Sins-This Floor

regdog · Jun 30, 2015

To keep from derailing the Gay Marriage thread with religion and sin, I started this thread.

Reading the Bible is markedly different from being taught religion in Catholic School. I went to both Catholic grammar and high school. We were taught what the Dioceses wanted, whether it was direct Bible or not.

As I mentioned in the other thread one of my religion teachers had a list of sins and what the punishment was for each one.

IE disobeying our parents-Penance

Stealing-7 years in Purgatory

Murder-Burn in Hell

In the high school I attended for the first three days we visited each available elective class to decide what to take.The language teacher kept teaching religion while teaching German. She actually explained how God decided the proper way to conjugate verbs. I didn't take German.

CassandraW · Jun 30, 2015

Excuse me. Can you direct me to the Lust department?

Vince524 · Jun 30, 2015

CassandraW said:
Excuse me. Can you direct me to the Lust department?

Down below.

atombaby · Jun 30, 2015

The Bible is quite clear about homosexuality:

Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ (from Genesis 2:24) and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’b ? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” -NIV

Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." -ESV

I Corinthians 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." -NIV

Now Jesus also tells us to love another as Christ loves the Church, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you (the Golden Rule). The way I see it, heterosexuals should not persecute homosexuals for not sharing their views, and homosexuals should not persecute heterosexuals for not sharing their views. If heterosexuals have no right to "force" their views upon homosexuals, then the vice versa should apply. Of course, we live in a very "imperfect" world and such harmony and elimination of hatred is unachievable. Just as homosexuals have their reasons to be homosexual, heterosexuals have their reasons to be heterosexual and neither side should be "ripping the other" in some "I'm right you're wrong" argument. Call me pessimistic but no one's mind is going to change once it's made up.

BenPanced · Jun 30, 2015

Ground floor, perfumery, stationery, and leather goods. Wigs and haberdashery, kitchenware, and food. Going up.

You're welcome!

Roxxsmom · Jun 30, 2015

atombaby said:
Of course, we live in a very "imperfect" world and such harmony and elimination of hatred is unachievable. Just as homosexuals have their reasons to be homosexual, heterosexuals have their reasons to be heterosexual and neither side should be "ripping the other" in some "I'm right you're wrong" argument. Call me pessimistic but no one's mind is going to change once it's made up.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I've never heard of a gay or lesbian person ripping into straight people simply for being straight, nor have I seen a political movement on their part to criminalize straight sex or relationships or deny marriage rights to opposite sex couples.

The sin, such that it is, is pretty firmly in the straight camp here. But it hasn't been all the straight people who are doing this, and in recent years, the tide of public opinion has shifted dramatically.

This would suggest that some people, at least, have changed their minds. And insofar as personal anecdotes count for anything, I personally know some people who have changed their minds about same-sex marriage in recent years. I think the fact that a critical mass of LGBT are open about their relationships has made it so nearly everyone knows some people who are LGBT (or knows that they know people who are LGBT). Seeing the ways in which the status quo hurt friends and family members has a huge impact on many people.

Yes, there are still people who are insisting that their interpretation of their religions' scriptures should be the law of the land for everyone, but these people are ignoring the fact that America is not a theocracy. I honestly don't know a way to honor their wishes, aside from allowing anyone to discriminate against anyone they like, so long as they say it's for religious reasons. And in addition to making life disproportionately miserable for LGBT people in the short term, I think this would open a horrific can of worms for everyone in the long term.

RichardGarfinkle · Jun 30, 2015

I'll have to dig it out, but I have a late Medieval manual of Franciscan practice which regards Envy as the most dangerous sin because it can act as a root from which all the others can grow.

Don · Jun 30, 2015

atombaby said:
The Bible is quite clear about homosexuality:

Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ (from Genesis 2:24) and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’b ? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

I Corinthians 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Now Jesus also tells us to love another as Christ loves the Church, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you (the Golden Rule). The way I see it, heterosexuals should not persecute homosexuals for not sharing their views, and homosexuals should not persecute heterosexuals for not sharing their views. If heterosexuals have no right to "force" their views upon homosexuals, then the vice versa should apply. Of course, we live in a very "imperfect" world and such harmony and elimination of hatred is unachievable. Just as homosexuals have their reasons to be homosexual, heterosexuals have their reasons to be heterosexual and neither side should be "ripping the other" in some "I'm right you're wrong" argument. Call me pessimistic but no one's mind is going to change once it's made up.

What this says to me is that christians should be just as concerned with sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, thievery, greed, drunkenness, slander and swindlers as they have been lately with "men who have sex with men." I also note that it says nothing whatsoever in prohibition about "women who have sex with women" so I guess they're in the clear.

OTOH, also according to Leviticus, taking the lord's name in vain is worthy of the death penalty, Theresa Caputo should be stoned instead of given a show on TLC, haircuts and shaves are out, but slaves are in. I seem to remember there's something about pork and mixed fibers in there too.

And if we're going to debate society on the basis of biblical verses, shouldn't we first have at least a pro forma discussion about how the bible came to be, who actually selected which books were to be included in the current version, and how the translations came about? There's been a whole lot of manhandling of the word of god.

Roxxsmom · Jun 30, 2015

Several of the seven deadlies are really emotions, not actions. Lust, envy, pride, wrath etc. I've never really understood the concept of an emotion itself as a sin. When I was in therapy for depression, one focus was giving myself permission to feel the things I felt, because I'd been raised to believe I hadn't a leg to stand on (with regards to my emotional state) much of the time.

"An emotion is neither right nor wrong, it simply is. It's what we do as a consequence that can be problematic" was the repeated mantra of my counselor (who was, I believe, a religious man). We now know that emotions stem from our limbic system and other parts of our brain that are largely regarded as involuntary by neuroscientists. Regardless of which school of psychology one subscribes to, there's a notion that self control and mature behavior stems, in part at least, from learning when and how to act on emotions.

Wrath that leads to constructive discourse and action, not a sin. Wrath that leads to self defense or defense of another against an attack, not a sin. Wrath that leads to your doing something that harms another who was not a threat, sin.

Even Jesus had righteous wrath. But how does wrath differ from anger?

Though maybe it's down to semantics. One person's lust is another's passion. One person's envy is another's motivation to do better or work harder. One person's sloth is another person's pacing themselves.

atombaby · Jun 30, 2015

Roxxsmom said:
I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I've never heard of a gay or lesbian person ripping into straight people simply for being straight, nor have I seen a political movement on their part to criminalize straight sex or relationships or deny marriage rights to opposite sex couples.

The sin, such that it is, is pretty firmly in the straight camp here. But it hasn't been all the straight people who are doing this, and in recent years, the tide of public opinion has shifted dramatically.

This would suggest that some people, at least, have changed their minds. And insofar as personal anecdotes count for anything, I personally know some people who have changed their minds about same-sex marriage in recent years. I think the fact that a critical mass of LGBT are open about their relationships has made it so nearly everyone knows some people who are LGBT (or knows that they know people who are LGBT). Seeing the ways in which the status quo hurt friends and family members has a huge impact on many people.

Yes, there are still people who are insisting that their interpretation of their religions' scriptures should be the law of the land for everyone, but these people are ignoring the fact that America is not a theocracy. I honestly don't know a way to honor their wishes, aside from allowing anyone to discriminate against anyone they like, so long as they say it's for religious reasons. And in addition to making life disproportionately miserable for LGBT people in the short term, I think this would open a horrific can of worms for everyone in the long term.

My point is now homosexuals have the same "rights" as heterosexuals, so what? We all live together. It's the hatred and scorning that irks me. When the same-sex marriage act passed, I heard and read a staggering amount of comments from their proponents ripping on Christianity, mocking God and religion. It made me sick. I can't even stomach pulling up quotes I've read.

The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong. So don't bring the God of the Bible into it as if He supports it. We obviously do not live in a Christian country anymore even though the first line of the Constitution states "under God." I also don't see Christians throwing protests and riots because "they didn't get their way" or that "they're being oppressed." A true Christian prays and has faith.

Roxxsmom · Jun 30, 2015

atombaby said:
My point is now homosexuals have the same "rights" as heterosexuals, so what? We all live together. It's the hatred and scorning that irks me. When the same-sex marriage act passed, I heard and read a staggering amount of comments from their proponents ripping on Christianity, mocking God and religion. It made me sick. I can't even stomach pulling up quotes I've read.

The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong. So don't bring the God of the Bible into it as if He supports it. We obviously do not live in a Christian country anymore even though the first line of the Constitution states "under God." I also don't see Christians throwing protests and riots because "they didn't get their way" or that "they're being oppressed." A true Christian prays and has faith.

Well, people have a right to feel how they feel about God and religion. I have to say that if the Bible really is the complete and unadulterated word of the universe's creating force, I'd be immensely surprised, given its history and the vastness of the universe. People have been arguing about what the Bible, even the very edited and limited version that survived the council of Nicaea and all the subsequent translations and rewritings, really says and means for centuries. I don't see that changing any time soon.

But if it is, and the parts about the sinfulness of Homosexuality are actually the words of God and not filtered through the prejudices and perceptions of the humans who wrote those books, it suggests that God isn't a terribly nice or compassionate being.

If that's ripping on god and religion, so be it. But I happen to know a lot of people who consider themselves Christians who feel that some parts of the Bible are more relevant and true than others. Actually, I've yet to meet a modern Christian who really takes the whole thing literally (I've been back and forth with some fundamentalist relatives about why they're so down on homosexuality but not on eating pork or wearing mixed fibers, and the best they've been able to say is that they've "prayed on it" and God has told them which ancient laws still count). But I know liberal Christians who can say the same thing about the parts that prohibit homosexuality.

I agree it's all completely irrelevant to what should be the law of our land. People have been killing each other over what scriptures say and mean throughout history, so basing a society's laws on religious writings seems like a bad idea. Some Christians might not like the fact that America isn't a theocracy, but the Bible also says, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

Don said:
And if we're going to debate society on the basis of biblical verses, shouldn't we first have at least a pro forma discussion about how the bible came to be, who actually selected which books were to be included in the current version, and how the translations came about? There's been a whole lot of manhandling of the word of god.

This is a very good question, and one thing I've often wondered is why so many modern fundamentalist protestants, who often deride the Catholic Church as corrupt and overly bureaucratic (among other things) for setting up all these middlemen between worshipers and the scriptures, are so willing to take a set of holy writs that were selected, vetted, and interpreted by said Church as the literal and complete word of their god.

Vince524 · Jun 30, 2015

atombaby said:
The Bible is quite clear about homosexuality:

Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ (from Genesis 2:24) and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’b ? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

I Corinthians 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Now Jesus also tells us to love another as Christ loves the Church, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you (the Golden Rule). The way I see it, heterosexuals should not persecute homosexuals for not sharing their views, and homosexuals should not persecute heterosexuals for not sharing their views. If heterosexuals have no right to "force" their views upon homosexuals, then the vice versa should apply. Of course, we live in a very "imperfect" world and such harmony and elimination of hatred is unachievable. Just as homosexuals have their reasons to be homosexual, heterosexuals have their reasons to be heterosexual and neither side should be "ripping the other" in some "I'm right you're wrong" argument. Call me pessimistic but no one's mind is going to change once it's made up.

Roxxsmom said:
I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I've never heard of a gay or lesbian person ripping into straight people simply for being straight, nor have I seen a political movement on their part to criminalize straight sex or relationships or deny marriage rights to opposite sex couples.

The sin, such that it is, is pretty firmly in the straight camp here. But it hasn't been all the straight people who are doing this, and in recent years, the tide of public opinion has shifted dramatically.

This would suggest that some people, at least, have changed their minds. And insofar as personal anecdotes count for anything, I personally know some people who have changed their minds about same-sex marriage in recent years. I think the fact that a critical mass of LGBT are open about their relationships has made it so nearly everyone knows some people who are LGBT (or knows that they know people who are LGBT). Seeing the ways in which the status quo hurt friends and family members has a huge impact on many people.

I've never been against same-sex marriage personally, but it's not an issue I gave a lot of thought to prior to 911, when I realized that a straight couple who got married a few months before were entitled to the federal death benefit there, but a same-sex couple who had been together for decades were not, even if they were registered as domestic partners.

While I wouldn't be surprised if there is some example of a gay person insisting being straight is wrong, it's hardly common place. And I've never heard it myself. Closest I've come is when I was on the phone with a high school friend who had been thrown out of his house for being gay and he'd moved in with his boyfriend at the time. I was having what was a pretty emotional conversation about what my friend was going through when his BF came in and started to imply that I should come over because one fuck by him and I wouldn't never be straight again. He was pretty graphic.

Having said that, what I've seen more of is the pushing of the belief that if a person believes in the tenants of their religion that say homosexuality is a sin, even if you have a live and let live stance, than you're a bigot.

I wouldn't be surprised if at some point a gay couple does try and legally sue for the right to be married in the church of their choosing even if that church doesn't allow for same sex weddings. Some people on here have suggested that churches should and could lose their tax exempt status. It's one thing to feel that way about all churches as a matter of course, but if you want to use it as a way to punish those religions institutions that don't allow same sex marriage, then you are trying to use the government to interfere with religion.

There is, to me, a difference between the legal rights of marriage which should be open to all fairly, and the sacrament of marriage, which is something from the church. Which is not under government purview.

I don't feel comfortable with the religion that I was raised under, partially because of that. I have no moral compunction against same sex marriage. But at the same time, my view shouldn't infringe on the church.

backslashbaby · Jun 30, 2015

My pastors have been pretty sneaky and just never preached at all about certain things

Hey, nobody says you have to address every single word in the Bible.

They did preach about little white lies and things. Mostly it was what you would expect. Try not to do that, but we all do that. And if it's to avoid hurt that someone else would feel, avoiding hurt ranks above little-white-lying, so you're good to go.

AW Admin · Jun 30, 2015

RichardGarfinkle said:
I'll have to dig it out, but I have a late Medieval manual of Franciscan practice which regards Envy as the most dangerous sin because it can act as a root from which all the others can grow.

There are two slightly different lists of the seven deadly sins in English. The actual sins are the same, but the order and some of the names are different.

Traditionally, Pride and Envy are the "parent sins," from which all the others sprout.

RichardGarfinkle · Jun 30, 2015

AW Admin said:
There are two slightly different lists of the seven deadly sins in English. The actual sins are the same, but the order and some of the names are different.

Traditionally, Pride and Envy are the "parent sins," from which all the others sprout.

One of the things that intrigued me from reading that manual was to work out how to have a person who starts with any of the seven and through life experiences and decisions get to all the others. I found it a useful exercise in character creation. The easy routes all go through the others.

A similar exercise with the cardinal virtues was also worthwhile. Combining both in the same character worked to create characters with moral infrastructures in conflct.

RKarina · Jun 30, 2015

atombaby said:
The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong. So don't bring the God of the Bible into it as if He supports it. We obviously do not live in a Christian country anymore even though the first line of the Constitution states "under God." I also don't see Christians throwing protests and riots because "they didn't get their way" or that "they're being oppressed." A true Christian prays and has faith.

Wait... please cite the first line of the US Constitution that references "under God"?

The preamble and first section:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Do you mean the Declaration of Independence? Which does mention God and the Creator.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

AW Admin · Jun 30, 2015

Vince524 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if at some point a gay couple does try and legally sue for the right to be married in the church of their choosing even if that church doesn't allow for same sex weddings. Some people on here have suggested that churches should and could lose their tax exempt status. It's one thing to feel that way about all churches as a matter of course, but if you want to use it as a way to punish those religions institutions that don't allow same sex marriage, then you are trying to use the government to interfere with religion. .

That's not going to happen. Really. Pastors have refused to marry people for all sorts of reasons, including just not liking the people. Churches too are free to say no you can't use our facilities for your marriage.

Think about it; a Synagogue does not have to allow a Catholic couple to wed. Nor does a Priest have to perform a marriage/wedding mass for a Jewish couple or two Presbyterians.

In fact both Rabbis and Priests have often told couples that they can't perform a wedding ceremony unless both would-be spouses are Jewish or Catholic.

Don't confuse the religious ceremony with the legal act of marriage; it isn't. Signing the marriage license in front of witnesses is what make the marriage, legally.

atombaby · Jun 30, 2015

Don said:
What this says to me is that christians should be just as concerned with sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, thievery, greed, drunkenness, slander and swindlers as they have been lately with "men who have sex with men." I also note that it says nothing whatsoever in prohibition about "women who have sex with women" so I guess they're in the clear.

Christians are just as concerned with those other sins because the sin of homosexuality is no different than the sin of lying. A sin is a sin.

And what the Bible references to "men" also applies to women as well. I noticed you didn't capitalize "christians". Am I safe to presume you don't capitalize "jews" and "muslims" and "buddhists" as well?

Don said:
OTOH, also according to Leviticus, taking the lord's name in vain is worthy of the death penalty, Theresa Caputo should be stoned instead of given a show on TLC, haircuts and shaves are out, but slaves are in. I seem to remember there's something about pork and mixed fibers in there too.

And if we're going to debate society on the basis of biblical verses, shouldn't we first have at least a pro forma discussion about how the bible came to be, who actually selected which books were to be included in the current version, and how the translations came about? There's been a whole lot of manhandling of the word of god.

Jesus came to overturn the old law (i.e. all the stoning and sacrifices, etc.), which is why he was crucified.

Inre your last paragraph, there has been a whole lot of manhandling of religion throughout history, period. Humans will continually twist and pervert religion...in the name of religion. I'm not trying to attack you but I'm fine to leave you to your beliefs as you would leave me to mine. I felt the issues you brought up needed to be clarified upon, that's all. Like I said before, no one's converting anyone here. Kudos if you do. This is a public forum and I as an individual am just stating my beliefs, just as everyone else.

atombaby · Jun 30, 2015

RKarina said:
Wait... please cite the first line of the US Constitution that references "under God"?

The preamble and first section:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Do you mean the Declaration of Independence? Which does mention God and the Creator.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

I stand corrected, thank you. The Declaration of Independence's first line states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Also, not sure if they do this anymore but as a student in grammar school, we recited the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, which is most certainly where I got the notion of "under God" from.
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Vince524 · Jun 30, 2015

AW Admin said:
That's not going to happen. Really. Pastors have refused to marry people for all sorts of reasons, including just not liking the people. Churches too are free to say no you can't use our facilities for your marriage.

Think about it; a Synagogue does not have to allow a Catholic couple to wed. Nor does a Priest have to perform a marriage/wedding mass for a Jewish couple or two Presbyterians.

In fact both Rabbis and Priests have often told couples that they can't perform a wedding ceremony unless both would-be spouses are Jewish or Catholic.

Don't confuse the religious ceremony with the legal act of marriage; it isn't. Signing the marriage license in front of witnesses is what make the marriage, legally.

I'm not, in fact that's been one of the biggest obstacles to having same sex marriage recognized, is people conflating the 2. But while you may be correct that it won't fly, that doesn't mean someone can't bring a suit against a church. And I'm sure there will be people who will say if a church doesn't allow equal protection and refuses to perform the ceremony, they should lose their tax exempt status.

Diana Hignutt · Jun 30, 2015

[walks by and whistles casually...]

WriterDude · Jun 30, 2015

Never mind

Synonym · Jun 30, 2015

Vince524 said:
Having said that, what I've seen more of is the pushing of the belief that if a person believes in the tenants of their religion that say homosexuality is a sin, even if you have a live and let live stance, then you're a bigot.

I wouldn't be surprised if at some point a gay couple does try and legally sue for the right to be married in the church of their choosing even if that church doesn't allow for same sex weddings. Some people on here have suggested that churches should and could lose their tax exempt status. It's one thing to feel that way about all churches as a matter of course, but if you want to use it as a way to punish those religions institutions that don't allow same sex marriage, then you are trying to use the government to interfere with religion.

There is, to me, a difference between the legal rights of marriage which should be open to all fairly, and the sacrament of marriage, which is something from the church. Which is not under government purview.

I don't feel comfortable with the religion that I was raised under, partially because of that. I have no moral compunction against same sex marriage. But at the same time, my view shouldn't infringe on the church.

And there's the rub for most of the country. Because I'm short of time, I'm going to pull some numbers out of a hat. Let's say that 5% of the extreme right, and 5% of the extreme left, are actually driving this current clash. The remainder (90%) just wish to get on with their lives. Some don't care, some can't muster the energy to bother, some don't say anything for fear of being labeled things that they don't feel they deserve.

What I am seeing is an increasing undercurrent of unease that started with the bakers, photographers, et al being sued and fined. Not long ago, the amount of money that was donated, (especially in the case of the pizza restaurant), floored a lot of people. It's easy to understand why those donations rolled in. Those that found the treatment of the restaurant owners 'over-the-top' were able to support them anonymously. In the current climate, it's dangerous to say or do anything that might bring the wrath of social media down on your head.

There's little doubt in my mind that if someone sues a church which does not sanction same sex marriage, much of the current support for same sex causes will evaporate. It's not comfortable watching a group that has suffered persecution for ages finally achieve so many goals, only to turn and begin persecuting another group. IMHO

Don · Jun 30, 2015

atombaby said:
Christians are just as concerned with those other sins because the sin of homosexuality is no different than the sin of lying. A sin is a sin.

And what the Bible references to "men" also applies to women as well. I noticed you didn't capitalize "christians". Am I safe to presume you don't capitalize "jews" and "muslims" and "buddhists" as well?

Jesus came to overturn the old law (i.e. all the stoning and sacrifices, etc.), which is why he was crucified.

Inre your last paragraph, there has been a whole lot of manhandling of religion throughout history, period. Humans will continually twist and pervert religion...in the name of religion. I'm not trying to attack you but I'm fine to leave you to your beliefs as you would leave me to mine. I felt the issues you brought up needed to be clarified upon, that's all. Like I said before, no one's converting anyone here. Kudos if you do. This is a public forum and I as an individual am just stating my beliefs, just as everyone else.

Yes, you're correct that I don't usually capitalize religions, although I'm inconsistent in my use of capital letters in general.

If christians are as concerned with lying as they are with homosexuality, why is it that they're willing to vote for politicians who regularly lie to gain office? Aren't they openly condoning sin?

If Jesus came to overturn the old law, why did you quote leviticus in the post I responded to? Why is that leviticus quote one of the cornerstones of the anti-gay movement, while all the other prohibitions in leviticus are poo-pooed?

atombaby said:
I stand corrected, thank you. The Declaration of Independence's first line states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Also, not sure if they do this anymore but as a student in grammar school, we recited the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, which is most certainly where I got the notion of "under God" from.
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I'm sure you're aware that a number of those involved in the creation of the Declaration of Independence were Deists, right? What they meant by creator may not be what you think they meant.

Deism: The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct.

Fingers · Jun 30, 2015

atombaby said:
Jesus came to overturn the old law (i.e. all the stoning and sacrifices, etc.), which is why he was crucified.

Sorry, But in Matthew 5: 17-18 Jesus states that he is not here to change one jot or tittle of the old law (The old testament.)

17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Sins-This Floor

The Scavengers

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

nice & cynical

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)

Beastly Fido

Nurture Phoenixes

All Living is Local

Beastly Fido

nice & cynical

Beastly Fido

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

~~~~*~~~~

Nurture Phoenixes

nice & cynical

nice & cynical

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

Very Tired

Writer?

All Living is Local

My cat Toby

*