God Hates You.......

Oooo . . . the "unbelievers" . . . unclean, unclean ! ! !

Not believing in such facile fairy tales is not the equivalent of being a leper, you know. I don't suppose it ever occurred to your biased mind that those who don't subscribe to the fairy tales have a much better probability of spotting the hypocrisy, did it?

Setamta said:


Yes, as a matter of fact it did...I had a long discussion about it with my husband this afternoon( a man yes, from whom I have been separated - but against whom I have NEVER committed adultery- and never would (just for the record).
He's an unbeliever or whatever ya'll like to be called and I told him that when I watched that video and thought about what Pentacle Queen said when she talked about picking and choosing which parts of the bible to believe in- I realized maybe I'm not really a christian (as most people would seem to define it) after all.
I do like Jesus as an example - but I guess I can't really buy the societal judgments and strictures that other christians seem to find to buy into.

so - yes- you're wrong - that did occur to me.

And I'm not a biased person - I won't take responsiblity for that label any more than I will for the label of adultress - they're just wrong as applied to me.

You have totally taken what I said out of context to fit your own interpretation. I was not referring to you in any way whatsoever.

I was referring to the fact that you had mentioned the love of Jesus and I was agreeing with you by pointing out that he even forgave the adultress woman in the bible. This had nothing to do with you personally.

I probably could have used any other example and you would have heaped your paranoia on me for that too.

Any insinuations or disperstions cast are yours...... not mine.

I forgive you.

My name is not "Setamta," and i did not call you an adulteress. I referred to you as biased because of your a priori assumption that one's being an "unbeliever" has any bearing of the ability to judge whether or not hypocrisy were involved in the relative attitudes of religionists. I see no reason from your response to withdraw the charge.

I thought the Bruce Springstein version was snappier---less preachy.

Okay - I don't know what your name is - I only know what I see next to the little dog face and it says SETANTA. (oh - I get it - I said Setamta- well the light in here is dim - we only get internet in my son's room as the walls of this house are so thick (part of it was built in 1593)- and so it's not the best set up - so I make a lot of typos.

I know you didn't call me an adultress. I felt compelled to reiterate that I wasn't an adultress.

Intrepid knows why and maybe I am paranoid in terms of anything he says to me - yeah-that's probably true. But there is a history...I'm not really paranoid about anything anyone else says to me.

I used 'unbeliever' off the cuff - it didn't mean anything negative - it only means a person who does not believe to me - and that happens to include most of my friends. And I do recognize that I can learn to view things more objectively by talking to people who don't believe, as well as people who do believe.

The reality is - I don't really know what I believe- except I'm glad I had the experience I had learning about Jesus. It's helped me out in my life.

Intrepid - I forgive you too.

I don't know what I said to require foregiveness. However, I will accept it as given.

thanks.

You have nothing against gay people yet you insist on opposing their having normal, simple rights?

Sure.

Sorry aidan, I didn't mean to **** up your religion for you.

WTF? Do you print out every page, write out your reply in longhand, and have someone transcribe it back into the computer for you? You're running Windows 1593 because that's when your house was built? (Which you oh-so-pretentiously have to announce to everyone?)

You need to take a laxative, 'cause you're full of "it".

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of people's objections to the "church" in the original post, not to FoxFyre. As Intrepid observed, everyone on this thread (regardless of their religion or non-religion) has condemned the behavior (and beliefs) of the church in the original post.

I was also making a very general observation that religions seem to take a lot of heat from other religions, and even factions of their own religion. And I wouldn't be surprised if the challenges come more from other religious sources than from non-religious ones (but I don't know how to measure this supposition).

It's sort of a mess - a lot of us here don't ascribe to religious doctrine/dogma/books/dicta, and some portion of us used to.. while many do.
I throw around aspersions once in a while, but mostly not, as I well remember believing - I may now think I was deluded, but understand that I wasn't without a mind in all that. Maybe that's because I've been acquainted with a bunch of jesuits.

Some key people in my life were strong believers, one in particular gathered international crowds, and when I stopped with it, it was stopping in a way against my childhood connection.

People I grew up with are still believers and do an immense amount of good via their activities.

Moving along, I also see religion as the major power for intolerance and evil.

That's no big deal. I've forgiven a few myself.

I'd edit that to major tool, if I had beaten the clock.

A tool does have other uses.

It says nothing about religion what people claiming to speak in its name do. It says something about human nature and the difficulty of controlling it. It can be said that that difficulty is the justification for religion.

I think we are pretty intolerant of people driving at 150 mph on the freeway. When it comes to intolerance irreligious states take some beating.

Luther's attack on the Church was based upon its laxity and tolerance. He severly damaged the central guidance of European affairs and so we are all stressed out workers in the midst of a financial crisis. Once we were all free to think what we wanted what else can you expect? The lantern-jawed logical positivists come to the fore.

The upcoming festivities were a giant piss-up and orgy before Luther got to work. The harvest was gathered in like you see it depicted being in pictures that hang on millions of walls. The bears roamed free too.

It had its disadvantages I know but it takes time to get a powerful civilisation's **** in order. And there's ups and downs caused by events. There's disadvantages now as well. The incessant squabbling for example. How is anybody going to make any sense out of that? It's cacophonous and so repetitive that we have got used to it and now can't imagine life without it. If everything went dead quiet and you could hear a blackbird's storm warning from a mile off you would call the cops. And check the light switch.

How far do you think you can take tolerance before the **** hits the fan. It means different things to different people. They are not all sweet and cuddly like you osso. And once you draw a line you have a political debate on your hands. Is it intolerant to measure the intolerable with a gradation of penances?

pq said:

don't worry - you didn't.

I still have my same religion - I just don't know what to call it anymore.

Drew dad - I have no idea what you're talking about - I meant I can't see the keyboard - so I'm totally touch typing - which I can do - but sometimes I hit the wrong key.

Pretentious in what way - do you think it costs more to live in really old houses or something? I thought it was interesting- but if you don't - that's fine.

and my digestive system is humming along fine - thanks - apples every day - maybe you should try it.

I think Rebecca meant that you are constipated Drew.

It was subtle. I can't see an alternative explanation.

I have spent most of my adult life teaching Bible in some capacity. First, whatever is written in Leviticus has nothing to do with Christianity. It is an ancient Jewish code of law written long before the Jews were called Jews. A few fundamentalist Christians do pull some of the code up and hold it up as what God requires, but most Christians teach Leviticus as history and not as a code Christians are required to follow. For instance, Leviticus also requires that seeds of different crops not be planted together in the field or that two different fibers not be woven into cloth, and even the most fundamentalist Christians ignore those ancient laws. In my opinion Christians err when they pick one point of the group to hold up as law and ignore the rest. Most don't do that. Most Christians subscribe to both Jesus and Paul's admonition to use common sense to know what God requires of us.

The word commonly translated "homosexual' in the New Testament is almost certainly an error. If Paul had intended to express homosexual behavior in his letters, he would have used the word "paiderasste" which was the common Greek term at the time for sexual activity between males. That is not the word he used, however, and a careful study of the culture and the letters suggests that he was referring to unacceptable public behavior of the type that would be unacceptable to anybody. Accept this or not, but it is the truth.

It is also not true that I have anything against gays which would be confirmed by those (that I know of) among my family, friends, social and business associates. I do support the traditional definition of marriage which some (not all) of those same gay friends etc. agree with. I would be as opposed to marriage between heterosexual same sex couples, etc. also should there be a reason this would be something they wished to do for whatever reason. In other words, whether or not somebody is gay has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion about marriage. I have further been a strong supporter and advocate for a new social contract for anybody, not just gays, who cannot or do not wish to marry under the traditional defintion, to be able to form themselves into legally recognized family groups that would provide the benefits and protections that they do not currently have.

I'm glad to know that you don't think I'm the scum of the Earth but you must think I'm a very vile person if you agree with everything Setanta says about me.
You see most Christians who follow Jesus's teaching think it sinful to accuse people wrongly or deliberately attempt to belittle or humiliate them or try to make them feel inferior. For that reason EVERY Chrsitian posting on this thread has condemned what some fundamentalist Christians were doing in that video. And most Christians do take seriously a concept that it is a sin to bear false witness which is what Set and some others have done here without showing any evidence for any kind for their unkind remarks.

I am glad most Christians don't behave that way.