Your post demonstrates nothing except you completely haven’t understood the point I was making in my last few posts. Carry on though.
This is not an uncommon position, even among serious Christians.
Exactly. That’s why the RC Church’s positionis only to promote hatred against gays by aasserting that same sex marriage “threaten[s] human dignity and the future of humanity itself” whereas they used to out and out kill gays.
Jesus also said that the highest law was to love one another - the rest is just details that follow from that.
He also told a story of a person who violated the Sabbath for illustrative purposes, and he himself healed on the Sabbath.
He also never punished anybody.
But whatever. Stick with your ‘gotcha!’
Now how did we miss this?
Kansas pulls Dr. Ann Neuhaus’s license because she approved abortions for reasons of mental health in cases such as a 10-year-old incest victim.
And, of course, she did lose her license permanently. Because Brownback has stacked the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts with anti-abortion partisans, including a former attorney for Operation Rescue.
Well, there was that time he went apeshit on innocent merchants over a zoning disagreement. Dunno about you, but I file “whipping” under the negative reinforcement header 
That’s distrubing. Not unexpected, but disturbing.
Welcome to Brownbackistan.
Okay, you tell the five year old not to touch the hot stove. If that’s the roughly equivalent step to “kill the gays” what’s the equivalent step to “nah, don’t kill the gays”?
But the bigger point is, how is telling someone to do something horrible in any way equivalent to telling a kid not to do something to avoid them getting hurt? I think you’re going to get pushback on this simply because you won’t be able to come up with a justification for the initial evil advice.
That answers the question – outright evasion of the issue (as opposed to logic-chopping it) and obvious flip-floppery (describing the same notion as both “stupid” and “not stupid” as suits the convenience of the moment) disqualifies you from the “annoyingly pedantic” option.
The fact that the girl needed an abortion proves that she was not a legitimate victim. Or something.
After I sobered up, I was sorry about my little rant, and I had planned to pipe down. But bup is such a perfect example of a Christian who never learned more about the Bible than what they teach 6-year-olds in Sunday School, I just can’t stop myself from responding.
No, he didn’t. He said (Matt 22:37ff) that the highest law was to love God with all your heart and soul and mind. Any reasonable interpretation of that mandates that you follow, and enforce with all your heart and soul and mind, all of God’s commandments.
He went on to say that the second greatest law was to love your neighbor as yourself, but as even a robot could tell you, the second law cannot contradict the first.
Besides, Jesus didn’t invent “love your neighbor,” he got it from Leviticus (19:18). And in the very next chapter, Leviticus says to execute people for committing homosexual acts.
Which do you think is more likely – that Jesus didn’t know the Bible any better than you, or that he was fully aware that “love your neighbor” does not mean total amnesty for capital crimes?
Spoiler alert: Jesus answers that question in the next sentence: “On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” I don’t know how he could be more clear that he was not repealing the Mosaic Law. Oh wait, yes I do — he was even more clear in the verse I referenced in my earlier post, when he said the Law holds until heaven and earth pass away, and that no one should teach even the slightest relaxation of the Law.
I’ve already addressed that. According to the Bible, he was the Son of God, so he could do whatever he wanted. That doesn’t mean you can. MacArthur walked around with a corncob pipe and a swagger stick. Doesn’t mean some lieutenant could.
A good example is in John 5:16ff, where Jesus is accused of violating the Sabbath, and he says (paraphrased), “So what? I’m the Son of God, and God has delegated his power to me. I do what I do to show you how much power I’ve been given.”
And he concludes (KJV) “46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”
If you claim that God also gave you the power to raise the dead and judge whether or not they receive eternal life, then I guess you can mow your lawn on the Sabbath. Otherwise, you had better stick to believing what Moses wrote.
Jeez, he invented eternal torment, for the great crime of not believing in him. God only knows how many people he condemned to everlasting punishment.
I’m not claiming any great cleverness here. In fact, the greatest mystery of my life is how intelligent, educated people can’t see the glaringly obvious flaws in their divinely inspired religions. I’m sure that most are like you, and really don’t know anything about the scriptures they are basing their present and future life on, but I’ve read Bible commentaries by people who have devoted decades to intensive study of the manuscripts in the original languages, and they still either twist themselves into pretzels over the obvious contradictions, or they just blithely say something along the lines of “This is clearly a mistake, but it doesn’t detract from the truth of the Bible.”
And I’m sure that it’s the same with other religions. I’ll never understand people.
In baha’i teachings the equivelent would be sending a modern prophet.
The problem is that I don’t care about the “kill the gays” part because that isn’t my religion, so I don’t have to justify it and explain it away (I will leave that to Christians). My point was that God seemingly “changing his mind” from a human perspective does not logic-away it’s divinity, the same way a parent saying “NEVER touch the stove!” after seeing a child playing with it, doesn’t logic away their wisdom and authority when they are able to make lasagna. In other words, what we see as “God changing his mind” is simply a progressive revelation, humanity being sent the messages and messengers it is able to handle as it matures and grows.
I understand your point just fine - I’ve seen hundreds of examples of it. Saying the creation story is a metaphor assumes that the writers of it know that it was not true. Have any evidence of that? Given how much Christian theology is built on Adam and Eve being real people, I doubt the Church fathers thought it was not true. And I don’t know of Jews at the time attacking Christianity as bogus because they thought Adam and Eve were real.
And that doesn’t mean I’m claiming the early church believed in an inerrant OT. Just that the thought some of the parts you claim are metaphor were true.
Of course it is. It is a way of explaining away that the authors of the Bible actually wrote “inspired” fairy tales. It is certainly more rational than rejecting science as evidence - but not that much more.
Please give an example of our supposed growth in maturity that couldn’t have been jumpstarted by earlier divine revelation. Plato and Aristotle were hardly examples of babies who couldn’t be trusted no to touch the stove. This progressive revelation is actually religions catching up with secular ethics.
Just to mention that this phrase is perhaps the single most important one in Judaism, and is what is put inside the mezuzahs. It is kind of like some Physics teacher getting credit for telling people that F =ma.
Actually, it sort of is - according to its Wiki page, your religion not only recognizes Christianity as just as valid a “path to god” or “aspect of the divine” as many of the other major ones (and just as divinely inspired), but Moses is specifically identified as one of the mos def worldly manifestations of our old friend, the omnimax god. Meaning Mosaic law, in all its gay-killin’ goodness, was in fact mandated by the god worshipped in your religion.
Who may or may not have superceded it since, but that’s irrelevant: you reckon that was just something he felt the ancient Hebrews needed to hear to prepare them for the next step up the teachin’ ladder ? Half-enlighten them ?
That pre-supposes humanity matures and grows. Can’t say I’ve seen much evidence of that since we’ve started documenting this spinning rock of ours, and yet evidently your religion also presupposes it already has, multiple times at that since god evidently sent multiple successive prophets with different, often mutually exclusive messages.
Besides, considering that in the specific case of teh Ghey, god seemingly went from “kill 'em all ! Kill 'em NOW !” to “Killing people ? Why, I don’t think that’s very nice at all”, I don’t think that’s explaining or furthering a teaching in more depth later. It’s a complete reversal which doesn’t make a lick of coherent sense. Whereas when you’re 64, world-weary and bald, “sticking one’s hand on a hot stove is inadvisable unless you’re kinky that way” still readily applies.
Baha’is recognize the prophets including Moses and Jesus and would never deny their prophethood, but the whole point of progressive revelation is that they were prophets for their eras, which have different needs. The faith does disagree on points with previous prophets of course since otherwise we would be Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Zoroastrian.
Anyway I really am going to stop this hijack because it was never my intention to witness here, I just thought someone made a bad point.
Makes perfect sense. Pretty clear why Jesus says things like this:
If you want to interpret this as an example of Biblical relativity, that is, compared to your love of God you might as well hate everyone else, well that just means you should kill them gays with the utmost zeal… if you’re a Christian. But really, there are no real Christians anymore, except perhaps in certain African countries where they really do try to kill their gays, and we can all see what wonderful places to live those countries have become.
This has been refuted already, but I want to point out that at the End, Jesus is supposed to come back and turn the world into an absolute slaughterhouse. A third of the planet burned, a third of the people dead, and so on. He just hasn’t expressed the ‘lion’ side of his personality yet.
Although I will grant that the New Testament is not page after page of Jesus ranting about how rotten the gays are. In fact, He never even mentions it. Why are Christians so obsessed with gays, and sex in general, and (especially in the Midwest) behaving like utter cunts to everyone who won’t join their club? And then… trying to bring all that into politics via the GOP?