Christianity isn't about being anti-abortion and homophobic. It's about peace, love, understanding, and forgiveness. If people would stop every once in a while and ask themselves how they could act more like Jesus would (e.g. volunteering for a charity), the world would be much better off. I know, I was in the Jesuit Volunteers (think Peace Corps). Being a good Christian is basically about being a good person. Please, Jesus never said "KILL FAGS". That's just unchristian.

Agreed.

However, I still dont agree with abortion of homosexuality.

Agreed. Jesus would walk with all people. What's your beef with gays Argon.

The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. However, I cant cast the first stone. Sin is sin in God's eyes, regardless of me killing someone or stealing a candy bar.

Im guilty of lots of things, so I cannot judge gays. However, it is my duty to show what God has to say about it, and I leave it between them and God where it belongs.

I think one of my friends are gay too, but that really doesnt change friendship unless he starts hitting on me. Even then, I would just tell him I'm straight and I wont change.

Also, Phelps (the GodHatesFags guy) was supposed to hold a protest at my university last year. Some woman was holding a seminar about her gay son being killed by a bunch of haters up north.

Me and Jew (another friend's nickname) were going to go and laugh and shout at them.

So anyway, morally, I think its wrong, but I have no power to really stop them becuase its not my fight.

word to that.

Hah, I remember the first night of being homeless, I went to a church, hoping for some good Christian help.

Oh man...The fucking shit I witnessed that made me whip out my Bible and go "wait, WTF!"

If more Christians acted Christian we'd have a whole shitload of violence on our hands. Is it so much to ask that you assclowns actually READ your holy book, instead of the "nice" parts that you pick out of it?

quote:Originally posted by Surak:

If more Christians acted Christian we'd have a whole shitload of violence on our hands. Is it so much to ask that you assclowns actually READ your holy book, instead of the "nice" parts that you pick out of it?

WTF are you talking about?

No, if JEWS started acting like JEWS (which they do), then we'd have a lot more violence. CHRIST preached nothing but fucking love and peace.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

WTF are you talking about?

No, if JEWS started acting like JEWS (which they do), then we'd have a lot more violence. CHRIST preached nothing but fucking love and peace.

Last I checked, Jesus was literally nailed to a board in he most shameful and painful way of execution the Romans could think of. What did he do? Did he call down God's wrath upn the Roman empire?

Nope, he asked God to forgive them. Thats some motherufcking rated R material there!

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mohandas Ghandi.

I agree with him for the most part.

quote:Last I checked, Jesus was literally nailed to a board in he most shameful and painful way of execution the Romans could think of.



Uh...romans...?

Have you READ the Bible?

The romans didn't give a fuck. They wanted to set Jesus free. The JEWS were like OMFGWTFBBQ GTFO NOOB.

I agree with the poster. The question everyone would benefit from asking is "What would jesus do?", or even what would love do?. Christians should follow Jesus's example more and I think they'd inspire a shit loada more people.

I don't recall the dude volunteering for many charity's tho.

I agree. I've had my fair share of Christians attack me for my bisexuality, so I keep quiet about it as much as possible. Hell, I hide it from my mother because I know she'd kick me out. There's a lot of Christians who view bisexuals and homosexuals as feminime, sexual perverts.

I doubt Jesus would go up to a homosexual and start calling him a faggot.

If I were going to choose to follow the word of the Bible, I don't believe I'd half-ass it. I have more respect for Christians on here whose actions mirror the belief they support, rather than the ones who talk about the infallible word of God in one thread, and tell people to "commit suicide" in another.

Just putting this out there, the GAY IS BAD part of the Bible is in Genesis. Who actually believes that part of the Bible? What alot of you athiests need to believe is that the Bible is 100% true. There's just the moral truth (meant to teach a lesson through a story), and the literal truth (some of the gospals are historically accurate). I don't think the majority of Christians of Literalists.

quote:Originally posted by Thought Riot:

Just putting this out there, the GAY IS BAD part of the Bible is in Genesis. Who actually believes that part of the Bible? What alot of you athiests need to believe is that the Bible is 100% true. There's just the moral truth (meant to teach a lesson through a story), and the literal truth (some of the gospals are historically accurate). I don't think the majority of Christians of Literalists.

But if it is in genesis....thats the OT isnt it? i thought Christians didnt follow the OT...or so a lot of them seem to say.

did you know that the bell witch was/is infact a witch!

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Uh...romans...?

Have you READ the Bible?

The romans didn't give a fuck. They wanted to set Jesus free. The JEWS were like OMFGWTFBBQ GTFO NOOB.

It was illegal under Roman law for occupied people to execute a criminal. So a Roman did nail him to a cross.

You are correct in saying that Pilate wanted to set Jesus free, but in the end he did sentence him to death.

quote:Originally posted by brad davis:

did you know that the bell witch was/is infact a witch!

I'm actually related to her...

quote: rather than the ones who talk about the infallible word of God in one thread, and tell people to "commit suicide" in another.

Thats pretty low, btw.

Internet: srs bzns

oh really i called on her last and whoa guess what,she showed up this morning.i think she liked me, she gave me a smile.

quote:

Thats pretty low, btw.



Just the facts, sir. Just the facts. Perhaps we can engage in some "meaningful dialogue" about it?

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Just the facts, sir. Just the facts. Perhaps we can engage in some "meaningful dialogue" about it?





You follow me closely. I wil have to watch myself from now on posting here.

i guess if i see the B.witch again i'll havta tell her that she's not my type.

Yes be christian. Remove womans rights. They belong to the man.............Minaswell bring back slavery while your at it.

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 03-09-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

Yes be christian. Remove womans rights. They belong to the man.............Minaswell bring back slavery while your at it.



Thats hilarious. Where in the Bible does it say women are lower than men and its ok to enslave blacks?

Its ok, take your time....

[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 03-09-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Thats hilarious. Where in the Bible does it say women are lower than men and its ok to enslave blacks?

Its ok, take your time....



Bi·ble /ˈbaɪbəl/

–noun

1. the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments.

King James Version:

Genesis 3.16: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Revised Standard Version:

Genesis 3.16: "To the woman he said, 'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.'"

As for the slavery thing, I wouldn't doubt it's snuggled in there somewhere as well.

quote:ArgonPlasma2000

PLEASE, READ YOUR FUCKING HOLY BOOK YOU STUPID DOUCHE.

quote:Originally posted by bung:

Bi·ble /ˈbaɪbəl/

–noun

1. the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments.

King James Version:

Genesis 3.16: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Revised Standard Version:

Genesis 3.16: "To the woman he said, 'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.'"

As for the slavery thing, I wouldn't doubt it's snuggled in there somewhere as well.



If you read a little closer it say's, "Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Now, in my mind, it seems to me that the desire of man is the cause of the rule over her. But hell, I may be talking crap right now.

In anycase it does not say that woman is less in any way than man, it merely says that he shall rule over her. You could come back with the fact it is rule 'Over" her , implying that he is better than her, or that he is given 'rule' over her, implying he is more worthy of leading.

I'd just have to ignore this thread then

And if you insist on following the point hat the Bible makes woman lower than man, then she will be greater in heaven than he will, "If anyone wants to be the first, let him be the last, and servant of all." (mark 9:35) If she is lower than man she will be greater in heaven, you could then argue that it merely shows more inequality, but I have to leave now, so I can't speak right now

JesuitArtiste and bung, now your argument has become semantical, isn't it somewhat useless without the original Hebrew?

Women didn't seek liberation back then. Women were completely happy having a husband "rule" over them. Status and independence from a woman's point of view was practically unheard of, and submission was a dutiful pleasure in exchange for shelter, food and a good name.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

Women didn't seek liberation back then. Women were completely happy having a husband "rule" over them. Status and independence from a woman's point of view was practically unheard of, and submission was a dutiful pleasure in exchange for shelter, food and a good name.

I don't buy that for one minute. My grandma was beaten daily by my grandfather until she died aged 50 from what are unknown consequences to me (there's loads of rumours in the family about the cause, my uncle blames his father). She was a strict Catholic girl and she believed it was her duty to serve her husband and she worked long hours as a nurse. She would practically lie for him and cover up her bruises. Dutiful "pleasure" my ass.

Just because you don't realize you're being oppressed doesn't mean you aren't. The first thing the feminists had to do was show women that they were being treated unequally, they had to pull the veil from their eyes.





[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 03-09-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Agreed.

However, I still dont agree with abortion of homosexuality.

Is it homosexuality you don't agree with or the act of male on male sex? Because the Bible says nothing about homosexuality itself, only the act. But then I guess it would because it wasn't until the late 17th century, early 18th century that people began being labeled too as opposed to only acts.

Hare - by "back then", I was referring to Biblical times - not your grandparent's generation. In Biblical times, there WERE no jobs for women. There were no state-sponsored subsidies for single-income households, and there was no such thing as child support and alimony. Unmarried, childless women were ostracized. That's why it was so important for the woman's family to arrange to have their daughters married off. It also benefited the family of the women to have their daughters married, because of stipends that were expected from the groom's family.

The dutiful "pleasure" was merely a by-product of not shaming the family, and gauranteeing one's self a plan for survival.

I'm not saying women weren't oppressed back then - I'm just saying they were far more willing than today's women to be "kept".

quote:Originally posted by bung:

Bi·ble /ˈbaɪbəl/

–noun

1. the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments.

King James Version:

Genesis 3.16: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Revised Standard Version:

Genesis 3.16: "To the woman he said, 'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.'"

As for the slavery thing, I wouldn't doubt it's snuggled in there somewhere as well.

Theres these plus theres writing about how women cant be priest, and arent aloud to speak in church etc. And about the slavery theres a verse or two saying if your a slave you have to obey your master completly. (has nothing to do with blacks dumbass)

quote:Originally posted by Whore of God:

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mohandas Ghandi.

I agree with him for the most part.



I totally agree with that. Christians rarly act like christ,which is kinda funny because thats what christiaity is all about. To act like christ.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

I agree with the poster. The question everyone would benefit from asking is "What would jesus do?", or even what would love do?. Christians should follow Jesus's example more and I think they'd inspire a shit loada more people.

I don't recall the dude volunteering for many charity's tho.



how would love affect this situation??

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

JesuitArtiste and bung, now your argument has become semantical, isn't it somewhat useless without the original Hebrew?

*Shrugs*

There's nothing I can do about that. I'd love to be able to have original scripture, and to understand it in the native writing. I can't , so I'll argue what I can.

Besides, I'm not really all that bothered about the bible, I like to read it, and to argue it for the sake of it. Passes the time

quote:Originally posted by JesuitArtiste:

If you read a little closer it say's, "Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Now, in my mind, it seems to me that the desire of man is the cause of the rule over her. But hell, I may be talking crap right now.

Yeah, I would say that interpretation is entirely grasping at straws. Reason being that man desires woman just as much as woman desires man, if anything, it is man who desires woman more, I would assume. Not to mention that it specifically uses the word 'and,' implying two separate ideas and invoking no relationship between desire and to rule over. If it said 'and your desire shall be for your husband, and because of that, he shall rule over you', then it would be a different story. But even then it would hardly make sense, as men and women have equal desire for each other (obviously for men it is often more a sexual desire than women, though).

In anycase it does not say that woman is less in any way than man, it merely says that he shall rule over her. You could come back with the fact it is rule 'Over" her , implying that he is better than her, or that he is given 'rule' over her, implying he is more worthy of leading.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I would say and I have very little doubt that that was exactly what was meant to be implied. The simple fact that it says 'rule over' implies a hierarchy in which men trump women. It does not say it directly that woman is less than man, but it is strongly, strongly implied.



For the record, I wasn't really trying to prove anything, but Argon asked where in the bible does it say men are less than women, and I showed a verse where I feel it is irrefutably implied.

Of course the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways, but I feel this specific interpretation is all too clear.

Hare_Geist - Yes, it is technically a semantical argument, but these are the versions and passages of the Bible that are read by modern Christians (heh, actually, I really doubt most Christians even read the bible).

Whatever the original Hebrew writings implied almost seems irrelevant, because it is this Bible (both old and new Testaments) that modern Christians look to, not the original Hebrew writings.

[This message has been edited by bung (edited 03-09-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Thought Riot:

Christianity isn't about being anti-abortion and homophobic. It's about peace, love, understanding, and forgiveness. If people would stop every once in a while and ask themselves how they could act more like Jesus would (e.g. volunteering for a charity), the world would be much better off. I know, I was in the Jesuit Volunteers (think Peace Corps). Being a good Christian is basically about being a good person. Please, Jesus never said "KILL FAGS". That's just unchristian.

And you know what, REAL BELIEVERS IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AGREE TOO. Hypocrites are the ones you're talking about... and to them.. I'll quote Charles H. Spurgeon.

"If your lifestyle at home is unworthy, go several miles away to stand up and preach the Gospel, and when you stand up, don't say ANYTHING!"

CHECK OUT MY POST: New religion...

I'm decided it's time to start a new one, where the message of Christianity is redone, but with the thinking of Jesus as the messiah. and of course laws of judiasm and some Islamic practices, such as giving to the poor and fasting. check it out.