outhouse
Atheistically
Possibly. But I would not put any percentage of plausibility.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I don't believe America is a majority Christian nation
- Thread starter -Peacemaker-
- Start date
Possibly. But I would not put any percentage of plausibility.
HA. It is not my idea. It is what I read. It is there. Black on white. No special context or exceptions whatsoever.
Are you reading something different?
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
Funny how homosexuality is only mentioned 7 times in the Bible, never by Jesus, mind you. But economic justice is mentioned hundreds and hundreds of times in the Bible.
"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. ...Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter."
Who, me?
"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. ...Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter."
Who, me?
Unfortunately, tone is not something not easily communicated by text. And I guess it's rude when anti-religionists don't get their echo chamber. Christians are credulous, intellectually bankrupt fools and no matter what anyone says my opinion is set. Fine, can we at least now admit that movement atheism or whatever you want to call it has nothing to do with reason, science and truth but ideology?
The double standard is astounding.
Never claimed it did. I said the Church tradition predates the canon. In fact it predates it by centuries. Further, the defined teachings of that tradition are not up for us to jettison away. I can't just decide away what I deem 'irrelevant to modernity'.
Last edited by a moderator:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
You presented the idea. It's therefore your responsibility to present the context and /verse, etc, for what you are presenting.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
The context is not a commandment for everyone to do that. So, you are presenting a false argument, //rather conclusion, drawn , from the text.
Let's take one.
Like 14:33 --> In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.
What could be clearer than that?
Ciao
- viole
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
It's because you don't know what that means. The disciples were also in a special position, and especially working directly under Jesus, merely to do the job, they could not have possessions; because they were traveling around, preaching the good word, and truth of the living God, Jesus.
It doesn't mean, one definition, or commandment, for everyone. Now, it does apply to everyone, but in slightly different ways.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
In that context, it seems like Jesus does say that, or make the suggestion, literally.
In other words, the rich man, in that context, could have.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
If you don't believe in the authority of the source, then it really doesn't matter, does it?
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Who's talking about atheism?
Secondly, again you seemingly portray "church tradition" as being monolithic whereas it clearly wasn't.
Thirdly, tradition is a teaching tool and not an end unto itself. Same with scripture. All such teachings should be put into the context of the times they were issued and then related to the present to see what may still apply. To ignore them is a mistake, but to hold them up as somehow being inerrant is another mistake, imo.
Is that a rebuttal/answer ?
Of course it does not matter (for me). But my not-being-Christian is pretty uncontroversial.
What we are trying to assess here is whether Christians really follow the teachings of Jesus or concentrate on only some of them. The easy ones.
For sure, it is much easier to be heterosexual and oppose homosexuality, then to sell your home, car, etc. and give everything to the poor.
Don't you think so?
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Orbit
I'm a planet
Jesus didn't teach anything about those issues. In fact, he said "Judge not".
Oldsoul
Member
Your post is really a reflection on YOUR subconscious character.
You are judging America and Americans from a sexual perspective. .
That's very myopic and highly irrational. ..
If you were to lift your head out of the sheets.. You'd see things differently.
Aset's Flames
Viperine Asetian
In order to make this judgment you must be claiming that you know exactly what Yeshua intended correct?
I am not a Christian, but I have always been confused by something. It seems that neither Jesus, or Paul or any of the apostles think its important to write down what they were saying to different people during their ministry and use that as a new kind of revelatory scripture. Jesus never told anyone to write down his words and treat it as a new authority source, and Paul wrote letters for very specific churches dealing with their issues. It seems the primary authority in the congregations appear to be based on the felt presence of the spirit (which is self-justifying through the fruits) and the guidance of the people selected by the apostles. In that sense the NT documents should be treated as memoirs of the early leaders that provide guidance, true, but not a new source of written revelation. For Christianity, the phase of written revelation is over, and now the revelation first comes in the form of an incarnation whose actions make it possible for the revelation to directly sprout as the establishment of the Spirit in the hearts of people. If this is the case, the current Christian predisposition to use these memoirs once more as scriptural revelation of doctrine following which ultimately determines who is a true or a good Christian and who is not, seems the very opposite of the points stressed by the authors. Sticking these memoirs at the end of the OT, which is indeed considered the written version of word that is now more reliably enfleshed (in Jesus) and ensouled (through the Spirit) has led to this confusion further.
Comments?
Comments?
outhouse
Atheistically
So many people found value in the theology generated by the martyrdom of the Galilean, it was never a religion of what Jesus practiced or taught anyway.
Paul joined a movement and happened to follow what would later become the mots popular