NationStates Jolt Archive

YOU MAY CHOOSE MORE THAN ONE OPTION

ONe of the things I like about Christianity is the part about loving thy neighbor. HOwever, I have found that different Christians have way different views on what this means. To get an idea of what the majority of Christians mean by 'loving thy neighbor', i have constructed this poll with the choices being differing attitudes I have come across.

If I have missed one, please choose 'Other' and post a reply to explain.


Just looking for a little insight here. Thanks for your help.

Doing to others what you'd want to be done fairly to yourself, to sum it up.

Doing to others what you'd want to be done fairly to yourself, to sum it up.
Maybe so, but what if I want to be chained up and beaten by a dominatrix? Should I do that to my neighbour?

Doing to others what you'd want to be done fairly to yourself, to sum it up.
So I should go out on the street and randomly shag attractive people? :p


Here I come! :fluffle:

Maybe so, but what if I want to be chained up and beaten by a dominatrix? Should I do that to my neighbour?
Damn, you beat me to it ;)

You should love you neighbour, but not 'love' your neighbour's wife ;)

Maybe so, but what if I want to be chained up and beaten by a dominatrix? Should I do that to my neighbour?


probably not, but if you did so, fully expecting them to enjoy it, then your intentions are good, and the action not necessarily immoral.

If you invite all your friends to a dinner party, and a tree falls on the house, killing them, was your action of having a dinner party immoral because it resulted in the deaths of your friends? YOur intention was for them to have a good time.

probably not, but if you did so, fully expecting them to enjoy it, then your intentions are good, and the action not necessarily immoral.
What if you expect them to enjoy it but they don't?
If you invite all your friends to a dinner party, and a tree falls on the house, killing them, was your action of having a dinner party immoral because it resulted in the deaths of your friends? YOur intention was for them to have a good time.
Possibly. However, if you invite friends to your remote cottage for a dinner party and then proceed to feed them salmon mousse, then the action was indeed immoral. Because, as everyone knows, it was the salmon mousse.

probably not, but if you did so, fully expecting them to enjoy it, then your intentions are good, and the action not necessarily immoral.

If you invite all your friends to a dinner party, and a tree falls on the house, killing them, was your action of having a dinner party immoral because it resulted in the deaths of your friends? YOur intention was for them to have a good time.Yeah, but you didn't make the tree drop. And in the other case you are whipping them.

It might help to ask what the other wants. Or use some common sense..

Possibly. However, if you invite friends to your remote cottage for a dinner party and then proceed to feed them salmon mousse, then the action was indeed immoral. Because, as everyone knows, it was the salmon mousse.

Only if you used canned salmon.

We are supposed to love everyone, regardless

What if you expect them to enjoy it but they don't?

THen, as soon as you realize it you should stop. If you don't, at that point it becomes immoral.

if you invite friends to your remote cottage for a dinner party and then proceed to feed them salmon mousse, then the action was indeed immoral. Because, as everyone knows, it was the salmon mousse.

depends on whether you knew it was the salmon mousse or not. Still amounts to intention, if you ask me.

probably not, but if you did so, fully expecting them to enjoy it, then your intentions are good, and the action not necessarily immoral.
Ah, but wasn't the thing we were discussing "Doing to others what you'd want to be done fairly to yourself"? That makes no mention of whether they enjoy it, it merely says that I should do to them what I would enjoy being done to me. I think the saying is oversimplified.

When they are Christians 0 0%
When they are the same denomination of Christian as me 0 0%
When they are sinners who want to be saved 0 0%
When they don't want to be saved, I love them by putting the fear of Hell in them so they'll change 1 7.69%
I love them as long as they aren't homosexuals, liberals, or otherwise unsaveable 2 15.38%
We are supposed to love everyone, regardless 13 100.00%
Other 2 15.38%


WTF??

God, is that you?

- Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. Talmud, Shabbat 3id... Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. - Leviticus 19:18, NIB_

- Christianity: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets... All the Bible!, Matthew 7:1... Do to others as you would have them do to you, Luke 6:31 NIB_

- Islam, No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. - Hadith recorded by al-Bukhari, Sunnah_

- Hinduism, This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. Mahabharata 5,1517_

- Buddhism, Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Udana-Varga 5,18_ - Taoism, Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien_

- Jainism, Therefore, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make others do so. - Acarangasutra 5.101-2_

- Confucianism, Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. Analects 12:2_

- Zoroastrianism, Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others. - Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29. _

- Baha'i Faith, He should not wish for others what he does not wish for himself. - Baha'u'llah, Bahá'í Faith. _

- Humanism, don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you. - British Humanist society_

- Wicca: Bide the Wiccan Rede ye must, In Perfect Love and Perfect Trust; Live ye must and let to live, Fairly take and fairly give, the opening statement_

- Socrates, Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others_

- Epictetus, What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others_

- Ancient Egypt, Do for one who may do for you, / That you may cause him thus to do.- The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110, tr. R.B. Parkinson.

WTF??

God, is that you?
It's a multiple choice poll. If 100% of people pick an option, then that option scores 100%. It's %age of people who chose that option, not %age of total votes.

We are supposed to love everyone. It is not enough to love the people that love you, that is easy. It is difficult to love the ones that don't love you, even love the ones who hate you. I try to keep an attitude of love, sometimes I don't like people's actions, but I can still love them as a person.

- Islam, No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. - Hadith recorded by al-Bukhari, Sunnah_
So you can't be Islamic until you want your wife to fuck your brother as well? Ok...

It's a multiple choice poll. If 100% of people pick an option, then that option scores 100%. It's %age of people who chose that option, not %age of total votes.

yes, i know. i just thought it was funny.

To fellow nation I V Stalin -

your comment was uncalled for. please do not deteriorate this thread.

this is uncalled for. please do not deteriorate this thread.
Sorry...just pointing out inconsistencies. As someone who is anti-religious, I find this mildly amusing.

- Judaism: ...

*snip*

I still think Kant got it best:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.

Most christians wouldn't love/help a neighbour voluntarily unless it wasn't a prerequisite to go to heaven...

Sorry...just pointing out inconsistencies. As someone who is anti-religious, I find this mildly amusing.


I also have issues with how some organized religions have twisted a good thing and become corrupt. Generally, i think this is the nature of organized religion.

but as a spiritual seeker, i have found that all major traditions have a version of the Golden rule as a basic tenet of their moral beliefs. (i posted a list of quotes earlier in this thread). There has to be something behind the vallidity of the Golden Rule if it is contained so universally in human moral codes.

I still think Kant got it best:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.
Maybe so, but Kant also came out with a hell of a lot of shit.
*wishes he had his Kant books with him to find examples*

Most christians wouldn't love/help a neighbour voluntarily unless it wasn't a prerequisite to go to heaven...
:confused:

so we wouldn't help except that we think it will get us into heaven

or we do help but wouldn't if we thought it would get us into heaven?

I don't understand.

I still think Kant got it best:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.


COOL. excellent quote. I honor your contribution by adding it to my list.

Thank you.

I also have issues with how some organized religions have twisted a good thing and become corrupt. Generally, i think this is the nature of organized religion.

but as a spiritual seeker, i have found that all major traditions have a version of the Golden rule as a basic tenet of their moral beliefs. (i posted a list of quotes earlier in this thread). There has to be something behind the vallidity of the Golden Rule if it is contained so universally in human moral codes.
Many major traditions managed to incorporate slavery or servitude in them somewhere. They may have the Golden Rule, but they twist it to something along the lines of 'Love others, but only if they are your equals'. It's pretty much the same as some religious people believe - 'Love others, but only if they are of the same religion'.

:confused:

so we wouldn't help except that we think it will get us into heaven

or we do help but wouldn't if we thought it would get us into heaven?

I don't understand.


WIth some people, they will do whatever they think will get them into heaven.

I find this more selfish than loving one's neighbor.

Many major traditions managed to incorporate slavery or servitude in them somewhere. They may have the Golden Rule, but they twist it to something along the lines of 'Love others, but only if they are your equals'. It's pretty much the same as some religious people believe - 'Love others, but only if they are of the same religion'.


So far, none of them admit to it.

I still think Kant got it best:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.
I don't like Kant's moral ideas much. I have no clue where he got the "universal law" bit, because it has no relevance that I can see in the case of choosing what to do. Free will causes difference between individuals through allowing people to act differently, and moral principles that ignore that are useless.

WIth some people, they will do whatever they think will get them into heaven.
yeah, I am aware of that. I don't think it's most Christians though.

I was confused by the wording of the post though.


I find this more selfish than loving one's neighbor.
yeah. it is.

I have a theory that almost any sin can be traced back to someone being selfish. (I am still trying to prove myself wrong though)

I have a theory that almost any sin can be traced back to someone being selfish. (I am still trying to prove myself wrong though)
How is being gay being selfish then?

Or what about eating shellfish?

Or wearing a polyester/cotton blend shirt?

Those are all sins, at least according to catholic dogma.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:43-48).

1) Love is seeking another's good, however you feel toward him or her.
2) Love is seeking another's good, regardless of what they do to you.
3) Righteousness or unrighteousness is not a litmus test for love.
4) Love must be extended to friends and enemies alike.

***

"The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates. On the wicked he will rain fiery coals and burning sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot" (Psalm 11:5-6).

"Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance" (Romans 2:4)?

1) Rebels against God's authority won't be let off the hook in the end.
2) The future fate of rebels doesn't change God's love in the present.
3) God's love in this life is meant to draw the rebel to the point of reconciliation.
4) Christians are supposed to follow God's lead in love toward all.

yeah, I am aware of that. I don't think it's most Christians though.

i agree




I have a theory that almost any sin can be traced back to someone being selfish. (I am still trying to prove myself wrong though)

I think you are onto something here. I also have come to the conclusion that if you take the zen concept of ego-centeredness and apply it to Christianity, you find that when Adam and Eve ate of the Apple of the Tree of Knowledge, they became aware of their nakedness. Self-awareness is a huge leap of consciousness, and babies aren't born with it.

By becoming self-aware (and thus self-serving) we fall from grace. Only when we embrace connection with God and All Others does our attachment to our ego dissolve, and we are accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven or whatever you call being one with God.

Treating others as yourself makes perfect sense if others ARE ourselves, but who view themselves as separate from us, as we do with them.

(Matthew 5:43-48).

1) Love is seeking another's good, however you feel toward him or her.
2) Love is seeking another's good, regardless of what they do to you.
3) Righteousness or unrighteousness is not a litmus test for love.
4) Love must be extended to friends and enemies alike.

***

(Psalm 11:5-6).

(Romans 2:4)?

1) Rebels against God's authority won't be let off the hook in the end.
2) The future fate of rebels doesn't change God's love in the present.
3) God's love in this life is meant to draw the rebel to the point of reconciliation.
4) Christians are supposed to follow God's lead in love toward all.

I agree with the first part completely.

The second part only pertains to what God will do. Im not concerned with that. Im more interested in what YOU will do with your fellow man.

How is being gay being selfish then?

Or what about eating shellfish?

Or wearing a polyester/cotton blend shirt?

Those are all sins, at least according to catholic dogma.
yeah, I don't know much about catholic dogma, because I am protestant.

They have a lot of rules that I don't understand.

yeah, I don't know much about catholic dogma, because I am protestant.

They have a lot of rules that I don't understand.
Oh, I'm sure they don't understand their own rules either. They're just a very, very confused lot, if you ask me. Are there any similar "sins" in protestant dogma that wouldn't make sense in your theory about selfishness?

Oh, I'm sure they don't understand their own rules either. They're just a very, very confused lot, if you ask me. Are there any similar "sins" in protestant dogma that wouldn't make sense in your theory about selfishness?
not really.

my 4 year old and I have been discussing it (yeah I have a super smart 4 year old) and the closest we can come up with is murder, but then we figured out that if you kill someone then you were being selfish in putting your motives over their life, so it still fits.

We are really lost on anything that couldn't be traced back to selfishness, I was thinking of starting a thred on it, to see if we could get some ideas from people less like ourselves. (maybe since we think so similarly we are having brain block)

How is being gay being selfish then?

Or what about eating shellfish?

Or wearing a polyester/cotton blend shirt?

Those are all sins, at least according to catholic dogma.

The argument that being gay is selfish is that a gays are acting on their own personal sexual desires (which are proscribed by Catholics).

Good point about the shellfish. (http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2003/om20031009.html)

But cotton/polyester??? youre gonna have to bring me up to speed on that one.

The argument that being gay is selfish is that a gays are acting on their own personal sexual desires (which are proscribed by Catholics).

So are straights. And catholics proscribe homosexuality for no valid reason, in my eyes. Sexual intercourse between consenting adults strikes me as nothing selfish, as nobody gets the short end of the bargain. A win-win exchange isn't being selfish.




Good point about the shellfish. (http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2003/om20031009.html)

But cotton/polyester??? youre gonna have to bring me up to speed on that one.
The thing about cotton/polyester is somewhere in Leviticus, about it being "impure" to wear a garment made of more than one fiber. I unfortunately cannot give you the verse, as I don't have my bible on hand at the moment. But as I recall, it's somewhere near the shellfish part.

Looks to me like they grouped all the nonsense together :p

I put "other" because I am Jewish. So... take that.

The argument that being gay is selfish is that a gays are acting on their own personal sexual desires (which are proscribed by Catholics).

Good point about the shellfish. (http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2003/om20031009.html)

But cotton/polyester??? youre gonna have to bring me up to speed on that one.
But aren't heterosexuals also acting on their own personal sexual desires? Again, another inconsistency conveniently ignored by those who follow the religion.
The shellfish and 'garments of more than one fabric' are both in the Old Testament, and as such, I believe most Christians agree, should be ignored, as they have been superceded by the New Testament.

But aren't heterosexuals also acting on their own personal sexual desires? Again, another inconsistency conveniently ignored by those who follow the religion.
actually, I have heard from catholics that you should only use sex for procreation, so like if you use birthcontrol or have sex while you are pregnant that you are sinning also. I found out about their anti-birth control thing when I was in the local catholic hospital delivering my youngest, I mentioned that now that we had two kids that my husband was going to get snipped, and the nurse wispered to me that it's a sin to get a vasectomy. :eek:

But aren't heterosexuals also acting on their own personal sexual desires? Again, another inconsistency conveniently ignored by those who follow the religion.
The shellfish and 'garments of more than one fabric' are both in the Old Testament, and as such, I believe most Christians agree, should be ignored, as they have been superceded by the New Testament.
You seem to forget a particular breed of Christians who just pick and choose the parts that fit them, and ignore the parts that don't :rolleyes:

actually, I have heard from catholics that you should only use sex for procreation, so like if you use birthcontrol or have sex while you are pregnant that you are sinning also. I found out about their anti-birth control thing when I was in the local catholic hospital delivering my youngest, I mentioned that now that we had two kids that my husband was going to get snipped, and the nurse wispered to me that it's a sin to get a vasectomy. :eek:
Yeah, they're a sad, confused bunch all right.

Like overpopulating this planet until we destroy it isn't gonna piss off the God who was kind enough to create it for us.

It's like your parents building a house for you, and you wrecking it completely by cramming ten times as many peeps into it than it was designed to hold. Way to go for mental maturity, Benoit. :headbang:

WTF??

God, is that you?

Quite possibly it was. I wont say it certianly was but quite possibly

You seem to forget a particular breed of Christians who just pick and choose the parts that fit them, and ignore the parts that don't :rolleyes:
Oh yeah, I know about them. I share a room with a 'Catholic'. He's the least Christian person I've ever met, yet he adopts a 'holier-than-thou' attitude over frickin' everything. And he doesn't seem to realise how hypocritical he is. He's fun to take the piss out of though.

How is being gay being selfish then?

Selfishly fufilling a sinful desire. (Note only anal sex is the sin, not actually being attracted to members of the same sex. That is just a temptation).

For more infomation on this see here

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf


Or what about eating shellfish?

Or wearing a polyester/cotton blend shirt?

Those are all sins, at least according to catholic dogma.

The Catholics do not keep to the Old Covenant laws. You clearly do not understand the diffrence between the old and new covenant.

Oh yeah, I know about them. I share a room with a 'Catholic'. He's the least Christian person I've ever met, yet he adopts a 'holier-than-thou' attitude over frickin' everything. And he doesn't seem to realise how hypocritical he is. He's fun to take the piss out of though.
Yeah. Just watch which of his shirts are a blend of synthetic fibers, then bust him while he's wearing them, and tell him how much of an abomination in the eyes of God he is. Heh, all sins are equal, after all; being gay's not worse off than wearing those shirts. He's sure to flip out when you tell him that.

Selfishly fufilling a sinful desire.

How is being gay being selfish? And why is it sinful to begin with, if not because it is selfish?




The Catholics do not keep to the Old Covenant laws. You clearly do not understand the diffrence between the old and new covenant.

I AM a catholic. Serve that holier-than-thou attitude elsewhere. I do not take kindly to arrogance or condescendance.

The parts of the bible condemning homosexuality are also part of the Old Covenant, with the notable exceptions of Paul's comments. The son of God never bothered to mention sexuality in his sermons, except to blame adulterers. I will defend his word over Paul's any day.

You are only required to love your neighbors when they are "hawt." If they're only "hot," you are allowed to exempt yourself from the rule, although it's acceptable to love them anyway. If you have to wait for them to be asleep to love them, that's okay. If you have to sneak something into their food in order to make them sleep so you can love them, that's okay as well--the requirement is that you love them. How you go about it is between you and God.

And the sheriff's department. :D

Sorry, I was busy eating Christian babies for 3rd day Chanukkah lunch and missed the question.

Selfishly fufilling a sinful desire. (Note only anal sex is the sin, not actually being attracted to members of the same sex. That is just a temptation).
Ok, I can see that. Anal sex being a sin because it serves no purpose other than pleasure? So selfish in that it doesn't promote God's word to only use sex for procreation.

procreation.

Read: overpopulation.

Anal sex being a sin because it serves no purpose other than pleasure?

Yes, maybe ... but Isaah said that because of our sin that even our good deeds are as dirty rags before the Lord, so sin away. In the end (pun intended) it doesn't really matter.

There's not going to be some great scale upon which our sins are weighed against our hearts when we die. We do as we do and we do as we choose. God really doesn't care or watch.

Sorry, I was busy eating Christian babies for 3rd day Chanukkah lunch and missed the question.
What goes better with that? A-1 or Heinz 57 sauce?

How is being gay being selfish? And why is it sinful to begin with, if not because it is selfish?

Being Gay is not a sin. Having homosexual sex is



I AM a catholic. Serve that holier-than-thou attitude elsewhere. I do not take kindly to arrogance or condescendance.

The parts of the bible condemning homosexuality are also part of the Old Covenant, with the notable exceptions of Paul's comments. The son of God never bothered to mention sexuality in his sermons, except to blame adulterers. I will defend his word over Paul's any day.

There is a signifcent difference. Firstly the refernce to homosexuality was in the code regarding sexual immorality, with a specific death penalty in the old coveant laws. If you look at where its placed, its with the laws regarding sexual imorality. Those were still aplicable afterwards. Jesus did regularly speek against sexual immorality, of which homosexuality is included. Also, since Jesus was not shy about speeking against the old covenant laws when he wished to, his silence (if there was silence) could be seen as an endorcement. See the web site I posted for more info


http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

Yes, maybe ... but Isaah said that because of our sin that even our good deeds are as dirty rags before the Lord, so sin away. In the end (pun intended) it doesn't really matter.

There's not going to be some great scale upon which our sins are weighed against our hearts when we die. We do as we do and we do as we choose. God really doesn't care or watch.

What, are you actually suggesting we have *free will* and aren't some sort of puppets dancing at the whim of a greater power?

Heathen! Stop this heresy at once! :mad:

What, are you actually suggesting we have *free will* and aren't some sort of puppets dancing at the whim of a greater power?

No ... ummm ... you saw nothing .... nothing! ... I was never here .... *sneaks away*

Heathen! Stop this heresy at once! :mad:

But it's what I live for!

There is a signifcent difference. Firstly the refernce to homosexuality was in the code regarding sexual immorality, with a specific death penalty in the old coveant laws. If you look at where its placed, its with the laws regarding sexual imorality. Those were still aplicable afterwards. Jesus did regularly speek against sexual immorality, of which homosexuality is included. Also, since Jesus was not shy about speeking against the old covenant laws when he wished to, his silence (if there was silence) could be seen as an endorcement. See the web site I posted for more info


http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

First, Rob Gagnon has about as much moral authority as the current pope, which is: NONE.

Second, I await a quote where Jesus said homosexuality was immoral. Until you are able to supply said quote, I will keep interpretating his silence as a sign he did not care what happened in our beds as long as it was consensual and nobody got hurt.

I love everyone so long as there not liberal or bother me in any shape or form

What goes better with that? A-1 or Heinz 57 sauce?

Honey mustard, actually.

No ... ummm ... you saw nothing .... nothing! ... I was never here .... *sneaks away*

That's better.



But it's what I live for!
Keep this up and you won't live for long. We'll go Spanish Inquisition on your ass so fast you won't be able to say "unbeliever". :D

"4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." - 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

In their day it was "Jews and Gentiles", today it means everyone you know or meet even in passing. It isn't that hard to understand but it is utterly shameful how few "Christians" are capable of following through with it.

"6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. " - 1 Corinthians 13

"Except for gay butt sex" - somewhere in Romans 1.

*coughs quietly*

In their day it was "Jews and Gentiles", today it means everyone you know or meet even in passing. It isn't that hard to understand but it is utterly shameful how few "Christians" are capable of following through with it.
And extrememly ironic to see how many atheists, agnostics, and persons from other religions manage to live up to it.

"Except for gay butt sex" - somewhere in Romans 1.

*coughs quietly*
Oh, hush ;)

Edit: Remember, Paul is NOT Jesus.

Edit: Remember, Paul is NOT Jesus.

Oh believe me ... I've been trying to explain that to people for decades.

Oh believe me ... I've been trying to explain that to people for decades.
Funny how some so-called Christians forget all about the son of God and go overboard in praise for the guys whose sole achievements were following him around when they say something that might fit their prejudiced views better.

Most christians wouldn't love/help a neighbour voluntarily unless it wasn't a prerequisite to go to heaven...

It's not.

Funny how some so-called Christians forget all about the son of God and go overboard in praise for the guys whose sole achievements were following him around when they say something that might fit their prejudiced views better.

Well, Free Will ... we all read what we choose and interpret it by our own design. Free Will includes the right to be wrong.

It's not.
Well, that explains why they don't help their neighbours/friends any more than average Joe or Jane.

"Except for gay butt sex" - somewhere in Romans 1.

*coughs quietly*

Pederasty actually, which today more or less translates to the Catholic Priest scandal shit and prison rape.

And extrememly ironic to see how many atheists, agnostics, and persons from other religions manage to live up to it.

To be honest, pretty much every atheist or "hippy" I have heard proclaiming "love" was all to willing to condemn "exceptions" (I.E. people who they don't agree with) in the same or next breath.

"43 You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven." - Matthew 5: 43-45

Swing and miss. :(

Oh, hush ;)

Edit: Remember, Paul is NOT Jesus. No, but he's in the book for a reason.

Jesus says a lot more uncomfortable things than Paul does.

Free Will includes the right to be wrong.
Yeah, they seem to give that one a special place in their hearts :rolleyes:

(Still speaking about the judgemental, pick-and-choose-in-scripture Christians only. Not about the nice ones.)

It's not.

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?" - James 2:14

Faith without works is hollow faith.

No, but he's in the book for a reason.


Because some council of bishops somewhere said so ......

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?" - James 2:14

Faith without works is hollow faith. As far as I can see, the two writings by James and Paul dealing with that subject seem to say that true faith produces good works, so faith without works must be dead.

No, but he's in the book for a reason.

Jesus says a lot more uncomfortable things than Paul does.
It depends. Uncomfortable for who?

Did anyone here besides me remember Jesus telling people to be wary of the Temple Authorities? That religion was stirctly between you and God?

Uncomfortable for the Clergy, maybe.

Did anyone here besides me remember Jesus telling people to be wary of the Temple Authorities? That religion was stirctly between you and God?


HEATHEN!!!

:p

As an atheist, I don't feel obligated to love anyone. But I do believe in giving them the benefit of the doubt.
I treat people kindly from the start, and will continue to do so until such time as they prove themselves an . Most people manage to stay on my good side alright. It's really not that hard.

As an atheist, I don't feel obligated to love anyone.

You love me and you know it. :D

It depends. Uncomfortable for who?

Did anyone here besides me remember Jesus telling people to be wary of the Temple Authorities? That religion was stirctly between you and God?

Uncomfortable for the Clergy, maybe. Always a good idea to be wary of the Temple Authorities. Crusades, anyone?

Well, that explains why they don't help their neighbours/friends any more than average Joe or Jane.

Actually they give more, probably because they are thankful that they are going to heaven...

Religious observers (only 38 percent of all Americans) give two-thirds of all charitable dollars in the United States. (The Gallup Organization) (http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=4&page=161)

HEATHEN!!!

:p
Behold the power of Vatican II, and my ability to be catholic *and* still maintain that the clergy and authorities are moronic dinausaurs living in a century long past!
MWAHAHAHAHAHA!
:p

It depends. Uncomfortable for who?

Did anyone here besides me remember Jesus telling people to be wary of the Temple Authorities? That religion was stirctly between you and God?

Uncomfortable for the Clergy, maybe.

No shit. :(

I tried explaining that to my brother before he joined the Catholic Church... he wouldn't listen.

Actually they give more, probably because they are thankful that they are going to heaven...

Religious observers (only 38 percent of all Americans) give two-thirds of all charitable dollars in the United States. (The Gallup Organization) (http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=4&page=161)
Yeah, and the fact that it's tax deductible has nothing to do about it. That, and the other fact that implies that they give to Christian charities that are administered by their friends and pastors.

Forgive me for being a cynical skeptic.

You should love you neighbour, but not 'love' your neighbour's wife ;)


actually i believe the prohibition is on coviting your neighbour's ass.. no?

so, as long as you harbour no homosexual intentions towards your neighbour's bottom, you are free to do as you wish to his other bits, to his household, animals, and posessions

No shit. :(

I tried explaining that to my brother before he joined the Catholic Church... he wouldn't listen. Don't worry, we've learnt over 2000 years that it is good to be wary.

No shit. :(

I tried explaining that to my brother before he joined the Catholic Church... he wouldn't listen.
I'm still pondering whether to get myself an apostasy(getting out of the church, and be done with their stupidity) or sticking around to give them some shit about their backwards view thanks to Vatican II.

Please note that, while the Cardinals and Pope and authorities may hold truly backward views, perhaps your brother was convinced to join by a more progressive and realist pastor/priest. I know my local priest is disagreeing at least as much as I with the Church's official views. He just stays because he has the vocation and is an idealist, thinking he can change things from inside.

actually i believe the prohibition is on coviting your neighbour's ass.. no?

so, as long as you harbour no homosexual intentions towards your neighbour's bottom, you are free to do as you wish to his other bits, to his household, animals, and posessions
Damn. I'm screwed. Again.

And not in the fun way. :(

Ok ok ok .... I've got it ...

"If you can't be with the one you love, honey, love the one you're with."

-- Gospel according to Stephen Stills

Ok ok ok .... I've got it ...

"If you can't be with the one you love, honey, love the one you're with."

-- Gospel according to Stephen Stills
Gotta find someone to be with first.

Any takers for a fit, and not-bad-looking 22 years old computer sciences student?

Any takers for a fit, and not-bad-looking 22 years old computer sciences student?

*raises hand*

:D

*raises hand*

:D
Are you male or female? :confused:

You love me and you know it. :D
But I don't feel obligated to, you're just irresistible.

Are you male or female? :confused:

Oh ... you didn't specify that it mattered. :p

But I don't feel obligated to ...

Oh, sure ... that's easy to say hiding all the way up there in Oklahoma ... come say that to my face .... while naked ....

Oh ... you didn't specify that it mattered. :p
:rolleyes:

Well, I rather intended to "love" the person I'm with, as in "gonna have lots of steamy, hot, tender sex, repeatedly" with that person. That implies said person should preferably be male, to fit my sexual preferences, Paul, Leviticus, Benoit and the Temple Authorities be damned.

I'm still pondering whether to get myself an apostasy(getting out of the church, and be done with their stupidity) or sticking around to give them some shit about their backwards view thanks to Vatican II.

Please note that, while the Cardinals and Pope and authorities may hold truly backward views, perhaps your brother was convinced to join by a more progressive and realist pastor/priest. I know my local priest is disagreeing at least as much as I with the Church's official views. He just stays because he has the vocation and is an idealist, thinking he can change things from inside.

He did it to get married actually, which I had no intention of talking him out of. I did my part by cultivating a little healthy suspicion at the very least. He isn't gung ho about their Doctrine thankfully.

:rolleyes:

Well, I rather intended to "love" the person I'm with, as in "gonna have lots of steamy, hot, tender sex, repeatedly" with that person. That implies said person should preferably be male, to fit my sexual preferences, Paul, Leviticus, Benoit and the Temple Authorities be damned.

Augustine be damned more like it.

Oh, sure ... that's easy to say hiding all the way up there in Oklahoma ... come say that to my face .... while ....Very tempting.

Can I you first? Though you haven't specified whether you're a ee or er.

Bad hijackers.;)

Bad hijackers.;)

HA! We killed the thread. :D

Now ... if I knew the difference between an "ee" and an "er", I could answer you.

Augustine be damned more like it.
Yeah, him too.

HA! We killed the thread. :D

Now ... if I knew the difference between an "ee" and an "er", I could answer you.

Damn right you did you freaky-deaky SOB. :D

I can't help but feel this thread has moved away from the idea the OP had...
I'm not criticising or anything (hell, I'm still posting in the office party thread), just an observation.

What happen to other faiths? I love em all, they all seem to have something they can put on a table. :D

Please note that, while the Cardinals and Pope and authorities may hold truly backward views, perhaps your brother was convinced to join by a more progressive and realist pastor/priest. PROGRESSIVES? WHERE? Let me at 'em! :p

Ok, I can see that. Anal sex being a sin because it serves no purpose other than pleasure? So selfish in that it doesn't promote God's word to only use sex for procreation.
And don't forget that awful oral sex! Putting your seed in the wrong orafice is a definite no-no! :p

Religious observers (only 38 percent of all Americans) give two-thirds of all charitable dollars in the United States. (The Gallup Organization) (http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=4&page=161)
I knew I had seen that somewhere, but couldn't remember which polling organization had run the study. Thanks. :)

Oh, I'm sure they don't understand their own rules either. They're just a very, very confused lot, if you ask me. Are there any similar "sins" in protestant dogma that wouldn't make sense in your theory about selfishness?



The last two are not part of Catholic doctrine. They come from Leviticus, and are part of Orthodox Judaism. The part about homosexuality being a sin is hardly unique to Catholicism. I personally don't believe it is a sin. The verse used to justify condemning homosexuality could be interpreted in more than one way. I won't go into detail here, because I don't want to hijack the thread, but there are several thread on this forum that address the subject.

not really.

my 4 year old and I have been discussing it (yeah I have a super smart 4 year old) and the closest we can come up with is murder, but then we figured out that if you kill someone then you were being selfish in putting your motives over their life, so it still fits.

We are really lost on anything that couldn't be traced back to selfishness, I was thinking of starting a thred on it, to see if we could get some ideas from people less like ourselves. (maybe since we think so similarly we are having brain block)



I think you and that budding young genius of yours have a good point. That kid is so smart it's kinda scary.;) That's a concept that hadn't occurred to me, and I'm fairly intelligent myself. I've also had classes in comparitive religion.