Race, lets make this serious! It is nearly 2013.

[rstrong]

Do you suffer from brain farts all the time, or just when you're awake? "Actual Christians" aren't Jews either, nor was the Law given to Christians.

Whether you like it or not, all major branches of Christianity - and virtually all the minor ones - recognize the Old Testament as part of Christianity. As an offshoot of Judaism, not something that evolved in parallel. (Jesus was Jewish; his following gradually evolved into a different religion during the century AFTER his death.) Go into most any Christian church, and you'll find copies of the Old Testament and often the (first) Ten Commandments posted on a wall somewhere.

There ARE differences from the Jewish faith. The Christian Old Testament is based largely on the Septuagint, a Greek translation two or three hundred years BC. The Jewish Old Testament evolved a bit more after that, and of course so did the Christian one.

Yes, the New Covenant partially replaces the Mosaic/Old Covenant. The Roman Catholic view is that Mosaic Law continues under the New Covenant, while declaring that parts of it have "expired" and are no longer applicable. On the Protestant side the Church of England summed it up in 1536: Christians are bound by the "commandments which are called moral," but not bound by the ceremonial, ritual, or civil laws from the "law of Moses." (Which leaves plenty of vagueness over which bits are still "moral.")

, if, according again to you, there's no God, so what's your beef?

If Christians wouldn't shop on Sunday, what's their beef with others doing so? If (some) Christians wouldn't same-sex marry, what's their beef with others - including the branches of Christianity that support it - doing so? If Christians don't believe that the Earth is more than 4000 years old, what's their beef with signs at the Grand Canyon indicating that the rock formations are older? If Christians don't believe in evolution, what's their beef with textbooks in non-religious schools teaching it?

These are all recent cases where Christians have dictated laws for others who don't follow their religion. C'mon; THINK.

But again, it's hard to hold Christianity responsible in your specific case since few share your beliefs.

[Mr.B]

"The Roman Catholic view is that Mosaic Law continues under the New Covenant, while declaring that parts of it have "expired" and are no longer applicable."
Such as the mixing of garments, what is allowable to consume, mixing of crops, etc.

"On the Protestant side the Church of England summed it up in 1536: Christians are bound by the "commandments which are called moral," but not bound by the ceremonial, ritual, or civil laws from the "law of Moses." (Which leaves plenty of vagueness over which bits are still "moral.")
Same as above. God gave the Law to the Jews as a test of obedience.

, if, according again to you, there's no God, so what's your beef?

"If Christians wouldn't shop on Sunday, what's their beef with others doing so?"
I personally don't shop on Sunday, but in my opinion, those who do can do as they wish. I, nor anyone I know, had a part in lawmaking, but there's that argument that the U.S. not being a Christian or Bible believing nation despite early lawmakers who passed these laws being religious people.

"If (some) Christians wouldn't same-sex marry, what's their beef with others......"
Because homosexuality, despite the objections from non-religious people, is a sin as stated in the Bible, despite the fact that "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality".... God said it; He said it was an abomination. Even common sense tells us that sex between two of the same gender is despicable, un-natural, and immoral.

" .... including the branches of Christianity that support it - doing so?"
"Branches of Christianity" (or any other branch of religion) that support homosexuality have turned away from God and have bowed to worldly popularities. They are as the church of Pergamos described in the Bible.

Revelation 2:13-14

13....I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith,
even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

14....But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.


"If Christians don't believe that the Earth is more than 4000 years old, what's their beef with signs at the Grand Canyon indicating that the rock formations are older?"
Again, I know of no one who believes that. The same common sense mentioned above comes to mind. I have a Scofield Bible that states the writings in Genesis were penned approximately 6,000 years ago; the Book starts "In the beginning, God.......", but it doesn't say that was the beginning of the actual creation. There are some who believe that is the literal day of creation, but you can't group all
Christians in that group.

"If Christians don't believe in evolution, what's their beef with textbooks in non-religious schools teaching it?
I guess they feel the Bible is being compromised with untruths. Again, that "Christian nation" thing comes to mind. With the complexities of living organisms, from the lowest forms to the miraculous human body, it's hard to imagine that such magnificent beings evolved from some gelatinous life form that crawled out of a slime pit.

"These are all recent cases where Christians have dictated laws for others who don't follow their religion. C'mon; THINK."
Again, according to your statement, all Christians are guilty by association. Not all Christians believe that Christianity is the only way to heaven. Of course, as in every situation, there are hard-cores who believe they have all the answers; i.e., "my (our) way, or no way".


"But again, it's hard to hold Christianity responsible in your specific case since few share your beliefs."
No doubt. But... there are many who share my beliefs, nor will we not compromise ourselves to popular opinions so as to "fit in".

Thanks for your input; very interesting post!

[GoCubsGo]

10 Animals That Practice Homosexuality



http://listverse.com/2013/04/20/10-anim ... sexuality/


Well, so much for unnatural, this list is just a fraction of the unnatural animal kingdom.

Nature/Nuture, gotta go with nature on this one.

[rstrong]

"The Roman Catholic view is that Mosaic Law continues under the New Covenant, while declaring that parts of it have "expired" and are no longer applicable."
Such as the mixing of garments, what is allowable to consume, mixing of crops, etc.

"On the Protestant side the Church of England summed it up in 1536: Christians are bound by the "commandments which are called moral," but not bound by the ceremonial, ritual, or civil laws from the "law of Moses." (Which leaves plenty of vagueness over which bits are still "moral.")
Same as above. God gave the Law to the Jews as a test of obedience.

Your response doesn't change the fact that Catholics, Protestants and virtually every other major and minor branch of Christianity all disagree with you.

"If (some) Christians wouldn't same-sex marry, what's their beef with others......"
Because homosexuality, despite the objections from non-religious people, is a sin as stated in the Bible, despite the fact that "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality".... God said it; He said it was an abomination.

You reject the Old Testament and its directives as not applicable to Christianity. The only New Testament reference is from Paul, not God. And even YOU casually reject other directives from Paul in the same Memo to the Corinthians.

Even common sense tells us that sex between two of the same gender is despicable, un-natural, and immoral.

That's just your personal phobias and bigotry speaking. The same thing was long said of interracial marriage. By a southern judge even just a couple years ago, refusing to let a couple marry. Heck, Mitt Romney's church was saying the same thing about treating blacks as equals when Romney was dodging Vietnam preaching in France.

There are varying poll results depending on who is asked and how they're asked, but it seems safe to say that somewhere around or above five percent of the population is homosexual. It may be minority behavior, but with numbers like that, common sense tells us that it is indeed natural.

Homosexuality is also observed in many animal species.

Or to put it in Christian terms, God sure likes making gays!

" .... including the branches of Christianity that support it - doing so?"
"Branches of Christianity" (or any other branch of religion) that support homosexuality have turned away from God and have bowed to worldly popularities. They are as the church of Pergamos described in the Bible.

The same could be said for your church with the same credibility. You've stated that you break the New Testament directive against letting women speak in church. (Not "preach", as you like to misrepresent it, but "speak." The Bible is specific about this.)

This directive comes from the same PowerPoint Presentation to the Corinthians that contains the sole New Testament directive against homosexuality. It's pure hypocrisy to treat the former as sacrosanct while casually dismissing the latter.

Nor does your bigotry match Christ's message of message of hope, peace and love. I may not be any more of an expert on Christianity than you are, but those Christians who accept same-sex marriage - everyone from the country's largest Protestant denomination to the Quakers - seem a lot closer to Christ's message than you are.

but you can't group all Christians in that group.

I don't. In fact it's what YOU do - offensively declaring your hatred and bigotry and the rejection of the Old Testament and much of the New Testament as the standard for Christians. Much like others peddle offensive claims by wrapping the flag around themselves. To be fair and polite to Christians, I've made clear that I don't group you in with them.

You asked what business it was of mine, and I gave you and answer. Each case - some of which affect me directly - is one where purely religious Christian beliefs are currently or recently dictated as policy to others.

[Mr.B]

"Nor does your bigotry match Christ's message of message of hope, peace and love. I may not be any more of an expert on Christianity than you are, but those Christians who accept same-sex marriage - everyone from the country's largest Protestant denomination to the Quakers - seem a lot closer to Christ's message than you are."

Christ's message of hope, peace and love is for the individual, not what is defined as their sin.

Any Christian, Quaker, church, denomination, religion, etc., that "accepts" or embraces a sinful way of life has turned their back on the Word of God ... and ... I'm a whole lot closer to Christ's "message" than what you, as an atheist, want to believe.

[JTA]

'Black' NAACP leader outed as white woman

Ruthanne and Larry Dolezal said Thursday that they want people to know the truth including that their daughter is Caucasian.

http://www.12news.com/story/news/nation ... /71101474/

This is basically some Dave Chapelle level stuff right here.

[Vrede too]

Once you pass as black, you don't go back.

[JTA]

Once you pass as black, you don't go back.

Not that it matters, but this makes me wonder how many black people I've talked to that were really white, and how many white people I've talked to that were really black.

[O Really]

There have never been any black people claiming to be white

[Mr.B]

"Not that it matters, but this makes me wonder how many black people I've talked to that were really white, and how many white people I've talked to that were really black."

"There have never been any black people claiming to be white."

I've known some white people who grew up in Black families, or were raised in lower-income, racially-mixed neighborhoods. Their mannerisms and speech were identical to Blacks. OTOH, I've known Blacks that were raised by whites or grew up in more affluent mixed neighborhoods. You couldn't tell they were Black if you listened to them talk while you had your eyes closed.

Life is what you make of it, regardless of the color of your skin.

[Bungalow Bill]

I doubt many Biblical scholars believe that the early books of the OT
were composed around 4000 B.C. The current consensus is around
600 B.C., give or take a couple of B.C.s. And there are still some fundis
who believe that the universe was created around 4000 B.C. Weird,
but true.

If there are both heterosexual and homosexual animals, that is pretty much
a wash for any argument about the supposed animal-like characteristics of gays.

[Mr.B]

"I doubt many Biblical scholars believe that the early books of the OT were composed around 4000 B.C. The current consensus is around 600 B.C., give or take a couple of B.C.s."
Probably so, probably not. Post-AD writers and scholars, are people who, like you and myself, weren't around to deny or verify. When the Biblical events in Genesis occurred is of the least importance; the fact they did occur, regardless of one's beliefs, is what's important.

"And there are still some fundis who believe that the universe was created around 4000 B.C. Weird, but true."
Yeppers .... "created" being the key word here ..... and there's those who believe that the Earth was created by a big bang and life began in a mud puddle. Weird, but true.

"If there are both heterosexual and homosexual animals, that is pretty much a wash for any argument about the supposed animal-like characteristics of gays."
Not necessarily. As K9nanny once pointed out, when a male dog humps another male, it's a show of dominance. Same way in any of the animal kingdom; same-gender humping/copulating is generally a show of dominance, or in most cases, is caused by the majority of females are already claimed by a dominant male who will bust their butts if they try to mate with one he already claims as his. Therefore, the statement that mankind; supposedly being higher in intelligence than lower animals sticks.

[Bungalow Bill]

Probably so, probably not. Post-AD writers and scholars, are people who, like you and myself, weren't around to deny or verify. When the Biblical events in Genesis occurred is of the least importance; the fact they did occur, regardless of one's beliefs, is what's important.

They do their best to figure out an approximate date of composition. And right
now that's in the 600 B.C. range. It's important to people who believed they
occurred. To those who don't, it's not all that significant.


Yeppers .... "created" being the key word here ..... and there's those who believe that the Earth was created by a big bang and life began in a mud puddle. Weird, but true.

I believe in the second weirdness. Weird, but less weird than the first IMO.

Not necessarily. As K9nanny once pointed out, when a male dog humps another male, it's a show of dominance. Same way in any of the animal kingdom; same-gender humping/copulating is generally a show of dominance, or in most cases, is caused by the majority of females are already claimed by a dominant male who will bust their butts if they try to mate with one he already claims as his. Therefore, the statement that mankind; supposedly being higher in intelligence than lower animals sticks.

Oh, I think humans have a higher intelligence than animals. But the fact that there
is some homosexuality among animals doesn't mean that it is more animalistic than
heterosexuality among animals. Same sex relations are a part of the natural world,
even if a smaller part than different sex relations.

[Mr.B]

Thanks Bungalow Bill .... best exchange with you ever!

[Vrede too]

Tweets:

We got Michael Jackson and you got #RachelDolezal. Totally unfair trade.

you know that #RachelDolezal was someone's black friend, and now they're panicking.

We accept that a person can identify as transgender. Could 'trans-ethnic' be a real thing?

I declare February 29th as #RachelDolezal Day because it's generally not a part of Black History Month, but every 4 years it pretends to be.

[JTA]

Racial Draft:

https://vimeo.com/61499874

[JTA]

Tweets:

We got Michael Jackson and you got #RachelDolezal. Totally unfair trade.

you know that #RachelDolezal was someone's black friend, and now they're panicking.

We accept that a person can identify as transgender. Could 'trans-ethnic' be a real thing?

I declare February 29th as #RachelDolezal Day because it's generally not a part of Black History Month, but every 4 years it pretends to be.

Shit this is serious business. That person could have said a lot of things that would now be considered racist. Typically you can be like "I have black friends" and say anything you want, because its not racist if you have a black friend. Now, however, that person could potentially be in some deep shit. Especially if Rachel was their only black friend.

Trans-race issues brings to light a whole slew of issues in regards to not being racist.

[Vrede too]

Now I'm wondering if my death metal "friends" really prefer country and opera.

[JTA]

Now I'm wondering if my death metal "friends" really prefer country and opera.

Rain makes corn, corn makes whisky, whisky makes me and my horse start feeling a bit frisky.

[JTA]

Tweets:

We got Michael Jackson and you got #RachelDolezal. Totally unfair trade.

you know that #RachelDolezal was someone's black friend, and now they're panicking.

We accept that a person can identify as transgender. Could 'trans-ethnic' be a real thing?

I declare February 29th as #RachelDolezal Day because it's generally not a part of Black History Month, but every 4 years it pretends to be.

Shit this is serious business. That person could have said a lot of things that would now be considered racist. Typically you can be like "I have black friends" and say anything you want, because its not racist if you have a black friend. Now, however, that person could potentially be in some deep shit. Especially if Rachel was their only black friend.

Trans-race issues brings to light a whole slew of issues in regards to not being racist.

/s

For the record just in case