Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Define Christianity as Hate - The New Homosexual Agenda

page: 65
55
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Annee
 


I believe he was trying to make the case that God told people not to eat shellfish out of concern for their well-being. He is very concerned about well-being




“We read the Golden Rule and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses. And then we come across another of God’s teachings on morality: if a man discovers on his wedding night that his bride is not a virgin, he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).” ― Sam Harris


Yeah.

Arm must hurt from that reach.




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by yuppa

The shellfish rule was stricly for the Israelites/hebrews under mosaic law. So unless he is a jew or hebrew it does not apply. From what I have read on the subject.


If that excuse doesn't work.

They'll just find another.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


What's amazing to me is the idea that if it only applies to certain people, or that it only applies to a certain period of time, somehow that reconciles the fact it's horribly immoral to begin with. Just because a New Covenant supposedly "fulfills" some of the passages doesn't negate that an 'all-loving god' decided it was ethically sound to stone virgins to death before that 'New Covenant'.

This just escapes people. Or they intentionally confuse it in their minds because then they would be forced to re-evaluate God of Abraham as a perfect loving entity.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Annee
 


What's amazing to me is the idea that if it only applies to certain people, or that it only applies to a certain period of time, somehow that reconciles the fact it's horribly immoral to begin with. Just because a New Covenant supposedly "fulfills" some of the passages doesn't negate that an 'all-loving god' decided it was ethically sound to stone virgins to death before that 'New Covenant'.

This just escapes people. Or they intentionally confuse it in their minds because then they would be forced to re-evaluate God of Abraham as a perfect loving entity.


Well I get culture. If it was just a book explaining the culture - - then it would make more sense.

In real factual history there was a Jesus (modern spelling). He was a political dissident condemned to death.

The only way the stories in the bible would make sense - - - is if there was an "Off planet being" intervention.

I'd like for the ancient texts to be translated by an atheist cultural historian.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

I'm allergic to shellfish too.

So what. It has nothing to do with the point being made.


The point is, 2500 years ago, men didn't know about "allergies", but God did. God didn't explain to his people about allergies, he just gave them the rule to follow. The people of the times didn't have the scientific knowledge to understand why they were getting this law to follow, they just trusted God.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Well I get culture. If it was just a book explaining the culture - - then it would make more sense.


For sure. It is a book about the culture of the time. It's dangerous that believers don't fully treat it as such and allow such a primitive moral understanding to influence themselves today.


The only way the stories in the bible would make sense - - - is if there was an "Off planet being" intervention.

A fallible off-planet being. Yeah I agree. It's reasonable to think that might be the case.


I'd like for the ancient texts to be translated by an atheist cultural historian.

There isn't
I am sure there has to be some highly regarded ones...i'll look into that. I would like to see that for the gnostic and dead sea scrolls as well.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by Annee

I'd like for the ancient texts to be translated by an atheist cultural historian.


There isn't
I am sure there has to be some highly regarded ones...i'll look into that. I would like to see that for the gnostic and dead sea scrolls as well.


There probably is. I just don't know.

Just for curiosity - - I researched manna. There is a real earthly explanation for manna.

Mushrooms. The "magic" kind. deoxy.org...

The believers don't want fact.




edit on 17-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

Hooray !

Anderson Cooper finally getting on to the right track.




Kelly Ripa comforts Anderson Cooper in Croatia amid cheating rumours








SOURCE: ca.omg.yahoo.com...



Yesterday morning Cooper posted a photo to his Twitter account of a fresh-faced Ripa snuggling up to him. The "Live!" host is a big fan of Cooper's and recently told Us Weekly she would like him as her new co-host.

"We have a connection like nobody else," she said. "I worship him!"





Maybe Anderson will finally see the light.

No more unfaithful gay partners, time for partners that can make a real commitment.








Yes...because only gay people cheat on their partners


How about applying some logic to your posts, just once?



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

Originally posted by Annee


But… Leviticus also says that eating shellfish is an abomination! Yet most Christians probably eat shrimp,



I have a relative that can't eat any shellfish. He has very severe allergic reactions, and could die from eating. We have to keep all shellfish away from him. Even slight contamination causes a biological reaction.

So, most probably that shellfish rule had a very good reason for being there, not all body types can tolerate it. Personally, I have no adverse biological reaction to shrimp. I don't know about other types of shellfish, since I just don't like the taste of whole species. For me, it's not religious, or allergy, just preference. But, I can understand why a loving God would create such a rule to save his people some unnecessary suffering.



So basically, you're ok with you breaking the shellfish rule...but when it comes to gays you're stubbornly following the rules. Makes perfect sense to cherry pick stuff, right?



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
It's always entertaining to see the kind of mental gymnastics people will do in regards to the OT and NT.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

So basically, you're ok with you breaking the shellfish rule...but when it comes to gays you're stubbornly following the rules. Makes perfect sense to cherry pick stuff, right?



Like I said many times before, I follow the laws I can understand. I understand why homosexuality is a bad thing. I also understand why Shellfish is bad for some people.

If you can't understand the laws in the bible, why should you follow them?

Christians don't try to make other people "understand" the laws, that's God's job.

All Christians do is "repeat" the "verses", and give "voice" to the laws, so that other people can "hear" them.

Until the gay or lesbian individual is granted "wisdom" and "understanding" by God, they are doomed to follow the wrong path. God has his own reasons, for letting people go astray, then sending some messenger to bring them back onto the right path. Why he does this is a mystery. But, Jesus would not have had to come if everybody was already following all the laws.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Yes...because only gay people cheat on their partners


How about applying some logic to your posts, just once?


Straight people cheat too. But, it is a well documented fact that gay and lesbians are far more promiscuous than straight people. They have more partners during their lifetime than straight people. They are more likely to engage in one night stands, with total strangers, like Senator Craig in the mens restroom, or gay lounge, as some here have called it. Straight men don't have any place like that, to just go "pick up" a woman for a few minutes sex. Unless, that is, they want to "pay" for it. If there were straight "lounges" that would put the Prostitution Industry out of business. The worlds oldest profession would collapse. All these things are evidence that gays and lesbians are more inclined to cheat than straight couples.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 


No...what you do is called "cherry picking" the parts you agree with and ignoring the others. That's has nothing to do with understanding


Either way, given that the bible is DEMONSTRABLY wrong in hundreds of cases, it's a bit silly to take it literally



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 





Straight men don't have any place like that, to just go "pick up" a woman for a few minutes sex.


Sure we do...they're called "bars", "lounges", and "clubs"


Either way, you trying to force your belief on others, and even worse, judging them...well...isn't that kind of going against your belief. I think in that book you worship so much it says you shouldn't judge, but that's EXACTLY what you're doing


In short, you are merely cherry picking verses and are a bit of a hypocrite given your posts.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Sins of Sodom


by Inge Anderson ©1999

Unfortunately people have a long-standing habit to read into Scriptures what is not there, thus justifying their own sins and their spirit of judgmentalism.

Saying that the last recorded acts of the Sodomites -- the demands for same-gender sex -- are proof that they were destroyed for homosexuality is like saying that a condemned man cursing his guards on the way to his execution is being executed for cursing the guards. Sodom was judged worthy of destruction before the incident with Lot and the angels. And we have examined the complete Bible record of Sodom's sins above.

Fundamentalists who like to see issues in black-and-white terms generally like to see Sodom's destruction as a judgment on homosexuality. I believe that this does not accord with the Bible record. Gay theologians, on the other hand, commit the same error of over-simplification by seeing Sodom's destruction as a judgment on inhospitality. And the Bible record does not support that conclusion either. Real life is usually more complex, and the great "Judge of all the earth" sees all there is to our lives.

I believe that if we examine the Bible record with an open mind, we are forced to conclude that Sodom was destroyed for sins that are not uncommon in today's affluent society -- sins that are rooted in self-sufficiency and flaunted in rebellion. Sexual sins were part of the problem, no doubt, but it is unworthy of Christians and misrepresentative of the Lord to wrest Scriptures in order to make someone else's sins appear as greater than our own more common sins of pride, hypocrisy, gossip, and a judgmental spirit.

glow.cc...



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 


No...what you do is called "cherry picking" the parts you agree with and ignoring the others. That's has nothing to do with understanding



Exactly. You are right.

But, why would I "agree" with some parts, and "ignore" other parts?

I agree with those things that "make sense" to me.

I ignore those things that I don't understand.

Same thing, different language.

We are in agreement.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Either way, you trying to force your belief on others, and even worse, judging them...



I'm telling them what I do. I'm quoting scripture where possible to indicate a source of these ideas, so others can follow up by reading the scriptures for themselves. When you read the scripture "revelations" come to you, and you begin to understand certain parts.


I'm not the judge. I'm just a "poster" who is "texting" ideas. Each person reading is judging himself. It is he that sees this or that wrong with this or that idea, belief, principle, or spiritual law.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Agoyahtah
 





I'm not the judge. I'm just a "poster" who is "texting" ideas.





It's an evil thing to disobey God's laws. All who do so are evil to the core. They have no heart. They don't know what love is. They just imagine they do. But, their kind of love is hate. They are really selfish, thinking only of themselves. They don't embrace the good things.


You're not judging....riiiiiiiight


You might wanna look up the definition of "judging"



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

You're not judging....riiiiiiiight


You might wanna look up the definition of "judging"



Right. In order to judge you. I'd have to know who you are. What your background is. What are the circumstances that led you to do this or that...etc..

The only person that has all these details already, is you.

And, of course, God.

For instance, suppose a demonic spirit had taken possession of your body, and made you do all these bad things, could I blame you for the actions? When Jesus came, he cast out the demons. He didn't judge the possessed person. He never punished the "victim."




And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.

So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.

And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.

And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.

KJV Matthew 8:28-33



What Jesus did instead, was cast out the demons, send them into the swine, and then ran them off a cliff into the sea to drown them.

So, only the entity actually doing the wicked things was judged and punished.

Jesus was able to judge, because he knew it was the devils and not the possessed individuals that were doing the wickedness.

Same here. I just point out the wickedness of the devils, according to scripture. But, I can't tell which is the devil, the man or some wicked spirit possessing him.

That final judgment is left to those who can see more and know more about the situation of any particular individual at hand.


edit on 17-8-2012 by Agoyahtah because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agoyahtah
. . . . , suppose a demonic spirit had taken possession of your body, and made you do all these bad things, could I blame you for the actions? When Jesus came, he cast out the demons. He didn't judge the possessed person. He never punished the "victim."


Apparently - - God believers never take responsibility for themselves.





new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join