Gay Marriage: Why the christians need to STFU about it

[Aegrus]

Some priests rape because they are rapists, and some bishops covered it up to save face. Pope Benedict XVI never did, let alone "the worst offender" as you say. That being said I don't choose the Pope, nor will I ever choose a Pope.

Read the rest of Matthew 5 already. It isn't long and its very good.

I think you'll find that most people on here have read the entire bible. I did, and I didn't find one bit of it to be "good".

---

The scriptures also say this.

1...stone troublesome teenagers to death.
2...stone adulterers to death
4..stone to death anyone that works on the holy day
5...those that don't work, don't eat
6...those with deficient eyesight must not be allowed near the altar.
7..judge not lest yee be judged.

The Scriptures when taken in their entirety actually ban 1, 2, and 3 (which is why stoning is unknown as a punishment within Christianity or Christian cultures); and 6 is no longer even relevant to the Jews or to the Christians, along with any other laws about the running of the temple, as said temple has been destroyed and sacrifices no longer made since the year 70. In the case that Israel does rebuild the temple, I suppose this question can be reopened.

So the scriptures advocate something. . .and then ban it. Ah, yes. Truly infallible.

[Polaris]

Well actually Christians can eat shellfish, can mix meat and dairy, can eat pork, etc... Jesus would not approve of people telling them that they can't eat that food (even though Jesus said all food is clean, Christians still assumed it was not proper to consume blood; Christians can eat fat....I assume you refer to the special piece of meat in a sacrificial ceremony). It does not say don't shave your beard, but rather don't shave the corners of your beard...I assume it was a common religious cult practice for a neighboring society...same goes for tattoos or cutting of one's flesh to honor their ancestors (it does not say tattoos for other reasons is forbidden).

The real issue why Christians should not care about gay marriage is that it happens outside of the Church and they are not to judge those who are not Christians. Inside the Church community, that is a different matter...since this an atheist site, I don't really need to go into that though and just leave it at Christians should not judge outside their community.

[Hovik]

[...] Christians should not judge outside their community.

How about "Christians shouldn't judge." End of sentence.

[Polaris]

[...] Christians should not judge outside their community.

How about "Christians shouldn't judge." End of sentence.

Then how would they realistically settle disputes within their community?

[Minimalist]

Pope Benedict XVI never did, let alone "the worst offender" as you say.

Read it and weep.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/...wanted=all

Memo to Pope Described Transfer of Pedophile Priest
By NICHOLAS KULISH and KATRIN BENNHOLD

MUNICH — The future Pope Benedict XVI was kept more closely apprised of a sexual abuse case in Germany than previous church statements have suggested, raising fresh questions about his handling of a scandal unfolding under his direct supervision before he rose to the top of the church’s hierarchy.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope and archbishop in Munich at the time, was copied on a memo that informed him that a priest, whom he had approved sending to therapy in 1980 to overcome pedophilia, would be returned to pastoral work within days of beginning psychiatric treatment. The priest was later convicted of molesting boys in another parish.

An initial statement on the matter issued earlier this month by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising placed full responsibility for the decision to allow the priest to resume his duties on Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber. But the memo, whose existence was confirmed by two church officials, shows that the future pope not only led a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, approving the transfer of the priest, but was also kept informed about the priest’s reassignment.

What part he played in the decision making, and how much interest he showed in the case of the troubled priest, who had molested multiple boys in his previous job, remains unclear. But the personnel chief who handled the matter from the beginning, the Rev. Friedrich Fahr, “always remained personally, exceptionally connected” to Cardinal Ratzinger, the church said.

The case of the German priest, the Rev. Peter Hullermann, has acquired fresh relevance because it unfolded at a time when Cardinal Ratzinger, who was later put in charge of handling thousands of abuse cases on behalf of the Vatican, was in a position to refer the priest for prosecution, or at least to stop him from coming into contact with children. The German Archdiocese has acknowledged that “bad mistakes” were made in the handling of Father Hullermann, though it attributed those mistakes to people reporting to Cardinal Ratzinger rather than to the cardinal himself.

Or maybe you can tell the kids who had their assholes stretched to size 12 as a result of pedopope's negligence?

[Aegrus]

Well actually Christians can eat shellfish, can mix meat and dairy, can eat pork, etc... Jesus would not approve of people telling them that they can't eat that food (even though Jesus said all food is clean, Christians still assumed it was not proper to consume blood; Christians can eat fat....I assume you refer to the special piece of meat in a sacrificial ceremony). It does not say don't shave your beard, but rather don't shave the corners of your beard...I assume it was a common religious cult practice for a neighboring society...same goes for tattoos or cutting of one's flesh to honor their ancestors (it does not say tattoos for other reasons is forbidden).

The real issue why Christians should not care about gay marriage is that it happens outside of the Church and they are not to judge those who are not Christians. Inside the Church community, that is a different matter...since this an atheist site, I don't really need to go into that though and just leave it at Christians should not judge outside their community.

Jesus said all food is clean? Interesting. I actually hadn't heard that. Can you cite a source?

[Polaris]

Well actually Christians can eat shellfish, can mix meat and dairy, can eat pork, etc... Jesus would not approve of people telling them that they can't eat that food (even though Jesus said all food is clean, Christians still assumed it was not proper to consume blood; Christians can eat fat....I assume you refer to the special piece of meat in a sacrificial ceremony). It does not say don't shave your beard, but rather don't shave the corners of your beard...I assume it was a common religious cult practice for a neighboring society...same goes for tattoos or cutting of one's flesh to honor their ancestors (it does not say tattoos for other reasons is forbidden).

The real issue why Christians should not care about gay marriage is that it happens outside of the Church and they are not to judge those who are not Christians. Inside the Church community, that is a different matter...since this an atheist site, I don't really need to go into that though and just leave it at Christians should not judge outside their community.

Jesus said all food is clean? Interesting. I actually hadn't heard that. Can you cite a source?

Romans 14:20 (This is from Paul reiterating what Jesus said twice, during His ministry and after)

"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble."

Acts 10
"9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

[Creed of Heresy]

Jesus said all food is clean? Interesting. I actually hadn't heard that. Can you cite a source?

Romans 14:20 (This is from Paul reiterating what Jesus said twice, during His ministry and after)

"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble."

Acts 10
"9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

This is true, here...although when I was still a believer, I often asked myself: "What does it look like when 'heaven opens?' Nobody's ever been able to describe that...do they mean the sky? Why do we never see the sky opening up anymore? What would lay beyond? And why is it that these earth-shaking things happened all the time during the times of ignorance but have never happened in times of skepticism? Having your faith tested sure doesn't make sense, since these overt displays were made back then, why is now any different?" Never satisfactorily answered, of course...

But also when I read the verse I took it to meaning that god has to specifically make something clean, because if nothing else the Hebrew language, if it specifies something, it's very pointed on what it's specifying. The verse, therefore, translated as painstakingly as these all are, means that, specifically, god must make them pure, and that Peter was being shown these specific animals were all to be pure for eating. But does it apply for everything else? Well, Romans certainly seems to indicate so and quite clearly, but still, the specification there always made me pause and think for a moment.

Either way, hence why I was saying the whole thing about following Leviticus, if you so do, means you're less a christian, and more an ultra-orthodox jew.

BASICALLY what I'm saying is: If you're a christian, DROP THE OLD TESTAMENT. I'm not a huge fan of the bible one way or another but seriously the moment christians start quoting the old testament as justification to their opinions, another ten of my brain cells commit group-suicide together.

And for the ones that do not? Then you and me are likely to get along just fine.

[NoMoreFaith]

I don't hate anyone and I certainly never persecuted anyone. Now, the majority of Christians are Catholic; and the CCC itself cites Genesis, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy and the Persona humana. I think when discussing Christianity its best to use the largest/oldest traditions first, especially if you are addressing a post to "the Christians"

I'm ticking the boxes of Appeal to Tradition, Appeal to Age, Argumentum ad populum and burning through my logical fallacy bingo.

I'm sorry, I thought you were Catholic. And Catholicism DEFINITELY hates and persecutes homosexuality.

Would you like to go on record as saying you object to your faiths opinions on the matter? If you support said views, then yes, you are part of a hate and persecution culture, by association at least.

It would be the entire thing, NoMore. Not just 1 line out of context, and not just 1-2 lines out of context. Read the entirety of Matthew 5. If you ever bothered to read the entirety of it, I think you'd instantly know why no Christians have ever followed Levitical law.

If you ever bothered to read the question posed, you'd instantly know why I dismiss your equivocation here.

Don't "allude", or prevaricate. It was a simple question, and equivocated answers do not wash. You're supposed to be the christian here, it is not up to me to interpret your ancient gibberish for you.

Let's pretend I quoted the whole of Matthew 5 if you like, fuck it, pretend I quoted the entire bible if it pleases you, but that would be retarded. I quoted a part of Matthew, which, is in context of Matthew. Point out the parts of Matthew 5 which contradicts this quote.

[Polaris]

Romans 14:20 (This is from Paul reiterating what Jesus said twice, during His ministry and after)

"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble."

Acts 10
"9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

This is true, here...although when I was still a believer, I often asked myself: "What does it look like when 'heaven opens?' Nobody's ever been able to describe that...do they mean the sky? Why do we never see the sky opening up anymore? What would lay beyond? And why is it that these earth-shaking things happened all the time during the times of ignorance but have never happened in times of skepticism? Having your faith tested sure doesn't make sense, since these overt displays were made back then, why is now any different?" Never satisfactorily answered, of course...

But also when I read the verse I took it to meaning that god has to specifically make something clean, because if nothing else the Hebrew language, if it specifies something, it's very pointed on what it's specifying. The verse, therefore, translated as painstakingly as these all are, means that, specifically, god must make them pure, and that Peter was being shown these specific animals were all to be pure for eating. But does it apply for everything else? Well, Romans certainly seems to indicate so and quite clearly, but still, the specification there always made me pause and think for a moment.

Either way, hence why I was saying the whole thing about following Leviticus, if you so do, means you're less a christian, and more an ultra-orthodox jew.

BASICALLY what I'm saying is: If you're a christian, DROP THE OLD TESTAMENT. I'm not a huge fan of the bible one way or another but seriously the moment christians start quoting the old testament as justification to their opinions, another ten of my brain cells commit group-suicide together.

And for the ones that do not? Then you and me are likely to get along just fine.

Well I do quote the Old Testament when I am looking for historical references post 1000 BCE (before that, the historicity comes heavily into question given the lack of corroborating external sources), but that seems about it.

Since I am a Gentile and my ancestors were pagans, my people were never under the Old Covenant. I do know of those who are both Jewish and Christian (I mean actually both Jewish and Christian...not the people who just they are so because one parent was Jewish and another Christian), so they follow all the old customs that are still realistic to follow...aka animal sacrifice ended when there was no Temple I believe. They believe those changes only apply to Gentile Christians.