Love the Christian, but not the Christianity.

[jiggeryqua]

I'm with Gandhi on this one: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm with Gandhi on this one: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."

He also has had attributed to him "I'd have become a Christian if I had ever met one."

Put another way, he didn't accept anything in practice that wasn't as perfect as the theory ... maybe he's not as smart as you think he is, though I appreciate the point he was trying to make.

DR

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I should also add to my post, that there are PLENTY of Christians who feel no need to compell non Christians to follow their rules. And who do not feel they have the right to decide which of the Biblical sins is worse than others, and therefor condemn homosexuality while largely ignoring other "sins." I was raised Christian in a very Christian community in Massachusetts, and I never heard any anti homosexual talk in church. There were openly gay members of our church and I never really thought twice about it. When I moved to a southern fundamentalist community, I was floored at the way homosexuals were treated there.

So I want to be clear that I don't view all CHRISTIANS as being hateful towards homosexuals...but the couple of fundamentalist Christian communities I later lived in shocked me with the extent to which they expressed their venom towards gays in the community.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Love the Christian, but not the Christianity.

Pretty much my philosophy.

So "Love the Christian, but not the Christ"?

Just one example of why you know nothing about Christianity and Jesus Christ.

Believe what you will.

 

[Robo Sapien]

Love the sinner, but not the sin. Because if you love the sin, that makes you gay too.

I wonder what the fundamentalist right has to say about the discovery that sexual orientation is genetic, and not psychological. According to their doctrine, that would mean God deliberately put perverse and corrupted souls here JUST so we'd have to kill them to uphold his law. That would also mean that if you were born and raised Christian, lived in denial all your life until realizing you had the gay gene, that there would be no hope of redemption for you. Despite any number of years in faithful service to the Lord, you're going to hell, its in your DNA.

 

[Crossbow]

I think many, if not most, Americans have heard the slogan "love the sinner, but not the sin" from the anti-homosexual agenda in the Christian Church. Well, I wonder how Christians would feel about the slogan I just came up with in the title. I think it's directly comparable and makes the point. To tell people that homosexuality is a sin, but we love the homosexuals is akin to telling people that what they do is evil, or criminal, but we still like you.

Thoughts?

My thought is 'good luck with that!'.

I have found sooner or later religious people in general (not just Christians) will develop hostility to non-religious people, so the best thing for me to do is not get too close to religious people.

 

[arthwollipot]

I wonder what the fundamentalist right has to say about the discovery that sexual orientation is genetic, and not psychological.

If such a discovery ever happens, I'm sure they will be devastated.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Wouldn't matter one bit. They'd just say that oh, they may be made that way, but they have free will, and as such are responsible for their actions.

 

[Mark6]

Try something new for a change. Challenge yourself. Dare yourself.

Read Jesus Christ.

I did. I read both old and new testament. Quite a bit of in original, since I spent several years learning Hebrew. Made real effort to see if there was something to it. Found both completely unconvincing. Basically, old testament is tribal wish-fulfillment fantasy, and new testament is a truly insidious way for authorities to keep proles in line.

[Edited] I must point out I rather liked Yehoshua's actual quotes -- kind of First Hippie. However it became clear to me that most of new testament was written by St. Paul for his own aggrandizement, and subsequent revisions made Christian bible into guilt-indicing instrument of mind control which it is. I am also struck by the similarities in the way Christianity keeps people in line by telling them how bad they are and must admit to their sins, and how Soviet Communist Party did same thing: made people "self-criticise" at party meetings. Exact same -- and very old, -- technique of control.

 

[Robo Sapien]

If such a discovery ever happens, I'm sure they will be devastated.

You are right, substitute "discovery" with "growing scientific consensus"

 

[Gregoire]

So "Love the Christian, but not the Christ"?

Just one example of why you know nothing about Christianity and Jesus Christ.



"Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them.

Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst,

they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.

Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?"

This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first."

And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?"

She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."

John 8:2-12

You do realize that scholars agree this story was not part of the "original" writing of whoever wrote John. It was actually added later.


Of course, if we wanted to, we could find a lot of examples where this Jesus character found in these ancient writings said a lot of terrible things too.

As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, recall that Jewish scriptures said the "wicked" people were simply killed and that was that. But it took Christianity and the sayings of "meek and mild" Jesus to tell us the "wicked" will be sent to eternal damnation.

(And of course the so called "wicked" includes those of us who don't believe Jesus was god due to insufficient evidence)

 

[AvalonXQ]

I wonder what the fundamentalist right has to say about the discovery that sexual orientation is genetic, and not psychological.

I believe that sexual orientation has strong genetic and early environmental components and is much more a matter of biology than choice.
Since sexual behavior, and not sexual orientation, is what my religion is concerned with, this is entirely irrelevant. All of us have biological drives to do things that are sinful; all of us are expected to refrain.
There are many believing, faithful Christians that are attracted to members of their own gender. There are many believing, faithful Christians that are attracted to members of the opposite gender that they're unmarried to. There are many believing, faithful Christians who are attracted to children.
The only question is whether they sin by acting on these urges in a way prohibited by God.

 

[154]

You do realize that scholars agree this story was not part of the "original" writing of whoever wrote John. It was actually added later.

You do realize that many "scholars" are merely men seeking to justify their unbelief, like most everyone here, and that their "results" are not "gospel," but challenged opinion, and that you apparently lap up their "findings" without question or challenge or skepticism?

Of course, if we wanted to, we could find a lot of examples where this Jesus character found in these ancient writings said a lot of terrible things too.

Please do so.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So "Love the Christian, but not the Christ"?

Just one example of why you know nothing about Christianity and Jesus Christ.



"Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them.

Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst,

they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.

Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?"

This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first."

And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?"

She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."

John 8:2-12

And yet He went around destroying innocent fig trees, drowning pigs and was quite nasty to His Mom.

 

[154]

And yet He went around destroying innocent fig trees, drowning pigs and was quite nasty to His Mom.

So you accept the text where you feel you can criticize it, but reject it otherwise? Of course you do.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So you accept the text where you feel you can criticize it, but reject it otherwise? Of course you do.

Can one not criticize fiction without thinking it's reality?

 

[AvalonXQ]

You do realize that many "scholars" are merely men seeking to justify their unbelief, like most everyone here,

If you feel that way about "most everyone here", then go away. I don't think you'll be missed.

 

[154]

If you feel that way about "most everyone here", then go away. I don't think you'll be missed.

Thank you kind sir.

 

[Mark6]

So you accept the text where you feel you can criticize it, but reject it otherwise? Of course you do.

The text's contradictions is why I reject it.

 

[154]

The text's contradictions is why I reject it.

No, it's not. It's just a convenient justification in excuse.
Apparent contradictions are opportunities for deeper understandings.
Multiple eyewitnesses never give perfectly identical versions of events, and if they did you would simply say they obviously just copied each other.
You are not open-minded or hearted. You are closed. You are set against.