The Lord's Prayer

[Sassy]

Yes I'll go along with that.

However, are those Christians the exception as opposed to the rule?

What about the "death to gays" schtick in the OT?  Do these liberal Christians condemn that mindset or do they defend it?

The OT was the covenant with the Jews not Christians.
It was for people in a different country at a different time. And no matter what you call this thread you cannot use it to poke at subjects that are nothing to do with the Lords Prayer.

There is no mind set to condemn or defend. That was that covenant. But today for Christians they cannot be homosexual in practice because the body is to be used for Gods Glory not mans lusts or to sin in any way.
Christ is for Christians and homosexuality is for homosexuals.  Christians are not allowed to take part in any sexual behaviour considered sin. They cannot sleep with prostitutes and they have to remain in unity with God.

So not really anything to do with Christianity is it?

[Sassy]

author=Sassy link=topic=11555.msg589626#msg589626 date=1455102250

Gods existence is not what makes a villain a villain....

Gods existence is neither lessened or increased by what an atheist believes.

Of course, you can substitute God with any one of the thousands of deities that are
 out there.  Do you believe or disbelieve in Shiva? Well, it matters not because
Shiva's existence is neither lessened nor increased by what you believe.

It is lessened in that there is no record of Shiva having done anything.
No Messiah who was foretold and healed. No Messiah who was killed and rose from the dead.
In fact Shiva has nothing to his achievements he has only the things accounted to him
in the beliefs held about him.

So Shiva existence is not even accountable it has nothing to lessen or increase.

"I would rather live my life as if there is a god
 and die to find out their isn't, than live my life
as if there isn't and dies to find out there is"

Note the lowercase "god" as opposed to the proper noun.
  The phrase you quoted above is more about choosing the correct god from many.
  You'll get a fright if you wake up after you've died
 and it's Baal sitting there waiting to judge you.

Note I was reflecting what someone wrote...
Baal, would be a difficult one how would nature be sitting in judgement?
Well how would animals and trees etc be sitting in judgement.
Animals and trees here now they have no power so where exactly in death would they get
their power from?

You do know that Baal is basically the worship of nature. The word means Lord and
covers a number of Gods. Heathen and one which most elements of pagan worship fall under.
Maybe you knew that trying to stir something up between Christian and pagan on the forum.
It was also a sun god.


So in the great scheme of things Baal is already here just of not use
when it comes to fulfilling the basic requirements of an Almighty God.
It is rather left deficit to requirements for the purpose of being God both now and
after death.

[Shaker]

But in an ethical sense the answer to the question 'do you believe that gay (non-child producing) relationships should be treated the same way as child-producing ones?' - absolutely, to think otherwise is abhorrent. Hope do you think that infertile people (non-child producing) should somehow not be treated the same in relationships as fertile couples?

They have never been treated differently in terms of marriage, which torpedoed one of the most common 'arguments' from the anti-equal marriage brigade.

[Sassy]

I know several people like that - they really struggle trying explain to people why the church is what it is, locked into antiquity and apparently incapable of getting out of it!

I suppose the truth is that the true Church is unchangeable.

Look at what the NT teaches... God is a Spirit and true worshippers must worship in Spirit and Truth.
The Church is not about a set of rules anymore.

2 Corinthians 3:4-6King James Version (KJV)

4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

The written law condemns the letter killeth but the Spirit gives life.

The Christian lives in Spirit and truth and the Lord perfects the work in the believer.
It is not an obeying of rules it is a way of life lead by God in the Spirit.
If you are lead by God in the Spirit you will not do anything contrary to that which is born out of love for God and others.
But you cannot deny either the fact Christ said, "My Kingdom is not of this world". It isn't it has nothing to do with the way people live in this world. It is men and women born of the Spirit lead by the Spirit and living according to that way.


Establishments are not and never have been the true Church of Christ.
The first churches lived according to Christ's teachings. Homosexuality and paganism etc are all born of the world and man.
But the true Church is born of Gods word and love for him and others. Something totally removed from the worlds ways.

[Sassy]

I think the recent decision to suspend the US church (Episcopalians), is causing trouble among liberals, as they see no prospect of homophobia being reduced in Anglicanism.   Some will leave, some will hang on, hoping to effect a change. 

It seems ironic that the general population has become less homophobic, the national church, more.

That is the world not the true Church...

[Khatru]

Who schemed and plotted to have their son brutally killed, Khatru?

The Bible god - albeit with himself.

[Khatru]

Whereas in reality, the love of the Bible god is all about self-sacrifice, grace, mercy and regular forgiveness.  Yes, there is discipline - and of course discipline is always all about 'submission and conformity' - ask any parent.   

You missed out the bit about how the love of the Bible god entails creating a torture pit, stocking it with demons, dropping conscious beings into fire, and keeping them conscious forever just to keep the suffering going to the benefit of nobody. 

[ippy]

The OT was the covenant with the Jews not Christians.
It was for people in a different country at a different time. And no matter what you call this thread you cannot use it to poke at subjects that are nothing to do with the Lords Prayer.

There is no mind set to condemn or defend. That was that covenant. But today for Christians they cannot be homosexual in practice because the body is to be used for Gods Glory not mans lusts or to sin in any way.
Christ is for Christians and homosexuality is for homosexuals.  Christians are not allowed to take part in any sexual behaviour considered sin. They cannot sleep with prostitutes and they have to remain in unity with God.

So not really anything to do with Christianity is it?

2

ippy

[ippy]

Of course, you can substitute God with any one of the thousands of deities that are
 out there.  Do you believe or disbelieve in Shiva? Well, it matters not because
Shiva's existence is neither lessened nor increased by what you believe.

It is lessened in that there is no record of Shiva having done anything.
No Messiah who was foretold and healed. No Messiah who was killed and rose from the dead.
In fact Shiva has nothing to his achievements he has only the things accounted to him
in the beliefs held about him.

So Shiva existence is not even accountable it has nothing to lessen or increase.
Note the lowercase "god" as opposed to the proper noun.
  The phrase you quoted above is more about choosing the correct god from many.
  You'll get a fright if you wake up after you've died
 and it's Baal sitting there waiting to judge you.

Note I was reflecting what someone wrote...
Baal, would be a difficult one how would nature be sitting in judgement?
Well how would animals and trees etc be sitting in judgement.
Animals and trees here now they have no power so where exactly in death would they get
their power from?

You do know that Baal is basically the worship of nature. The word means Lord and
covers a number of Gods. Heathen and one which most elements of pagan worship fall under.
Maybe you knew that trying to stir something up between Christian and pagan on the forum.
It was also a sun god.


So in the great scheme of things Baal is already here just of not use
when it comes to fulfilling the basic requirements of an Almighty God.
It is rather left deficit to requirements for the purpose of being God both now and
after death.

Several, such a load of nonsense can't be bothered with this lot, none of them worth a toss.

ippy

[Khatru]

Except, of course, that isn't what "it's like".  To use yor rather naff format, it's 'Jews, you have greatly disappointed me by failing to do the job I chose you to do - to witness to me to those you live amongst.  You have regularly offered blood sacrifice to indicate your repentance of that failure, only to continue in it.  I am going to change the process I set in motion x00 years ago, by allowing you to use me as a final blood sacrifice that will make blood sacrifice obsolete once and for all - and open relationship with me to the very people you have chosen to ignore.'

Changing the process seems to be something the Bible god has done on previous occasions.  Scripture tells us that all of the Bible god's works are perfect.  Let's look at that....

In heaven God creates perfect angels and finds iniquity in Satan.  Change of plan and God creates Hell and puts Satan in it.  We're told that God is the creator of all things - this would include iniquity and rebellion.
How could they appear appear in Satan if God did not place them in him?

God creates a perfect man and woman who later rebel against their god's commands.  Was that rebellion also created by God?

Anyway, none of that worked out so the Bible god decides to destroy the world with a genocidal flood.  God then restarts with the pure good stock of Noah and his kin. 

That's that then.

Well, no, not really because evil and sin re-emerge.

Nevermind, the Bible god moves on and fixes things once and for all by having his son brutally murdered.

That's that then.

No, not quite, as the Bible tells us how the great experiment of Christianity is going to be a massive failure and that humanity will be slaughtered at some undisclosed future point.

Amazing how many times a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent creator has to erase his work and start over, isn't it?





 

[ippy]

Post 203 204 from Sass fantasy world stuff again.

ippy

[Khatru]

Khatru, genocide has been carried out by people of faith and by atheists throughout history.  Likewise, infanticide has been carried out by people of all such persuasions. 

Acknowledging that such things occurred doesn't involve either condemnation or defence.

As for your last two comments, no Christian I know approves of murder, let alone the murder of people on the grounds of their sexual preference or behaviour.  Historically, many non-conformists were in the fore-front of defending the right to hold different or no religious beliefs.  Even the Anglican Church in England, though more of a political entity in its early days, became a place which supported freedom of religious thought - though I agree that some of its leaders seemed to want to go back to the 'bad ole days' of Catholic thought in this area.

Whether it's carried out by believers or unbelievers, I disapprove of all genocide.

While murdering those who practice freedom of religion is precisely what the Bible god instructs his followers to do.  Albeit, that was before their god underwent a personality transplant.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

They have never been treated differently in terms of marriage, which torpedoed one of the most common 'arguments' from the anti-equal marriage brigade.

Yes they have. Some RC priests have refused to conduct services if there is no prospect of consummation.

[Khatru]

You can ask anything of God. Whether he grants your wish or not is another matter. Jesus prayed "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as [b]You will."[/b] (Matthew 26:39)

Yes:

"Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved"  Acts 2:21 & Romans 10:13

"Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved"  Matthew 7:21

"Only those whom the Lord chooses will be save"  Acts 2:39

As for wish granting:

Well, whatever god the 9/11 killers worshipped certainly granted their wish when they prayed for the success of their mission and to be ushered into paradise.

[Khatru]

The OT was the covenant with the Jews not Christians.
It was for people in a different country at a different time. And no matter what you call this thread you cannot use it to poke at subjects that are nothing to do with the Lords Prayer.

There is no mind set to condemn or defend. That was that covenant. But today for Christians they cannot be homosexual in practice because the body is to be used for Gods Glory not mans lusts or to sin in any way.
Christ is for Christians and homosexuality is for homosexuals.  Christians are not allowed to take part in any sexual behaviour considered sin. They cannot sleep with prostitutes and they have to remain in unity with God.

So not really anything to do with Christianity is it?

Well, the Bible does tell us that the earlier covenant was faulty.

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one."

Hebrews 8:7

[bluehillside Retd.]

HWB,

Yes they have. Some RC priests have refused to conduct services if there is no prospect of consummation.

But the comparison was to do with procreation, not consummation. Are there RC priests who would refuse to officiate if they knew the couple to be infertile?

[jeremyp]

HWB,

But the comparison was to do with procreation, not consummation. Are there RC priests who would refuse to officiate if they knew the couple to be infertile?

It's crazy to say that a married gay couple can't have children. They can't both be biological parents of any one child but they can have children.

It's just another smokescreen put up by the likes of Hope because he thinks it's icky.

[Shaker]

Yes they have. Some RC priests have refused to conduct services if there is no prospect of consummation.

Consummation and infertility are two separate things.

ETA: Ah, I see bluey beat me to it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremyp,

It's crazy to say that a married gay couple can't have children. They can't both be biological parents of any one child but they can have children.

It's just another smokescreen put up by the likes of Hope because he thinks it's icky.

Quite. Humph though was attempting a comparison with consummation, whereas the (hopeless) argument that some theists make concerns procreation (ie, the "the purpose of marriage is procreation/gay people don't procreate/therefore gay marriage is wrong" stupidity).

Hope on the other hand likes to rationalise his casual bigotry by reference to bad science and "holy" texts - neither of which butters any parsnips when you examine it.   

[Shaker]

Marriages of post-menopausal women (sometimes extremely elderly women; basically a marriage where's absolutely no chance whatever of having children) crop up in the news from time to time, generally reported in such a way as to invite a rather syrupy "Awwww, how sweeeeeeeeeeet" sort of reaction. Why aren't the procreation-only mob rending their raiment about these?

[ProfessorDavey]

jeremyp,

Quite. Humph though was attempting a comparison with consummation, whereas the (hopeless) argument that some theists make concerns procreation (ie, the "the purpose of marriage is procreation/gay people don't procreate/therefore gay marriage is wrong" stupidity).

Hope on the other hand likes to rationalise his casual bigotry by reference to bad science and "holy" texts - neither of which butters any parsnips when you examine it.

But the very notion that marriage is somehow inextricably liked to procreation is something only seen in religious marriage. Civil marriage, and the key components of a marriage ceremony that are sufficient to ensure that a marriage is valid (whether held in a civil or religious ceremony) are completely silent on the issue of procreation. Having children (or a desire to) is nothing to do with civil marriage, nor relevant in marriage in a legal sense.

So it is a non-issue, albeit some religious types like to pretend it is.

[Owlswing]

Owl, I know several people who really struggle to try to explain how encouraging people to dump their elderly parents in residential homes, encouraging people to spend more money than they have, encouraging people to think that body image is the only way to ensure happiness,  (not to mention several other common attitudes) is in any way good for society and the human race.  Furthermore, I can think of people who, whilst not being people of faith, applaud the church for speaking out against these same destructive attitudes.

And this has what to do with Christianity in the past, as presneted by your god and in the bible?

[Owlswing]

Given that gay people may not have children, but may support the upbringing of other children, this is entirely consistent with benefit to the overall human society and evolutionary drivers (the children of the earlier born being more likely to survive to adulthood).

Prof,

Is this not rather similar to some species of animals in which the alpha male and his chosen alpha female are the only pair that mate and produce young, all other males hunt/forage and all other females become aunts/babysitters to the alpha couples progeny?

[Owlswing]

I suppose the truth is that the true Church is unchangeable.

In that case I suggest that its inability to evolve (there's irony) condemns it to eventual extinction

[Khatru]

Of course, you can substitute God with any one of the thousands of deities that are
 out there.  Do you believe or disbelieve in Shiva? Well, it matters not because
Shiva's existence is neither lessened nor increased by what you believe.

It is lessened in that there is no record of Shiva having done anything.
No Messiah who was foretold and healed. No Messiah who was killed and rose from the dead.
In fact Shiva has nothing to his achievements he has only the things accounted to him
in the beliefs held about him.

So Shiva existence is not even accountable it has nothing to lessen or increase.
Note the lowercase "god" as opposed to the proper noun.
  The phrase you quoted above is more about choosing the correct god from many.
  You'll get a fright if you wake up after you've died
 and it's Baal sitting there waiting to judge you.

Note I was reflecting what someone wrote...
Baal, would be a difficult one how would nature be sitting in judgement?
Well how would animals and trees etc be sitting in judgement.
Animals and trees here now they have no power so where exactly in death would they get
their power from?

You do know that Baal is basically the worship of nature. The word means Lord and
covers a number of Gods. Heathen and one which most elements of pagan worship fall under.
Maybe you knew that trying to stir something up between Christian and pagan on the forum.
It was also a sun god.


So in the great scheme of things Baal is already here just of not use
when it comes to fulfilling the basic requirements of an Almighty God.
It is rather left deficit to requirements for the purpose of being God both now and
after death.

There are plenty of records of Shiva's wonderous deeds and great accomplishments.  Have you not read the Gita?

Baal is nature?  Not a god?

First I've heard of that.

Makes the Bible god look silly if he was threatened by nature.