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

[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.

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.....

WRONG - Marriage is a contract, nothing more. Some contracts are illegal, because some our representatives passed a law making them so, and bigots like you decided to define marriage in a manner which suits them. Lucky for all of us most laws are passed by thinking, reasonable groups of men and women - not bigots (of course some legislaures and The Congress can and have always included bigots, at times a majority).

 

[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

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.....

And how does that harm the baker or photographer? If a tort occurs they have the right to sue. Of course they have to prove harm to prevail - thus if a city/county council passed a law prohibiting the baker from baking for a gay wedding, then the baker could sue, for the harm was the loss of business.

Lots of behaviors are offensive, I'm offended by hunters who kill animals, thus I would never choose to sell guns or ammuntion and facilitate blood sport. So let the baker find a new source of employment, why support bigotry?

 

[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?

He isn't speaking for gay people ,idiot.

You must learn to read first, then post: "they aren't seeking equality, they are seeking attention" - "they" implies all. Before calling me or anyone else an idiot, please look in the mirror so you have a reference point.

 

[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.....

WRONG - Marriage is a contract, nothing more. Some contracts are illegal, because some our representatives passed a law making them so, and bigots like you decided to define marriage in a manner which suits them. Lucky for all of us most laws are passed by thinking, reasonable groups of men and women - not bigots (of course some legislaures and The Congress can and have always included bigots, at times a majority).

if marriages are nothing more than contracts, then can wedding planners, cake bakers, photographers, employers who are not parties to the contract be bound by them?......

 

[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.....

And how does that harm the baker or photographer?

I take it you don't pay much attention to current events.......

 

[The Irish Ram]

"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

Irony is posting passages from the Talmud and pretending they are Christian values. Who are "my people" described in Exodus? The exodus was long before Christianity.

Here is understanding about money and Heaven. Rich men go to Heaven all the time. One of Jesus friends and followers was the richest man on earth at the time.
Christ told one man who loved his money to get rid of it. But that man could not bring himself to part with it. He loved it to much he turned his back on Christ and walked away. What an opportunity he lost when he chose money over the Lord.
Christ simply told the other rich man to, "Follow me." That man loved Christ more than his money, so He got to keep his and follow Christ... Abraham was rich. David, Solomon....
God wants us to prosper, and even gives us an equation to insure it. And says, "Test me on it!"

The eye of a needle was a narrow opening in the outer wall of a city, for use after the gates were closed for the night. Narrow for protection against invaders. A camel had to be unloaded outside of the eye, walked through the eye and then the owner had to go back out and carry all of his belongings through the eye, and reload the camel, and go home. It was a cumbersome task, but buy no means an impossible one.

The lesson from that verse is this:
It is the love of money, not ownership of money, that makes it a deterrent. You can have as much as you want, but put it before God and it will corrupt you.
So call Him on it, take Him up on His challenge, realize who it came from, do good with it , and enjoy your prosperity.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

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.

Catholicism is not Christianity. It is the worship of demons. Christians were never called to build kingdoms here upon the earth that own publishing houses that print satanic material. Christians were never told in the bible to worship demon gods such as mary demon god that pretends to be the mother of Jesus and is not - it is an apparition of a demon - the Inquisitions purpose was to murder the truth- as if that were possible - they murdered the Christians who exposed the doctrines of demons the RCC taught - they were intent to murder the Jews or force them to convert to their evil cult. To keep the bible - the truth - even from their own people who did not realize the roots of the occult in the rituals of the RCC. The bells, the incense, the altar is almost identical to a satanic altar. I will post a video from a former Druid High Priest of Lucifer's and he will tell you about it. You seem to be confused as to what a Christian is.

Remember not to change the scriptures again or you willl provoke the LORD to anger and He will punish you for it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"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 don't understand the essence of these passages at all, as you fail to distinguish the difference between a community of believers and the impositions of government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"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 don't understand the essence of these passages at all, as you fail to distinguish the difference between a community of believers and the impositions of government.

Religions are governments.

 

[The Irish Ram]

No they aren't. The Law that governs the Jews since Moses received it was for a specific group of people for a specific time. It turned their Father into their Judge, and God didn't want that. They boldly insisted on it and 3,000 dropped dead on the spot.
If you want to know what God is like, obtain an understanding of the exodus at the beginning. While His children were sinning, He was forgiving, and providing. And His behavior was constant. Forgiving and water, forgiving and food, forgiving and a cloud for shade, forgiving and warmth at night, forgiving and forgiving. That is the Agape love that is too strong for us to even comprehend.
That is grace, the unmerited favor of a Father for His child.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is truly amazing how people mold their deity according to their own prejudices. Just like all the dupes cheering in Berlin Sportpalast. Disgusting.

Its funny how you mold the Christian faith according to your own prejudices. Why is it you use the Bible against us when you don't even believe in it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." Anne Lamott

You can safely assume that stupid people almost always quote other stupid people saying stupid shit.

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

Having a moniker such as yours says you aren't really an Atheist. One cannot be one and a Buddhist at the same time.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." Anne Lamott

You can safely assume that stupid people almost always quote other stupid people saying stupid shit.

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

Having a moniker such as yours says you aren't really an Atheist. One cannot be one and a Buddhist at the same time.

Firstly, there is meant to be a somewhat ironic nature to my screen name, I did it on purpose.

Secondly, I admire the Buddha for being someone of wisdom with valuable teachings about modesty, respect for yourself and others, mindfulness, non violence and so on. That is why I have taken the moniker that I have. Because I strive to be the Buddha of atheism. Now you could say that, I am a bit full of myself for having this screen name or that you think I'm failing at my goal and those would at least be somewhat worthwhile criticisms. But to say that my screen name somehow precludes me from being an atheist is one of the most laughably idiotic things I've seen posted on this forum to date.

 

[Agit8r]

It is truly amazing how people mold their deity according to their own prejudices. Just like all the dupes cheering in Berlin Sportpalast. Disgusting.

Its funny how you mold the Christian faith according to your own prejudices. Why is it you use the Bible against us when you don't even believe in it?

I believe that the text exists because I have read it. I believe that it says what the words mean. That doesn't take any faith.

 

[PostmodernProph]

It is truly amazing how people mold their deity according to their own prejudices. Just like all the dupes cheering in Berlin Sportpalast. Disgusting.

Its funny how you mold the Christian faith according to your own prejudices. Why is it you use the Bible against us when you don't even believe in it?

I believe that the text exists because I have read it. I believe that it says what the words mean. That doesn't take any faith.

I have to disagree......saying that said text says something contradictory to other texts requires a choice of faith.......

 

[Agit8r]

It is truly amazing how people mold their deity according to their own prejudices. Just like all the dupes cheering in Berlin Sportpalast. Disgusting.

Its funny how you mold the Christian faith according to your own prejudices. Why is it you use the Bible against us when you don't even believe in it?

I believe that the text exists because I have read it. I believe that it says what the words mean. That doesn't take any faith.

I have to disagree......saying that said text says something contradictory to other texts requires a choice of faith.......

It is demonstrable that some parts of the Bible contradict other parts.

For instance early on it says that children are punished for their parents sins. Jesus's teachings say that they are not. And yet other passages claim that God's nature never changes. Clearly not all of those statements can be true.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is truly amazing how people mold their deity according to their own prejudices. Just like all the dupes cheering in Berlin Sportpalast. Disgusting.

Its funny how you mold the Christian faith according to your own prejudices. Why is it you use the Bible against us when you don't even believe in it?

I believe that the text exists because I have read it. I believe that it says what the words mean. That doesn't take any faith.

I have to disagree......saying that said text says something contradictory to other texts requires a choice of faith.......

It is demonstrable that some parts of the Bible contradict other parts.

For instance early on it says that children are punished for their parents sins. Jesus's teachings say that they are not. And yet other passages claim that God's nature never changes. Clearly not all of those statements can be true.

Clearly this is more of a deflection than a relevant response. If you spent time reading the entire book, you'll know that in one testament such a teaching was meant for the Israelites, not you. In the new testament such a punishment was paid for by the death of Christ on the cross. How can you expect to understand the nuances of the Bible when you spend all of your time casting judgement or pointing out supposed contradictions? Intellectually dishonest you are.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is truly amazing how people mold their deity according to their own prejudices. Just like all the dupes cheering in Berlin Sportpalast. Disgusting.

Its funny how you mold the Christian faith according to your own prejudices. Why is it you use the Bible against us when you don't even believe in it?

I believe that the text exists because I have read it. I believe that it says what the words mean. That doesn't take any faith.

Really now? Any assertion made by you is hewn from the foundations of your own personal belief. If you are bashing us with the Bible, you must have your own faith based interpretation as well. I couldn't help but notice the political connotations in your OP as well.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." Anne Lamott

You can safely assume that stupid people almost always quote other stupid people saying stupid shit.

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

Having a moniker such as yours says you aren't really an Atheist. One cannot be one and a Buddhist at the same time.

Firstly, there is meant to be a somewhat ironic nature to my screen name, I did it on purpose.

Secondly, I admire the Buddha for being someone of wisdom with valuable teachings about modesty, respect for yourself and others, mindfulness, non violence and so on. That is why I have taken the moniker that I have. Because I strive to be the Buddha of atheism. Now you could say that, I am a bit full of myself for having this screen name or that you think I'm failing at my goal and those would at least be somewhat worthwhile criticisms. But to say that my screen name somehow precludes me from being an atheist is one of the most laughably idiotic things I've seen posted on this forum to date.

So quite frankly, you aren't an Atheist. Buddhism is a religion, atheism is a disbelief of religion. I'm sorry, you'll have to do better than that.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

"You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." Anne Lamott

You can safely assume that stupid people almost always quote other stupid people saying stupid shit.

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

Having a moniker such as yours says you aren't really an Atheist. One cannot be one and a Buddhist at the same time.

Firstly, there is meant to be a somewhat ironic nature to my screen name, I did it on purpose.

Secondly, I admire the Buddha for being someone of wisdom with valuable teachings about modesty, respect for yourself and others, mindfulness, non violence and so on. That is why I have taken the moniker that I have. Because I strive to be the Buddha of atheism. Now you could say that, I am a bit full of myself for having this screen name or that you think I'm failing at my goal and those would at least be somewhat worthwhile criticisms. But to say that my screen name somehow precludes me from being an atheist is one of the most laughably idiotic things I've seen posted on this forum to date.

So quite frankly, you aren't an Atheist. Buddhism is a religion, atheism is a disbelief of religion. I'm sorry, you'll have to do better than that.

Are you dense or just out of ways to attack me? Sorry but it is you that must do better. I am in no way required to fit into your idea of what an atheist is. There are religions that I respect. Atheists are not all required to hate all religions that is the beauty of atheism. We are not required to do anything.