Bible passages that the religious right must pretend do not exist...

[Delta4Embassy]

Passage they pretend don't exist"

from the preface,

"All characters portrayed in this book..."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Resorting to ad hominem attacks shows only that you're at loss for an actual answer to what he said.

Newsflash, he didn't say anything.

 

[THE LIGHT]

You can't quote the Bible and then decide you know what it means. You aren't that smart.

Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

This is what you said:

Matthew 6:24 condemns both the money hungry left and the money hungry right. Being rich does not send one to hell. Loving money more than loving God is the problem. Money should be a tool to help the poor and bring them the good news that Christ died for them, loves them, and wants them well so that they can help others rather than just depending on others.

No one was condemned. It was just pointed out that you can't serve "stuff" (mammon) and God. It's one or the other. And poor people were never mentioned. Worse, Christ died for everyone, not just the poor. And being helped includes depending.

You are so fucked up. You need to go to some class or talk to someone who is knowledgeable. You sound like you are trying to balance talking points, but don't have the sense to step back and take an impartial look at your bullshit.

Calm down now. So you are saying that I am not that smart, because......? Because you say so?

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Resorting to ad hominem attacks shows only that you're at loss for an actual answer to what he said.

Newsflash, he didn't say anything.

He resorted to calling everything about the other user's post stupid without giving any reason as to why. The definition of a baseless attack on the person making an argument when you have nothing to go after the argument itself with.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He resorted to calling everything about the other user's post stupid without giving any reason as to why. The definition of a baseless attack on the person making an argument when you have nothing to go after the argument itself with.

He said that the post was stupid because all it did was quote someone else.

Want to try again at showing how much smarter you are than anyone else?

 

[AtheistBuddah]

He resorted to calling everything about the other user's post stupid without giving any reason as to why. The definition of a baseless attack on the person making an argument when you have nothing to go after the argument itself with.

He said that the post was stupid because all it did was quote someone else.

Want to try again at showing how much smarter you are than anyone else?

That's making a lot of assumptions on someone else's behalf. That is not what he said. He simply called the whole sentence an example of a stupid person quoting another stupid person saying something stupid but gave no reason as to why the latter two were stupid. If he had at least stated why the last part was stupid than that would at least give some credibility to the first two.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon."
-- Matthew 6:24

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
-- Mark 10:25

"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him"
-- Exodus 22:21

"If you enter your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket."
-- Deuteronomy 23:24

"What sorrow for you who buy up house after house and field after field, until everyone is evicted and you live alone in the land."
-- Isaiah 5:8

"If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest."
-- Exodus 22:25

"neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common"
-- Acts 4:32


And yet they say our government should operate according to Christian principles. Irony

You have not quoted some of these scriptures accurately. You have removed some words and in one scripture you removed a complete sentence therein changing the meaning. I am quoting from the King James Version Bible:

Beginning with Act 4:32 You left out quite a bit - which has changed the meaning of that scripture. This is what Acts 4:32 says

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common.
- Acts 4:32

In Exodus 22:21 you write Do not oppress an alien or oppress him. That again is not the exact words. Here is that scripture -

Thou shalt not vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. - Exodus 22:21

God is explaining the why - the reason for - in both scripture verses. When you leave out words and complete sentences from a scripture you are in danger of the judgments of God so I am going to warn you not to ever do that again and pray that the LORD has mercy upon you for doing it this time. Do not do it again.

About your motive. I am sensing that your intention in misquoting Acts 4:32 was to some how imply this would validate Communism but in fact it exposes Communism for what it is. Theft. You see communism takes by force - it is not a christian concept but rather was taken to be used without God - which resulted in men who enforced communism - making themselves to be gods - living like kings while the people all lived in poverty. Paul owned one coat - the Apostles lived humble lives - they did not take anything to enrich themselves with at the expense of the people. You are confused in how you are understanding these bible verses.

Today we have very powerful people behind the Agenda 21 program to strip people of their rights to own their own property - because by owning property one has something that contains equity - if ownership can be proven - their goal is to make it more and more difficult for the private business owner - and for the property owner - it is another way of communism taking over and destroying the hope of people. This is the greed of the wealthy elitists - men such as Soros, the Clintons, who have lied to the poor in order to deceive them. Communism is a very evil thing. There is nothing Christian about Communism.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Here we see bible scripture that clearly shows God does not communist ideas:
Isaiah 6521"They will build houses and inhabit them; They will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit.22"They will not build and another inhabit, They will not plant and another eat; For as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people, And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands.23"They will not labor in vain, Or bear children for calamity; For they are the offspring of those blessed by the LORD, And their descendants with them.…
Cross References

Psalm 21:4
He asked you for life, and you gave it to him-- length of days, for ever and ever.Psalm 91:16
With long life I will satisfy him and show him my salvation.
"Psalm 92:12
The righteous will flourish like a palm tree, they will grow like a cedar of Lebanon;Isaiah 62:8
The LORD has sworn by his right hand and by his mighty arm: "Never again will I give your grain as food for your enemies, and never again will foreigners drink the new wine for which you have toiled;
Isaiah 62:9

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Here is another bible scripture about working and providing for yourself and your own family. You should work so that you have the ability to help others also. How can you be a blessing to others materially if you do not work or bring in an income?

2 Thessalonians 3 10 For even when we were with you we gave you this rule The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.
Context
[URL='http://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/3.htm']Warning against Idleness
…9not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example.10For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.11For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies.…
Cross References
1 Thessalonians 3:4
In fact, when we were with you, we kept telling you that we would be persecuted. And it turned out that way, as you well know.1 Thessalonians 4:11
and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you,
Treasury of Scripture
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

[/URL]

 

[Agit8r]

There is nothing Christian about Communism.

When Europe was under papal domination, it operated very much like communism did in practice. If theocracy ever subverts our civil government, it will be indistinguishable as well.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon."
-- Matthew 6:24

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
-- Mark 10:25

"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him"
-- Exodus 22:21

"If you enter your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket."
-- Deuteronomy 23:24

"What sorrow for you who buy up house after house and field after field, until everyone is evicted and you live alone in the land."
-- Isaiah 5:8

"If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest."
-- Exodus 22:25

"neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common"
-- Acts 4:32


And yet they say our government should operate according to Christian principles. Irony

I know a lot of rightwing people and not a one of them have any problems with any of those passages.

IF liberals couldn't make straw man arguments, what would you ever do?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Beginning with Act 4:32 You left out quite a bit - which has changed the meaning of that scripture. This is what Acts 4:32 says

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common.
- Acts 4:32
......
About your motive. I am sensing that your intention in misquoting Acts 4:32 was to some how imply this would validate Communism but in fact it exposes Communism for what it is. Theft. You see communism takes by force - it is not a christian concept but rather was taken to be used without God - which resulted in men who enforced communism - making themselves to be gods - living like kings while the people all lived in poverty. Paul owned one coat - the Apostles lived humble lives - they did not take anything to enrich themselves with at the expense of the people. You are confused in how you are understanding these bible verses.

Great post.

But the origin of communism (note I use little 'c') came from small communes in the USA set up by people like Robert Owen some of which still have survived to our time, and should see an explosive revival in the near future.
Robert Owen - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Our economy is changing too fast to an economy of low employment and the capitalization of new industries so fast that no one has much of a career in anew technology before it is already low pay and over capitalized.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Forcing someone to have an unwanted child is an authoritarian act; denying a couple the right to marry is an authoritarian act; the act of gays or lesbians marrying has no impact on straights, and no one is forcing you or anyone to change their beliefs. Feel free to be a bigot, it's a free country.

Forcing someone to cater a gay wedding is an authoritarian act.

Keeping them from getting married at all is even worse.

people have a right to jump up and down and wave their arms....but the government doesn't require us to pay attention to them........gays have the right to have any relationship they want, but the government shouldn't require us to pay any attention to them.....
they aren't seeking equality, they are seeking attention......

I see you speak for all gays and lesbains, do you believe you are all knowing? Or is your post simply a means for you to get attention?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Forcing someone to have an unwanted child is an authoritarian act; denying a couple the right to marry is an authoritarian act; the act of gays or lesbians marrying has no impact on straights, and no one is forcing you or anyone to change their beliefs. Feel free to be a bigot, it's a free country.

Forcing someone to cater a gay wedding is an authoritarian act.

Keeping them from getting married at all is even worse.

Whose stopping them?
We just don't want them forcing us to officially recognize their wedding. That would require accepting their gay behavior.

You are not required to officially recognize behaviors which offend you! Does that help, do you feel better or should The Congress pass a resolution giving that right to bigots?

Yes, being intolerant of "gay behavior" (whatever you imagine that to be) is an example of intolerance, and I proclaim you have the right to feel that way. Wear a sign-board and proclaim your your opinion and how you feel; some might find that to be offensive, but no law will be passed preventing your right of expression.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Forcing someone to have an unwanted child is an authoritarian act; denying a couple the right to marry is an authoritarian act; the act of gays or lesbians marrying has no impact on straights, and no one is forcing you or anyone to change their beliefs. Feel free to be a bigot, it's a free country.

Forcing someone to cater a gay wedding is an authoritarian act.

Keeping them from getting married at all is even worse.

people have a right to jump up and down and wave their arms....but the government doesn't require us to pay attention to them........gays have the right to have any relationship they want, but the government shouldn't require us to pay any attention to them.....
they aren't seeking equality, they are seeking attention......

I see you speak for all gays and lesbains, do you believe you are all knowing? Or is your post simply a means for you to get attention?

I knew you were going to say that......and no, I'm not referring to all gays.......just the ones who go to court trying to change the definition of marriage.....

 

[Wry Catcher]

If much is given, much is required. How exactly are you giving much if all you do is blindly hand the government power over your life?

The only ones that want to do that are Republicans. Think "women's bodies being legislated" and think "gays being second class citizens" and think "voter suppression". In other words "think God dammit, think!"

????.....believing its wrong to kill your unborn children is a bad thing?..........using the courts to redefine marriage to conform to YOUR beliefs is NOT an example of using the government to force things on people?......

Forcing someone to have an unwanted child is an authoritarian act; denying a couple the right to marry is an authoritarian act; the act of gays or lesbians marrying has no impact on straights, and no one is forcing you or anyone to change their beliefs. Feel free to be a bigot, it's a free country.

it is true that keeping people from killing is an authoritarian act.....one which has been in place for thousands of years.....whether or not someone meets the requirements of "marriage" is not....its an aspect of societal standards...using the government to change societal standards by force of law is an authoritarian act.....

Interesting spin, I suppose you would consider the Civil Rights Act of 1964 an authoritarian act of government to change societal standards. Correct?

typical liberal dodge.....pretend gay marriage is the equivalent of black civil rights......

How do you define "civil rights"? A black man or women marrying a white of the other gender was denied under Jim Crow Laws. Seems that alone is enough of a nexus for those of us who think.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Forcing someone to have an unwanted child is an authoritarian act; denying a couple the right to marry is an authoritarian act; the act of gays or lesbians marrying has no impact on straights, and no one is forcing you or anyone to change their beliefs. Feel free to be a bigot, it's a free country.

Forcing someone to cater a gay wedding is an authoritarian act.

Keeping them from getting married at all is even worse.

Whose stopping them?
We just don't want them forcing us to officially recognize their wedding. That would require accepting their gay behavior.

You are not required to officially recognize behaviors which offend you! Does that help

if it were true it would help.....however, if you bake cakes or take wedding pictures or have employees who receive benefits, you ARE required to recognize behaviors which might offend you.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

If much is given, much is required. How exactly are you giving much if all you do is blindly hand the government power over your life?

The only ones that want to do that are Republicans. Think "women's bodies being legislated" and think "gays being second class citizens" and think "voter suppression". In other words "think God dammit, think!"

????.....believing its wrong to kill your unborn children is a bad thing?..........using the courts to redefine marriage to conform to YOUR beliefs is NOT an example of using the government to force things on people?......

Forcing someone to have an unwanted child is an authoritarian act; denying a couple the right to marry is an authoritarian act; the act of gays or lesbians marrying has no impact on straights, and no one is forcing you or anyone to change their beliefs. Feel free to be a bigot, it's a free country.

it is true that keeping people from killing is an authoritarian act.....one which has been in place for thousands of years.....whether or not someone meets the requirements of "marriage" is not....its an aspect of societal standards...using the government to change societal standards by force of law is an authoritarian act.....

Interesting spin, I suppose you would consider the Civil Rights Act of 1964 an authoritarian act of government to change societal standards. Correct?

typical liberal dodge.....pretend gay marriage is the equivalent of black civil rights......

How do you define "civil rights"? A black man or women marrying a white of the other gender was denied under Jim Crow Laws. Seems that alone is enough of a nexus for those of us who think.

an excellent example of the difference.....black men could marry white women so those opposed to it had to pass laws prohibiting it.....those laws were overturned........black/white men could not marry black/white men, not because laws prohibited it, but because there was no such thing as "marriage" between two men.......thus, those in favor of it had to pass law creating it.....

 

[JimBowie1958]

Forcing someone to have an unwanted child is an authoritarian act; denying a couple the right to marry is an authoritarian act; the act of gays or lesbians marrying has no impact on straights, and no one is forcing you or anyone to change their beliefs. Feel free to be a bigot, it's a free country.

Forcing someone to cater a gay wedding is an authoritarian act.

Keeping them from getting married at all is even worse.

people have a right to jump up and down and wave their arms....but the government doesn't require us to pay attention to them........gays have the right to have any relationship they want, but the government shouldn't require us to pay any attention to them.....
they aren't seeking equality, they are seeking attention......

I see you speak for all gays and lesbains, do you believe you are all knowing? Or is your post simply a means for you to get attention?

He isn't speaking for gay people ,idiot.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon."
-- Matthew 6:24

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
-- Mark 10:25

"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him"
-- Exodus 22:21

"If you enter your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket."
-- Deuteronomy 23:24

"What sorrow for you who buy up house after house and field after field, until everyone is evicted and you live alone in the land."
-- Isaiah 5:8

"If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest."
-- Exodus 22:25

"neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common"
-- Acts 4:32


And yet they say our government should operate according to Christian principles. Irony

You have not quoted some of these scriptures accurately. You have removed some words and in one scripture you removed a complete sentence therein changing the meaning. I am quoting from the King James Version Bible:

Beginning with Act 4:32 You left out quite a bit - which has changed the meaning of that scripture. This is what Acts 4:32 says

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common.
- Acts 4:32

In Exodus 22:21 you write Do not oppress an alien or oppress him. That again is not the exact words. Here is that scripture -

Thou shalt not vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. - Exodus 22:21

God is explaining the why - the reason for - in both scripture verses. When you leave out words and complete sentences from a scripture you are in danger of the judgments of God so I am going to warn you not to ever do that again and pray that the LORD has mercy upon you for doing it this time. Do not do it again.

About your motive. I am sensing that your intention in misquoting Acts 4:32 was to some how imply this would validate Communism but in fact it exposes Communism for what it is. Theft. You see communism takes by force - it is not a christian concept but rather was taken to be used without God - which resulted in men who enforced communism - making themselves to be gods - living like kings while the people all lived in poverty. Paul owned one coat - the Apostles lived humble lives - they did not take anything to enrich themselves with at the expense of the people. You are confused in how you are understanding these bible verses.

Today we have very powerful people behind the Agenda 21 program to strip people of their rights to own their own property - because by owning property one has something that contains equity - if ownership can be proven - their goal is to make it more and more difficult for the private business owner - and for the property owner - it is another way of communism taking over and destroying the hope of people. This is the greed of the wealthy elitists - men such as Soros, the Clintons, who have lied to the poor in order to deceive them. Communism is a very evil thing. There is nothing Christian about Communism.

Two version of the bible can't both be the word of God, can they? Thus every version of the bible is some persons interpretation, so ....