm children'

It's in my experience that people that say relationships pose a threat to children, they really don't care about children at all. Not unless those children are in the cookiee cutter perfect family.

All you're doing is using children as weapons and you somehow think that makes your arguemnet a worthy one? No it does not.

I wouldn't have joined that argument because there are all sorts of ideas floating out there about what makes a perfect household. Anyway, people will continue harm others over any ideal because that is how our culture is and nothing will change that until the culture changes.

Look at New York. People can be straight-up rude to each other. Until the fundamental beliefs that define their culture change, any ideology or religion they pick up will only look like a biproduct of their culture. That is why I pointed out how Christianity today shares many common traits with the Greek philosophies of the first few centuries after Christ. People took a message and filtered it through their culture.

So getting rid of religion isn't going to help people treat each other fairly. It will just carry over.

That is why one must be 'born-again' to enter into the kingdom of God.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Bluefinger

[shadowhive]

Helping someone overcome a cold and helping somone kill a fetus can be two separate things, especially when the sex was just for fun.

I agree that those two things are seperate things, because well, they are. However up until a certain point a fetus doesn't posess life. Before that, it's just simply a bunch of cells. Sure it's a bunch that's capable of becoming a person, but it's not there yet. That's why you can't abort after a certain time.

Abortions for 'sex for fun' are much less necessary if people have access to proper sex education though.

Because people shouldn't be having se with strangera and multiple people. Should be committed to one relationship. Now its gotten to the point where contraceptives are necessary cor even a pure committed couple because of people being born with the virus.

Who people have sex with is, again, none of your or your religions buisness. What people do in the bedroom (as long as it's consentual) shouldn't be anyone's buisness be it with strangers, multiple people or in a committed relationship.

Contraceptives are also used by people in committed relationships because they are not ready to have children, not just because of that virus.

You do realize that Christians were also at the forefrot of the activism that led to these reforms, right? William Wilberforce being one of them. Culture treated people bad because it failed to losten to Jesus, whom treated women with dignity and opened the kingdom of God to all people of every color. Like a budget, the Bible doesn't do any good if people don't use it and use it correctly. So this one doesn't fly by me. Wherever there is a dollar to be gained, rest assured that the earner will permit injustice and equality for the sake of it. Twas the benefit of keeping women and black people down.

I can't excuse you until Christians stop giving so much to the poor and volunteering so much for social activism. You pointing out crooked examples does not justify your argument any more than me calling out Stalin's brutality toward Chriatians justifies saying that atheism is dangerous. You don't get off the hook on this one.

I realise that some christians led reforms but at the same time christians were against them because they're resistant to change. So the fact that some christians led the reform doesn't change that it was other christians that made that reform necessary.

The problem with that is when the bible is used for bad, that bad can spread like a disease and then become dogma for a very long time.

The problem with using one atheist as being an example of all is obvious. Atheists are not all tied by any code. There's not an 'atheist bible'. Yet if a christian does a bad thing and can find biblical justification they can get other christians to do that bad thing as well. As mentioned above, a bad thing can spread through a religion like wildfire. Of course, good teachings can go though the same process.

If they had followed Him, they wouldn't have fought against Rome, leading to the slaughter or approximately a million Jews, many by their own hands during the seige-induced famine. So yea, I am correct.

There is no way you could possibly know that with ny degree of certainty.

You can thank the 'religious right' for that one. They'll say anything to get a vote these days. Its all political shadowhive. All of it.

That's true. Religion and politics are danerous mix.

All the time. Just because someone is Christian in America, it doesn't mean that they are Republicans.

I know several people whose hearts bleed for the poor and they zealously advertise their disgust at exploiting others for profit.

Well the voices certainly seem to very quiet on that front.

I do agree though, exploiting others for profit is disgusting. I saw a thing today that said if bankers bonus were used to feed the hungriest children, it could do it twice over. There's something very wrong with that.

So you are okay with a brother and a sister having sexual intercourse, getting married, and having children? Nothing about that seems disagreeable to you?

In some cultures, 13 years old is old enough to marry. What about that? What I'm trying to point out is that cultures everywhere are still trying to get it right. So we shouldn't assume that religion is wrong because its written in a book but the personal opinion of a liberal activist is correct because others see it the same. There has to be a standard for something to be called 'right.'

Additionally, it seems like you are saying that Christians shouldn't judge homosexuals as wrong because it causes harm whereas its okay to openly discriminate and slander (cause harm) to Christians. So you can say whatever you want but we can't? Am I understanding you correctly?

Their choice, not mine. Largely I have no problem with that (of course there might be problem with the child, but they'd be aware of the possibility and would thus have to be prepared for it).

People should marry when they are mature enough to do so. I'd say late teens is about right. However in the past, people married young. This was because of a practical reason: that lives were short. When life expectancy's are low a low age of marriage is to be expected because of it. Some cultures just haven't scaled the age up since then.

The standard for what is called 'right' has seemed to be flexible. The example above is a prime example of that. However as we move forward, we have to make things more right. Sometimes that involves undoing past wrongs.

No, you're not understanding correctly.

Let me make this clear, ok? I see a belief that causes harm. That belief happens to be christian. I am not slandering the religion, I'm against that belief as well as those that defend and uphold it. That is not the same as slandering christians.

I assure you that the Church as a whole focuses on those issues more than homosexuality. Again, its about American politics and saying what it takes to get a vote. Why did it take a filibuster for William Wilberforce to slowly kill the slave trade? Because profits of a few individuals were given more esteem than the justice and equity of thousands. As usual.

I can assure you it's not just American politics. Here in the Uk, we have had rather virilant christians come up witht he similar sentiments that Americans have. In France, they've had christians against people hold violent protests. So no, it's not a uniquely American thing.

Unfortunately, you are correct. It is a side-affect of Greek philisophy-based Chriatian theology. The two aren't entirely compatible, but Orthodoxy insisted they were. We're still reeling from it. But prophecy said this would happen. (Rev. 11.)

It is unfortunate.

I'm not going to take prophecy as fact, especially when the prophecy comes off as, well mad.

I agree with the first part. But the Jews killed Jesus and His followers. John the Baptist and Jesus warned that Judea's destruction was near. So, how could the Jews have prevented their deaths?

Also, with the end of the Jewish Nation came the suppression of Jewish thought, even within the Christian community. Remember, it was originally Greeks that suppressed Judaism years before. So, suppression of differing opinion is inherent to our culture and isn't necessarily a biproduct of Christian teaching.

If the original theology was Jewish and then it switched to Greek, is imperative that we understand that. It isn't a fact you should easily brush off.

Ok, so some jews killed jesus and his folllowers.... so that makes the death of a million acceptable? I don't know how the jews could have prevented their deaths. It's easy to look back and offer suggestions and possibilities, but we don't know if any would have worked.

Surpression is a common thing whenever a religion comes to power. It surpresses all others. The sad thing is that christians suffered from roman surpression so knew what it was like. But when they came to power what did they do? Surpress.

But we know now that they were wrong. So why is hell still an issue? It goes back to the theology...and the politics. Seriously, if money wasn't involved, it would have never become a big deal.

I don't know why it's still an issue. My bet is it remained because it was a good tool to surpress people. Hell's a very good fear-based tool.

Your entire argument can be summed up with a short response: Bad theology. It is evidently imperative that we labor to find the original and correct interpretation.

I agree it's bad theology. I'd also say that we shouldn't trust people who had no knowledge about human sexuality to dictate what is and isn't correct.

I agree, we should find that original one. The question is would it make any difference?

Not all result in death penalty actually. But the arguments of the New Testament address this dilemma, if one would consider it.

On the latter part. I actually agree with you.

And which are those?

Well that's something at least.

[+Sherapy]

No, christianity shouldn't die. It should adapt The church used to be rapidly racist. It adapted. It used to be sexist. It adapted, although it still has some gaping holes there. Some christians have already adapted the belief, so it is NOT a key component to christianity.

Homophbia has no place in this world and if christianity is enabling it than it needs to adpt to stop doing so. That will not 'kill off' christianity and to suggest it will is, in my opinion, madness and flawed.

I won't forgive those that keep a belief which enables harm to continue in such a manner. Showing 'love' like pa does is meaningless since he has loopholes which let him get out of acceptance of others at will.

But I will be honest with you. I would rather the human race grows out of religion. It has caused great pain and held humanity back. It continues to do so to this day (and not just christianity).

I won't let incest derail things like believers do. you want to discusss that we will do it elsewhere. But rememeber the bible was rife with incest. Especially Adam and eve.

Strengthen your purpose to do what? Bring harm and destruction to others?

People that use this arguement are not 'for children'.

First,if I have a relationship with a man, it has no impact on any children.

Second, if a gay couple have children they have to make the choice to do so. No accidental, unwanted or unloved children there.

Third, being against such relationships means you;re against the children already being cared for in such relationships.

Four,not once have I seen a logical reason why or how gay relationships will 'harm children'

It's in my experience that people that say relationships pose a threat to children, they really don't care about children at all. Not unless those children are in the cookiee cutter perfect family.

All you're doing is using children as weapons and you somehow think that makes your arguemnet a worthy one? No it does not.

I agree, I will always accept change. In fact, in many churches things are changing. It is through the process of trial and error we figure out who we are, who we want to be, how we want to represent ourselves.

My parents are practicing a form of Christianity that is harmful, most of all to them. It limits how close we can be, (at this point not very)they are still in the slavery mentality, for me it isn't about forgiveness, they simply are misinformed, their beliefs have created a cocoon that has cut them off from other ideas, other people. The sad part is they do not even see this as anything wrong. I look for ways to bridge the gulf between us and my progress is miniscule at best. I do not see them as bad people or malicious I see them as lost. I for one know that they will have to work to wake up and it won't be easy to say they have been wrong, but I still hope for the best because I think anything is possible. So I just want to tell you I am sorry for what you went through, you did not deserve it at all and I can see why you are angry/hurt; in fact, it is justified. People do as good as they know how that is what I have learned in my years, this includes me. Often the problem is lack of knowledge and understanding and simply just not knowing how to be better. That you spend so much time trying to raise awareness does matter, so if I can make a suggestion maybe you could use your anger towards that instead of not being forgiving, simply because it won't help like being an advocate/agent for something better, okay?

[shadowhive]

I disagree. Nowhere in the New Testament is racism, forced bondage, or sexism promoted. Christianity didn't have to adapt. Culture did. It's important that Christ's teachings and cultural perspective be separated and not judged the same.

And yet somehow parts of the bible was used as justification for all of those things and the justification carried enough weight to make them last. Once christians took the justification on board it and maintained it well, the religion then became part of the problem. Christians could simply have refute the justifications in the begining and fought against them, but it took a long time for them to do so.

That's like saying that Christians should stop believing in God once the world becomes predominantly atheistic.

No, it's really not.

I'll call the BS card on that one. Until you can accept Christians for they are and forgive them for their imperfections, you are just as bad as the people you criticize.

I forgive people for their imperfections but there is a limit. There are some imperfections that I can't forgive, not unless the person works on them.

Let's give an example (an extreme onee because it shows the point simply). If someone came here and said they were a serial killer and would kill again (unlikely) I'd not forgive them for killing because, at the end of the day, they're going to just go off and do it again. If they stopped and shown remorse and regret then forgiveness could begin.

So said the Russians before they killed hundreds of thousands of unarmed Christians during their Revolution. Religion doesn't hold humanity back. The love of money does. Take the dollar out of religion and you have nothing worth killing over. The love of money is indeed the root to all kinds of evil.

I'm not so sure taking money out of religion will solve things so much. I guess we'd have to try it to find out.

I wouldn't have joined that argument because there are all sorts of ideas floating out there about what makes a perfect household. Anyway, people will continue harm others over any ideal because that is how our culture is and nothing will change that until the culture changes.

Look at New York. People can be straight-up rude to each other. Until the fundamental beliefs that define their culture change, any ideology or religion they pick up will only look like a biproduct of their culture. That is why I pointed out how Christianity today shares many common traits with the Greek philosophies of the first few centuries after Christ. People took a message and filtered it through their culture.

So getting rid of religion isn't going to help people treat each other fairly. It will just carry over.

That is why one must be 'born-again' to enter into the kingdom of God.

I don't think there's such a thing as a perfect household to be honest. And if there was, perfection is not reality and no families or households are the same to begin with, so shouldn't be hold to such a standard anyway.

You probably have a point there.

Maybe, but personally it would get rid of some of the reasons that hold up such treatment and make changing it and making things better.

mostt christians don't seem too born again though

[Bluefinger]

I agree that those two things are seperate things, because well, they are. However up until a certain point a fetus doesn't posess life. Before that, it's just simply a bunch of cells. Sure it's a bunch that's capable of becoming a person, but it's not there yet. That's why you can't abort after a certain time.

Abortions for 'sex for fun' are much less necessary if people have access to proper sex education though.

I dunno. Sexual desire ha a tendency to act against reason and education. So, in theory, proper education should work. In reality, it isn't a sure-shot way to curb 'abortions-for-fun.'

Who people have sex with is, again, none of your or your religions buisness. What people do in the bedroom (as long as it's consentual) shouldn't be anyone's buisness be it with strangers, multiple people or in a committed relationship.

Agreed. And I don't want to know. But I have to be prepares to give a response to my future children when they ask me how how God feels about homosexuality. My aim is for them to honor God, not discriminate against homosexuals.

I realise that some christians led reforms but at the same time christians were against them because they're resistant to change. So the fact that some christians led the reform doesn't change that it was other christians that made that reform necessary.

Wouldn't you say that the same thing happens in every culture, including among atheists? The rich call the shots. The activists fire back with words and demonstrations. It isn't something solely caused by religion.

The problem with that is when the bible is used for bad, that bad can spread like a disease and then become dogma for a very long time.

The problem with using one atheist as being an example of all is obvious. Atheists are not all tied by any code. There's not an 'atheist bible'. Yet if a christian does a bad thing and can find biblical justification they can get other christians to do that bad thing as well. As mentioned above, a bad thing can spread through a religion like wildfire. Of course, good teachings can go though the same process.

So people are people. I don't need to drop my Christian belief to come to terms with that though.

That's true. Religion and politics are danerous mix.

Well the voices certainly seem to very quiet on that front.

I do agree though, exploiting others for profit is disgusting. I saw a thing today that said if bankers bonus were used to feed the hungriest children, it could do it twice over. There's something very wrong with that.

I just paid off a car I took out a loan on in 2008 for $18,000. Once all was said and done, I ended up paying $27,000 for the car, though it isn't even worth $3,000 in trade-in value toward a new car. I paid $9,200 in interest charges based on a 13.99% APR.

Ridiculous! They could have at least gave me a refund for a bit of the finance charge for proving faithful in my payments. Nope. Nadda. Zip. Zilch.

Their choice, not mine. Largely I have no problem with that (of course there might be problem with the child, but they'd be aware of the possibility and would thus have to be prepared for it).

People should marry when they are mature enough to do so. I'd say late teens is about right. However in the past, people married young. This was because of a practical reason: that lives were short. When life expectancy's are low a low age of marriage is to be expected because of it. Some cultures just haven't scaled the age up since then.

The standard for what is called 'right' has seemed to be flexible. The example above is a prime example of that. However as we move forward, we have to make things more right. Sometimes that involves undoing past wrongs.

It has evidently been flexible. But should it?

No, you're not understanding correctly.

Let me make this clear, ok? I see a belief that causes harm. That belief happens to be christian. I am not slandering the religion, I'm against that belief as well as those that defend and uphold it. That is not the same as slandering christians.

But if a Christian is against homosexuals and their beliefs about homosexuals, then its wrong? Certainly this can't just be a matter of finger-pointing, can it?

I can assure you it's not just American politics. Here in the Uk, we have had rather virilant christians come up witht he similar sentiments that Americans have. In France, they've had christians against people hold violent protests. So no, it's not a uniquely American thing.

I guess that makes sense, since Europeans from England, Spain, Germany, Italy, and France all migrate here.

It is unfortunate.

I'm not going to take prophecy as fact, especially when the prophecy comes off as, well mad.

Ok, so some jews killed jesus and his folllowers.... so that makes the death of a million acceptable?

Acceptable? Heck no! I never said it was a good thing. Even Paul would rather have been condemned if he could have saved his people.

Jesus told a parable that said, "If the eye of the body is light, the whole body is light. But if the eye of the body is dark, the whole body is dark." Now, considering that Jesus spent most of his arguments against the Jewish religious leaders, it shouldn't be hard to understand what he meant.

The religious leaders were the eye and those that followed them were the body. The million Jews died because they followed their leaders to their deaths.

I don't know how the jews could have prevented their deaths. It's easy to look back and offer suggestions and possibilities, but we don't know if any would have worked.

Well, the Bible's reasoning is that their religious leaders were corrupt. Josephus blamed their political leaders.

Surpression is a common thing whenever a religion comes to power. It surpresses all others. The sad thing is that christians suffered from roman surpression so knew what it was like. But when they came to power what did they do? Surpress.

The Roman government found little resistance when it took hold because Latin philosophy had taken hold in Rome among Christian aristocrats, according to Justo L. Gonzalez in his book Christian Thought Revisited. Stoicism was all about law and order through military might. Well, moreso the Pax Romana a common belief among all Romans that caused them to suppress things that could destabilize the peace intheir empire. So nothing changed about the Roman culture when Christianity became the state religion except for the name of their religion.

Romans were essentially Romans.

I don't know why it's still an issue. My bet is it remained because it was a good tool to surpress people. Hell's a very good fear-based tool.

I suppose the Roman papacy may know something about that.

I agree it's bad theology. I'd also say that we shouldn't trust people who had no knowledge about human sexuality to dictate what is and isn't correct.

I agree, we should find that original one. The question is would it make any difference?

If we look at the muslims that kill to get to Paradise, we could probably have our best example.

And which are those?

Well that's something at least.

Eating the wrong food for example.

[+Link of Hyrule]

I was getting to that, but you evaded the questions that were central to the point I was tring to make.

If your answer to both is yes (which seems to be the case) then gay people are inferior by virtue of a: being sinners for their sexual orintation and b: the belief that they're thrown into hell/denied heaven because of it.

That to me, translates as seeing someone as inferior.

I give up. You believe something about me that I do not hold true. That's not my problem, and I refuse to go over it again with you - either accept my words, or don't accept them, I'm done with discussing it further.

Ah, lovely sentiments.

I expect nothing less from someone that's happy to believe in a place where nobelievers burn.

I don't believe in a place where non-believers burn! Where did you get this notion? I believe that those who do not reach salvation and heaven earn the fate of the "second death". I'll attach an essay I wrote about this topic to this post. Maybe you'll learn something new about me. It will take about 15 minutes to read (3,500 words is not a quick read), but if you're willing to sit through it, you will learn something you didn't know before, and knowledge is never a bad thing.

Opposite of Heaven UM copy.doc

No it doesn't. Because, of course, you as always will play the 'choice' card. You make 'acting' on sexuality a choice so it can be used as a comparison to anything else.

Love is a funny thing and should not be considered a choice. Nor should love be considered a sin. If you allow yourself to believe that love is a sin, whoever that is, than that's a big problem, but it's yours and, to be honest, love is rare enough and you're a fool for letting something as petty as sin keep you from it.

You don't remember what my "sin" was, do you? Let me refresh your memory - it was a romantic involvement with a non-Christian female. You see, I believe Paul's comments in the Bible about believers and non-believers having a relationship is more "guidelines" than actual rules. Paul counsels against such relationship and outlines some of the potential problems that can happen (eg, modern example - will my non-Christian wife allow our kids to be taught that Jesus is the truth?). While I see these as guidelines, my pastor sees them as a command - DO NOT have romantic relationships with non-Christians. So if that relationship ever got serious, it was my CHOICE to have that relationship, and considering my pastor's stance on Christian/Non-Christian romance, it may have led to my being asked to leave the congregation. I was happy with that, and would expect nothing less.

I would not feel judged, humiliated, demeaned, or in any other way ostracised. I'd still meet with my Christian friends outside of the Sunday service time, I just wouldn't be attending that congregation.

So when it comes right down to it, the reason I would have been asked to leave is the same reason that a gay person is asked to leave - falling in love with someone the church says we shouldn't have fallen in love with. And as I said, not only would I expect to be called out on it, I would DEMAND to be called out on it. And I would not feel inferior for it. I'd feel they were wrong, but that it was entirely their Right and Responsibility to do what they thought was best for the church.

Your words condemn you. The non-acceptance of gay relationships is damning and is, of course, exactrly what I expect to come from the belief. Weather done in the world at large or 'merely' within churches, the belief still wants that there. And, appartently, that lack of acceptance is so imporant it's one of the very key beliefs of your faith.

All that does is validate everything I've believed about the suspicion of people that hold belief and you've ended up stating it yourself.

Educating people does not begin and end with fear of the unknown. Especially when, even with that education you still have a beleief that you have just admitted in your own words includes non-acceptance at it's very core. You act like your society is so perfect, but all it's done is shrink non-acceptance down, not banish it.

I want the lack of acceptance to die. Everywhere. Be it multicultural areas, small towns or churches. Nowhere should be immune. All your society has done is give a place immunity from it and enshirened a belief that, again in yourr own words, preeches non-acceptance.

We'll just have to disagree on this. Churches have a defined morality, and I don't expect that morality to change just because society does. I fully respect a gay person's decision to act on their desires, but that (in my opinion) therefore disqualifies them from following the Christian God. That's a choice they need to make for themselves, and their decision to choose one or the other doesn't suddenly make them inferior or somehow less than others.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Pa, do you agree the choices one makes define them?

If you can agree to this then you can understand that Shadow is not "ignorant" for asking why you accept a belief that causes harm.

IMO that is what he is seeking clarity on?

I agree that fear of the unknown leads to intolerance. This is an evolutionary trait that hails back to our hunter-gatherer days when tribes fought for resources - if you're not with us, you're against us. That which is different was harmful, in evolutionary terms. As society settled down, we began to mingle together and the tribal boundaries shifted. Our evolutionary traits about fearing that which is different, however, is harder to undo.

And I agree that religion can reinforce that negative fear. Believing that which is different should be feared and shunned and stamped out can be reinforced by a religious ideology that grants a person "divine" reasoning for hating that which is different. However, in saying that, the underlying reasons for this negativity is not the religion itself. It may reinforce it but it is not in and of itself the cause of it. Greater by far is the fear of that which is different. In practical terms, is it easier to remove (or change):

1- religion?

2- fear?

3- both?

Practically speaking, removing religion (or changing religion) is far tougher than removing fear. Overcoming fear can be taught. Overcoming religion takes generations. Once we overcome fear through education, the religion will adapt to accommodate a non-hateful, non-hurtful treatment of that which is different. The fact that I live in a society where religion has done this is proof of the validity of my statement. So while I accept that religion can reinforce harmful ideas, I do not accept that it is the cause or the promoter of these ideas. The harm comes from a position of fear.

It will take extraordinary proof to change my opinion on that, for my society is proof that education and acceptance of that which is different removes intolerance without having to change religious ideology.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[shadowhive]

I give up. You believe something about me that I do not hold true. That's not my problem, and I refuse to go over it again with you - either accept my words, or don't accept them, I'm done with discussing it further.

Do I? All through the this (and other discussions). You've said that homosexuality is a sin so me thinking that is true isn't incorrect. You believe gay people in relationships won't go to heaven, which you also think of as being true. The only thin is, you accept both beliefs, but somehow don't seem to grasp how that is believing a group is treated as inferior to you.

I don't believe in a place where non-believers burn! Where did you get this notion? I believe that those who do not reach salvation and heaven earn the fate of the "second death". I'll attach an essay I wrote about this topic to this post. Maybe you'll learn something new about me. It will take about 15 minutes to read (3,500 words is not a quick read), but if you're willing to sit through it, you will learn something you didn't know before, and knowledge is never a bad thing.

Opposite of Heaven UM copy.doc

I didn't say burn forever. I recall you mentioning before that you believe people don't do that but still burn in a second death. Again, though, that's not a good attitude to hold. Weather hell is torturing someone foreve ll eternity or a 'second' death both are bad things. Much like killing someone and torturing them are bad things.

I'll give it a read soon though, but somehow i doubt i'll learn that much new. I'll see if there's an excuse for god to do it though. because god can't use fear of the unknown or intolerance as a get out for bad teatment of others.

You don't remember what my "sin" was, do you? Let me refresh your memory - it was a romantic involvement with a non-Christian female. You see, I believe Paul's comments in the Bible about believers and non-believers having a relationship is more "guidelines" than actual rules. Paul counsels against such relationship and outlines some of the potential problems that can happen (eg, modern example - will my non-Christian wife allow our kids to be taught that Jesus is the truth?). While I see these as guidelines, my pastor sees them as a command - DO NOT have romantic relationships with non-Christians. So if that relationship ever got serious, it was my CHOICE to have that relationship, and considering my pastor's stance on Christian/Non-Christian romance, it may have led to my being asked to leave the congregation. I was happy with that, and would expect nothing less.

I would not feel judged, humiliated, demeaned, or in any other way ostracised. I'd still meet with my Christian friends outside of the Sunday service time, I just wouldn't be attending that congregation.

So when it comes right down to it, the reason I would have been asked to leave is the same reason that a gay person is asked to leave - falling in love with someone the church says we shouldn't have fallen in love with. And as I said, not only would I expect to be called out on it, I would DEMAND to be called out on it. And I would not feel inferior for it. I'd feel they were wrong, but that it was entirely their Right and Responsibility to do what they thought was best for the church.

No, I remembered what the sin was. Did you somehow ignore my references to love?

Congratulations though. You let your religion cause you to give up a chance of love. You let your faith bully that chance out of you and your willingness to do it to others comes off as both cold aand callous. The fact that your church do it to you doesn't make it better to do it to others, in fact it just makes it worse because it means you've justified the negative treatment so much you'll accept it done to you.

I'm sorry for you pa, truly I am.

We'll just have to disagree on this. Churches have a defined morality, and I don't expect that morality to change just because society does. I fully respect a gay person's decision to act on their desires, but that (in my opinion) therefore disqualifies them from following the Christian God. That's a choice they need to make for themselves, and their decision to choose one or the other doesn't suddenly make them inferior or somehow less than others.

I suspected you'd say that.

On the contary, I expect churches morality and teachings change to reflect current facts and knowledge. The church has changed before and it will again. Keeping things as they are just maintains a hostile environment, which is unacceptable.

From where i'm sitting, making love something that disqualifies them from following the christian god sounds like making them both inferior and less than others.

It seems churches are fearing the unknown themselve, the unknown being change and their refusal to adapt will just make them obsolete.

Edited June 1, 2013 by shadowhive

[shadowhive]

Practically speaking, removing religion (or changing religion) is far tougher than removing fear. Overcoming fear can be taught. Overcoming religion takes generations. Once we overcome fear through education, the religion will adapt to accommodate a non-hateful, non-hurtful treatment of that which is different. The fact that I live in a society where religion has done this is proof of the validity of my statement. So while I accept that religion can reinforce harmful ideas, I do not accept that it is the cause or the promoter of these ideas. The harm comes from a position of fear.

Just because something is difficult and would 'take generations' does not mean it can't or shouldn't be done. That, to me just sounds like an excuse not to do it and it wouldn't be acceptable not to do something because it'd be hard.

Let's take disease. The 'easy' way of handling it is through education to lower the risk of people getting it, but you don't stop there do you? You don't say 'oh finding a cure would be hard and take a lot of time, we just won't bother'. No, you'd try and find the cure despite that.

A non-hateful, non-harmful treatment of that which is different, which is somehow still accomodtes a belief that the thing which is different is bad, is not a permenant solution. It's better than not doing it, but it's just really a stopgap.

It will take extraordinary proof to change my opinion on that, for my society is proof that education and acceptance of that which is different removes intolerance without having to change religious ideology.

That's the problem. You want 'extraordinary proof' which to be honest, means you won't accept anything whatsoever because you can make it the fault of something else. It's rather sad that you'd deny it regardless of what is shown to you.

[shadowhive]

I agree, I will always accept change. In fact, in many churches things are changing. It is through the process of trial and error we figure out who we are, who we want to be, how we want to represent ourselves.

Change is how we grow as a species so I don't see why religion so denies and condemns that change as a bad thing.

I'm hoping those churches will become dominant in the furture. Acceptance and love should always in out.

My parents are practicing a form of Christianity that is harmful, most of all to them. It limits how close we can be, (at this point not very)they are still in the slavery mentality, for me it isn't about forgiveness, they simply are misinformed, their beliefs have created a cocoon that has cut them off from other ideas, other people. The sad part is they do not even see this as anything wrong. I look for ways to bridge the gulf between us and my progress is miniscule at best. I do not see them as bad people or malicious I see them as lost. I for one know that they will have to work to wake up and it won't be easy to say they have been wrong, but I still hope for the best because I think anything is possible. So I just want to tell you I am sorry for what you went through, you did not deserve it at all and I can see why you are angry/hurt; in fact, it is justified. People do as good as they know how that is what I have learned in my years, this includes me. Often the problem is lack of knowledge and understanding and simply just not knowing how to be better. That you spend so much time trying to raise awareness does matter, so if I can make a suggestion maybe you could use your anger towards that instead of not being forgiving, simply because it won't help like being an advocate/agent for something better, okay?

I agree with that, sadlly. That seems exactly what those with harmful beliefs do. You're right, they're not just harming others but also themselves.

In the same way I hope believers will wake up but also i see the process as being just as slow

Thanks. Maybe. the problem is that being an advocate for somethin better means you're still stuck with coming to blow with people who are resistant solely or in part due to their religion and they will always make me angry because of how they defend which causes harm.

[Irrelevant]

I don't think so shadow...you said its OK for parents to have sex with children.

Now you claim to be heterosexual when were previously claiming to be gay, ( yes maybe you do have a male partner) then your friend suggested you were a male, and at other times your female..is this a pedophiles ring, searching for confused kids on the internet? I'm vary wary of you for good reason..I'd advise others be likewise.

[shadowhive]

I dunno. Sexual desire ha a tendency to act against reason and education. So, in theory, proper education should work. In reality, it isn't a sure-shot way to curb 'abortions-for-fun.'

Many things seem to act against reason and education. Religion is a prime example of that isn't it?

Well there's no such thing as a 'sure shot' way to curb it. But really, the choice to have an abortion will never be yours of mine will it? We won't ever get pregnant because we physically cannot. Ultimately the woman that has an abortion makes that choice for herself and the choice is hers and hers alone and it should be respected. Be the reason because they can't look after the children, giving birth would be life threatening or it was a result of rape.

In my opinion it's much better for someone to have an option, rather than to force them to give birth and raise a child, especially if they're not capable of doing so.

Agreed. And I don't want to know. But I have to be prepares to give a response to my future children when they ask me how how God feels about homosexuality. My aim is for them to honor God, not discriminate against homosexuals.

Agreed with the first, not on the second. Why? Two reasons.

First, you have no way of knowing if any of yoour children is gay. Giving them a teaching that homosexuality is a bad thig, only leads to trouble when they reach the stage where they realise they are. Children are vulerable and often miss the distinction that you claim your aim is for. It's why so many gay people that grow up in christian environment experience so many negative effects of it.

Second is the odd thing I see with belief. Religion is supposed to be a personal choice and yet whenever children are involved, it seems that those children aren't really given a free choice but are lead towards it.

Wouldn't you say that the same thing happens in every culture, including among atheists? The rich call the shots. The activists fire back with words and demonstrations. It isn't something solely caused by religion.

Perhaps.

So people are people. I don't need to drop my Christian belief to come to terms with that though.

I've never said you should 'drop your christian belief'. I always find that an odd thing to say in situations like this.

I just paid off a car I took out a loan on in 2008 for $18,000. Once all was said and done, I ended up paying $27,000 for the car, though it isn't even worth $3,000 in trade-in value toward a new car. I paid $9,200 in interest charges based on a 13.99% APR.

Ridiculous! They could have at least gave me a refund for a bit of the finance charge for proving faithful in my payments. Nope. Nadda. Zip. Zilch.

That is absolutely crazy.

It has evidently been flexible. But should it?

I think now we've reached a point where that flexibility should be eased out. The excuses for it being so flexible in the past are, to us anyway, fading away.

That's not to say, of course, that things should becomes too rigid though.

But if a Christian is against homosexuals and their beliefs about homosexuals, then its wrong? Certainly this can't just be a matter of finger-pointing, can it?

To me that's a smokescreen.

To spell it out. I'm against any belief that teaches homosexuality is wrong. Christian, jewish, muslim, etc. It doesn't matter the religion involved it's the belief itself NOT the religion. I honestly don't know how I can be clearer than that.

I guess that makes sense, since Europeans from England, Spain, Germany, Italy, and France all migrate here.

Is it not part of the politics there then? I can't say i'm familiar with the politics of your part of the world

Acceptable? Heck no! I never said it was a good thing. Even Paul would rather have been condemned if he could have saved his people.

Jesus told a parable that said, "If the eye of the body is light, the whole body is light. But if the eye of the body is dark, the whole body is dark." Now, considering that Jesus spent most of his arguments against the Jewish religious leaders, it shouldn't be hard to understand what he meant.

The religious leaders were the eye and those that followed them were the body. The million Jews died because they followed their leaders to their deaths.

Well, the Bible's reasoning is that their religious leaders were corrupt. Josephus blamed their political leaders.

That's one of the problem with religion isn't it? That believers will follow whatever their leaders say, often blindly.

However, just because their leaders were corrut doesn't seem like a justification to condemn the followers in such a manner.

The Roman government found little resistance when it took hold because Latin philosophy had taken hold in Rome among Christian aristocrats, according to Justo L. Gonzalez in his book Christian Thought Revisited. Stoicism was all about law and order through military might. Well, moreso the Pax Romana a common belief among all Romans that caused them to suppress things that could destabilize the peace intheir empire. So nothing changed about the Roman culture when Christianity became the state religion except for the name of their religion.

Romans were essentially Romans.

I suppose the Roman papacy may know something about that.

That desn't surprise me all to much to be honest.

If we look at the muslims that kill to get to Paradise, we could probably have our best example.

I don't think it'd make that clarity would make much difference to them.

Eating the wrong food for example.

Of course.

[shadowhive]

I don't think so shadow...you said its OK for parents to have sex with children.

Now you claim to be heterosexual when were previously claiming to be gay, ( yes maybe you do have a male partner) then your friend suggested you were a male, and at other times your female..is this a pedophiles ring, searching for confused kids on the internet? I'm vary wary of you for good reason..I'd advise others be likewise.

I also used 'if they were consenting adults' as a qualifier, which you clearly missed. It seems believers ignore those words all too often when human sexuality comes up. Almost as if they want to demonise others.

Ok, let's clear something up. I'm male, and I'm bisexual. There, now you know what I am (though i get the feeling you''ll ignore that since you've inored other information presented to you).

You really don't know how stupid that sounds do you?

[shadowhive]

I don't believe in a place where non-believers burn! Where did you get this notion? I believe that those who do not reach salvation and heaven earn the fate of the "second death". I'll attach an essay I wrote about this topic to this post. Maybe you'll learn something new about me. It will take about 15 minutes to read (3,500 words is not a quick read), but if you're willing to sit through it, you will learn something you didn't know before, and knowledge is never a bad thing.

Opposite of Heaven UM copy.doc

Well I read it. I learned omething new about the concept of 'hell' (although that could be said to be the wrong term altogether after that), but I can't say I've learned anything knew about you.

Nor, of course, does eternal death sound a better alternative to eternal punishment.

[Irrelevant]

No I know exactly how stupid that sounds! And it was your friend who gave you away, i read things, i see things, i hear things, what im seeing , hearing aint good with you. In regards to the part about consenting adults.. so this is the part I shall point out...we allow gay marriage , OK, im not actually opposed to that! However gays to train kids, to write laws into the hearts of the innocent ..that grow up, become consenting adults ( trained by there state appointed parents )..

[libstaK]

Well I read it. I learned omething new about the concept of 'hell' (although that could be said to be the wrong term altogether after that), but I can't say I've learned anything knew about you.

Nor, of course, does eternal death sound a better alternative to eternal punishment.

I thought you were an atheist? Why would you consider eternal death another reason to dislike the notion of a God?

[Irrelevant]

this one knows whats in store...not all is as it appears.

[shadowhive]

No I know exactly how stupid that sounds! And it was your friend who gave you away, i read things, i see things, i hear things, what im seeing , hearing aint good with you. In regards to the part about consenting adults.. so this is the part I shall point out...we allow gay marriage , OK, im not actually opposed to that! However gays to train kids, to write laws into the hearts of the innocent ..that grow up, become consenting adults ( trained by there state appointed parents )..

You honestly make no sense and it seems intent that you're just intent on slandering me for things I've not said or even suggested.

Gay people do not 'train kids'. That notion is baseless scare mongering, with no basis in fact whatsoever, but believers seem willing to lap up.

You know I see only one group wanting to 'train' kids to be a certain sexuality. Straight people who are believers. With their conversion camps and calling homosexuality as a sin. That group 'writes laws into the hearts of the innocent'. It turns them into bullies who are against people who are different. That, does have basis in fact. How often do you hear gay people throwing kids out because they are straight? Yet straight parents disown gay kids all the time.

If I ever have a kid, I'm not going to 'train' it to be one sexuality or another. I know it's whatever it will be and I will be happy as long as it's happy. I'll love it if it's gay, straight, bi, asexual or anything else. You know, the kind of love a parent is supposed to have.

Edited June 1, 2013 by shadowhive