How about a new Council of Nicea?

[Mare Tranquillity]

My 'monstrous deity'??? The same deity who says to follow the dictates of my conscience if and when it contradicts everyone else's, including the popes???? Are you even lucid????

You haven't been willing to help take out the blasphemy in the Bible, so I have to assume that you believe the stuff about God being so violent and cruel. As yet you have given no indication that you DON'T believe the blasphemy, so that makes Him your "monstrous deity".

Do the dictates of your conscience force you to ignore Jesus direct commandments to you and require you to bash gay people, to bash me and lie about me on this site?

Or are you suffering from some hormonal backlash????

Another cheap personal attack implying that as a woman I must be hormonally unbalanced or I would agree with you. Kind of misogynistic attitude, when you argue with your wife do ask her if she's "on the rag"?

So, this is another case of a non-responsive response since you didn't address anything that I wrote, but just retreated into a personal attack.

Sure, if you're stupid enough to believe it. If god saw it fit to save you from the evils of the human condition, why will he not save you from an even more radical evil designed to last an eternity????

These are tenets of the Christian faith--maybe you've heard of it? So now you are saying that these things are lies? Kindly expound on your position vis a vis Judgment and Hell and Purgatory.

Unless, of course you don't want to be saved.

Everybody is saved, God is perfect, none of His children are lost. Read the story of the Prodigal Son.

Thank you for pointing out that particular grammatical error. At least your post wasn't entirely useless.

Thank you.

What religion prior to christianity depicted a god that is absolute love, hmmm? Between your errors of fact and errors of logic, I simply cannot imagine what valid conclusion you're aiming for.

THE WORLD'S SIXTEEN CRUCIFIED SAVIORS by Kersy Graves in which he details some of the religions predating Christianity from which Christianity took it's dogma.

Who's filtering anything, hmmm?

Read back over your posts and note all the non-Jesus stuff you demanded for context and explanation. Jesus spoke six words in those two commandments and you have tried to drag all kinds of things in to supplement those six words, thus filtering out His exquisite simplicity.

To my knowledge, YOU are the only one seriously proposing to tamper with ancient texts. And by all reckoning, outright tampering is certainly more atrocious than mere filtering.

Scraping off the detritus of the centuries would be more accurate, going back to the basics of what Jesus taught without all the blasphemy added in over the years to let people do the nasty things they like to do: for example building a worldwide religious empire with billions of dollars in assets while letting people starve.

Because modern man is confronted with more complex moral issues.

Bullfeathers. What complex moral issue is not covered by Jesus' commandments?

When one seeks love up a homosexual ass, then the commandment of love, indeed, needs to be explained. Otherwise, carry on.

Another personal attack, another lie, by God, Nums, people gonna think you're Christian if you're not careful. And once again you have pissed on Jesus' name by placing your hatred above His commandment to LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF.

I don't know if we are using the word 'simplicity' in the same way. In mathematics, beauty and simplicity refers to some discernable symmetry. In physics, it refers to the least number of assumptions and parameters.

Yes! Exactly.

Yes it is beautiful in its simplicity -- NOT SIMPLE-MINDEDNESS.

You are the only one so far who has brought up simplemindedness. I, personally, wouldn't characterize Jesus' comments that way, but then I'm not a Catholic either.

I wouldn't say no punishments. After all, man will still suffer the effects of causation brought about by their OWN ACTIONS. Saying this is not, in any way, a threat.

So you believe in Karma. Good, I knew we had things in common.

 

[numinus]

Hey, you're the one pushing ontological metaphysics which doesn't need empirical proof.

Don't you mean I shoud get IN more, as IN church?

Poking holes and pointing our inconsistencies and contradictions in religious cant seems pretty logical to me. You haven't been doing too good either, I mean "ontological metaphysics"? Where's the Rational Argument, Nums?

Nonsense.

Your post assumes that facts and logic are necessarily sensory. I'm sure we can all agree that it is not.

Even if you assume facts and logic to be empirical, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is scientifically measurable. After all, human emotions are empirical and yet not necessarily quantifiable, no?

So you see, your ideas are full of errors of fact and errors of logic. Nothing rational can come out of statements based on error, fyi.

Oh, and you need to go OUT, not in. Christianity does not manifest in church but in the way christians live their lives.

You should go back to the "sighs", Nums, they don't make you seem as Pecksniffian as the "duhs". Crucifixtion as a mental health aid is probably not going to catch on. Now you may be masochistic enough for that kind of self-mutilation, but I doubt that the Creator of the Universe has to stoop to that level. You worship a God who is so incompetent that the only way He can communicate with His children is through tortuous death?

Clearly, you have gone way beyond the context you have set even for yourself. You are loosing a debate even under your own rules. That's funny.

The philosophical framework here is 'I and thou' -- that is, the relationship between two existence, god and man. The problem with your argument is that your inquiry proceeds from only a single existence -- either god alone or man alone -- never god and man.

Now, you criticize soteriology as masochistic. Isn't that the point -- to bridge the gap between the divine and the mortal?

Whatever your sensibilities about self-mutilation and capital punishment, they ARE INDICTMENTS OF HUMAN ERROR -- NOT GOD'S. The more violent the human error, the bigger the gap god needs to bridge.

Is that simple enough for you?

I know that the churches, especially the big ones like the Catholics, want to keep Christian dogma complex and esoteric so that people can be led to believe that they need to keep supporting the church and turning to it for help, comfort, and advice in order to be safe. You are a perfect example of that kind of theology with all your intellectual flights of fancy and ontological metaphysics, but Jesus' message was simple and accessible to all: LOVE GOD and LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF. These two commandments above all others and none of your Kantian ethics and Circles of Hell can change that.

Of course you can think that as well.

Either you believe divine revelation or you believe rational faculties -- they accrue to the SAME fundamental truth.

I hate to burst your bubble but your thoughts aren't very original at all. Catholics call this 'semina verbi' -- seeds of the word.

With LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF in mind, how is it that the Pope lives like a king while millions of God's children are in sore want?

Nonsense.

Catholicism contributes huge amounts to charity. And though we might agree that it isn't enough, it isn't the only purpose of the church.

It's not generally considered grammatically correct to end a sentence with a preposition.

What are you, the grammar police??? Its not like you write impeccable english yourself, now, is it? Duh?

Easy! He could have led a full life healing people, raising the dead, and preaching until He died of old age and was put in His tomb, then He could have come scarpering out, danced around in all His youthful glory and floated up into Heaven. Nobody has to be tortured, nobody has to be crucified. If I can figure that out, then how long would it have taken God to figure it out?

You want this to long and painful and complex, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Is it really difficult for you to comprehend what sunday school students can master instantly????

We are talking of RADICAL EVIL. In the time of jesus, that would be the CRUCIFIXION. Clearly, mastery over death caused by natural causes and disease isn't radical evil. Prophets do it all the time.

You really are big on placing blame, aren't you? Well, I guess it would have to be laid at God's door since He made us.

Not at all. You were the one assigning blame from the start, were you not? I am merely pointing out that you are misguided in assigning blame.

Your anger and obvious arrogance don't help you discuss with others, Nums.

Nonsense. I am not angry. As for arrogance, it originally comes from the latin word meaning 'to claim for one's self'. Clearly, truth is something that can be claimed for one's self.

Duh?

The resurrection would have been just as relevant if Jesus had died after a long, full life of helping others. What about that old geezer that Jesus brought back to life? Was that resurrection irrelevant because the old guy hadn't been crucified? People, normal people, don't need to be crucified to understand and appreciate resurrection or reincarnation.

The resurrection was the empirical evidence (well, at least for those who witnessed it) for god's victory over radical evil. And as I have said before, death through natural causes isn't nearly radical evil enough.

Lots of people knew all about it long before Christianity came on the scene.

What religion before christianity had a god that is absolute love, hmmm?

Any chance of facts and logic soon?

Wow, you really have a low opinion of God, don't you? You think that God has to embrace blood payment and all the nasty violence attributed to Him in the Old Testament just to prove He understands us? He has to get crucified to talk to us? If God was as incompetent as you and the Old Testament paint Him to be He'd never have managed to make the Universe in the first place.

Nonsense. He doesn't need blood payments to understand -- he needs to subject himself to blood payments to be UNDERSTOOD.

Over and over and over like a broken record.

You might remember that I've noted how the quality of your posts has gone downhill recently, well this is a good example. Nothing in this response addresses--logically or rationally--what I posted. Try to be a little more clear please.

You don't find it clear enough?

Your argument vacillates from one premise to another contradictory premise -- free will. If man has free will, then you cannot ascribe man's error to god.

Is that finally clear? I should hope so.

Prunes, Nums, prunes or prune juice, cutting back on chocolate can help, and drinking more water too. Exercise can free things up if you spend too much time at a computer key board and as a last resort you might want to try coffee enemas. The caffeine absorbed through the mucosal walls of the rectum stimulate the excretory processes including the lymph system. A good resource book would be THE GERSON THERAPY by Charlotte Gerson who explains her father's work in great detail.

Hmmm.

Or, you could just put some sensible thoughts in your post. It wouldn't hurt, you know, unless you do not have the aptitude for it.

Have you ever actually READ the Bible? Your last paragraph would tend to mitigate against it.

Of course. Have you?

 

[numinus]

Ah yes, but you presented that "dominion" as a God-given right rather than an usurpation by sinful humans.

And you think there is a difference between a 'god-given right' and one that naturally occurs? Haven't you learned enough about natural law already?

Trees already have enough bark. The Bible doesn't say "stewardship" nor has Christianity taught the concept of stewardship, but rather they have traditionally taught that dominion meant dominance, enslaving of nature, exploiting and using it, they have taught that all of Creation was put here for our benefit to use as we saw fit. Why do you think the churches have been so down on animals' rights, on care for the environment?

You are arguing from a subjective point of view???? Unbelieveable!

There was a time that man was helpless against his environment -- hence acted according to that situation. Presently, the environment is helpless against man, hence we need to act accordingly.

It does not diminish the essence of stewardship -- that is, obtaining a balance that is sustainable.

Once again you are advocating religious dogma instead of thinking for yourself. How can you truly love God and and destroy His creation for inconsequential reasons?

I just said stewardship, did I not?

What part of stewardship seeks to destroy creation for inconsequential reasons, hmmmm?

I swear, if I can only weep blood....

You are pushing the standard Christian concept of man and God on one side and all of the rest of Creation on the other. Anthropocentric it's called. I think that a recognition of and reverence for all life is where we need to go. But there is middle ground--which you will ignore by going to a cheap shot about small pox or some such--in which people can defend themselves against genuine threats while giving part of the world to other lifeforms so that they can live as God made them.

Again, stewardship.

It is entirely logical, viable and IT DOES NOT STUPIDLY PURPORT TO ASCRIBE RIGHTS TO ALL LIFE, ONLY HUMAN LIFE.

Occasion for sin? What you mean is encouragement for sin, don't you?

Same thing.

We part company here too, I don't think that recreational sex is sin if one is not spreading disease, causing unwanted children, or violating one's vows. Birth control is a good thing, much better than abortion or abusing of unwanted children. Condoms in marriage prevent unwanted pregnancy, seems to be working... maybe you're using them the wrong way.

It isn't good from a moral standpoint -- which is the context of ANY church teaching.

And from your own admission, there is nothing in the use of artificial birth control that mitigates the sins you enumerated -- hence merely an occassion to sin.

Wrong on both counts. Your church condemns gay people and transgendered people, it has a history of killing them and burning them at the stake (Joan of Arc comes to mind) and the Bible has scriptures that condemn gays to death. Additionally, when the majority uses their power to persecute a minority with no scientific evidence to support their religious claims and when nothing substantive can be produced to show that gay or transgendered people are damaging to society, that too is bashing. Your church has had pogrom against gay and transpeople for hundreds of years despite the fact that in times gone by the Catholic church married gay people--even gay saints.

Nonsense.

The church condemns sin, not sinners. Haven't I mentioned the millenium apology ages ago?

What's unbelievable is that you are so fixated on homosexual ass, so much so that you can't learn. Let's try again slowly, Nums, pay attention: I'm not a homosexual, I've never had sex with a man.

Lets try this again, slowly.

I said your pet peeve concerns homosexuality -- not that you are homosexual yourself. Clear?

But, that said, I don't see any reason why sex between consenting adults (within the boundaries that I set down above: no disease, no children, no violating vows) should be called sinful. And your attacks on gay men especially are unwarranted in that more heterosexual people have AIDS than gays and gay men don't produce unwanted children. You are hypocritical to ignore Jesus commandments to you in favor of using the Bible as a weapon against people you don't like, but whom you are fixated on anyway.

So, when one rationally thinks that gay unions are not marriages and that no such law contrary to this should be promulgated, it is an attack on gays????

Errors of fact. Errors of logic. Gay rhetoric is up to its ears in them.

No revisionism here, eh Nums? It was all those bad Christians who ran the Inquisition wasn't it? Joan of Arc was doing drugs and burned herself at the stake, didn't she? Have your ever read about what the Catholics did in the New World, the way they committed genocide on the indigenous people's? No? Well no surpise there, ignorance is indeed blissful isn't it?

Have I read? My people is one of those indigenous peoples. In my country's particular history, it was the clergy who were among the first to fight for national identity -- then and now.

 

[numinus]

You haven't been willing to help take out the blasphemy in the Bible, so I have to assume that you believe the stuff about God being so violent and cruel. As yet you have given no indication that you DON'T believe the blasphemy, so that makes Him your "monstrous deity".

LMAO.

You assumed wrong. This is not an 'either or' proposition and I have given you ample facts and logic to support it.

Argue for your own stupidity, then sure enough, its yours.

Do the dictates of your conscience force you to ignore Jesus direct commandments to you and require you to bash gay people, to bash me and lie about me on this site?

Nonsense.

My conscience dictates no such thing. Stop believing gay rhetorics. It makes you look dumb in this forum.

Another cheap personal attack implying that as a woman I must be hormonally unbalanced or I would agree with you. Kind of misogynistic attitude, when you argue with your wife do ask her if she's "on the rag"?

Its not personal. Hormonal imbalance is only one possible reason for you defective logic. I could just as easily have asked if you were delusional or worst, insane.

So, this is another case of a non-responsive response since you didn't address anything that I wrote, but just retreated into a personal attack.

LOL.

I already answered your nonsense satisfactorily. Its not my fault your reasoning faculty has stalled, is it?

These are tenets of the Christian faith--maybe you've heard of it? So now you are saying that these things are lies? Kindly expound on your position vis a vis Judgment and Hell and Purgatory.

They're dogma.

They are the logical consequences of your actions.

Everybody is saved, God is perfect, none of His children are lost. Read the story of the Prodigal Son.

Correct.

The only thing that can render salvation moot is -- you guessed it -- your own free will.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

THE WORLD'S SIXTEEN CRUCIFIED SAVIORS by Kersy Graves in which he details some of the religions predating Christianity from which Christianity took it's dogma.

By all means, state them here.

Read back over your posts and note all the non-Jesus stuff you demanded for context and explanation. Jesus spoke six words in those two commandments and you have tried to drag all kinds of things in to supplement those six words, thus filtering out His exquisite simplicity.

Nothing I said contradicts the commandment of love. On the contrary, everything I said expounds it.

Scraping off the detritus of the centuries would be more accurate, going back to the basics of what Jesus taught without all the blasphemy added in over the years to let people do the nasty things they like to do:

Listen to yourself. You want to tamper with the bible to be more accurate. Is there anything more absurd, I wonder?

for example building a worldwide religious empire with billions of dollars in assets while letting people starve.

Do the math. Break up this billions of dollars in assets and distribute it to every man, woman and child on the planet. Does it solve world hunger for more than a month?

What razor-sharp management sense you have!

Bullfeathers. What complex moral issue is not covered by Jesus' commandments?

Moral issues involving politics, economics, the environment, science, etc.

Another personal attack, another lie, by God, Nums, people gonna think you're Christian if you're not careful. And once again you have pissed on Jesus' name by placing your hatred above His commandment to LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF.

The only thing you get from a homosexual a$$ is, well, you know. It certainly ain't love.

Duh?

Yes! Exactly.

Math ain't simple then.

You are the only one so far who has brought up simplemindedness. I, personally, wouldn't characterize Jesus' comments that way, but then I'm not a Catholic either.

Certainly.

I would, however, characterize YOUR interpretation of it as simple-minded.

So you believe in Karma. Good, I knew we had things in common.

No, I don't.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't know how you can say so much and say so little, Nums. You used three long posts and just blathered the whole time.

I know you're not stupid but sometimes... There is no need to break up the Catholic church's billions among all the people in the world, only the hungry ones. Your response was meant to deflect the attention away from the fact that the Pope's behavior is directly in contravention to Jesus' commandments. The fact that all the church's billions might not end hunger permanently is no reason to not try and certainly no reason for the Pope to live like a king.

It was nice when you characterized my interpretation of Jesus' 6 words of commandments to be simple-minded. It's pretty hard not to get the message from six simple words, but your actions suggest that you haven't been able to do so. You seem to have a desperate need to make things complex.

LOVE GOD and LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF are just about as simple as one can get and still be profound. You can't do these simple things though, you have to take the less important scriptures about gay people and conflate them while studiously ignoring Jesus direct commands to you.

One of the reasons that I have taken up the fight for gay rights is that the Pope and you and Andy and Who and most of the rest of the Christian population are so poorly educated that you don't know the difference between homosexual and transsexual people, so all the stupidity and hatred that you vent on them is spread onto me as well. And the stupidity of the Catholic church was not mitigated by the millennium apology in that the stupidity didn't stop. We need a new name for the people who ignore Jesus' teachings and focus on using the Old Testament as a weapon to hurt others.

 

[numinus]

I don't know how you can say so much and say so little, Nums. You used three long posts and just blathered the whole time.

I know you're not stupid but sometimes... There is no need to break up the Catholic church's billions among all the people in the world, only the hungry ones. Your response was meant to deflect the attention away from the fact that the Pope's behavior is directly in contravention to Jesus' commandments. The fact that all the church's billions might not end hunger permanently is no reason to not try and certainly no reason for the Pope to live like a king.

Nonsense.

Is 50% of the world's population a conservative enough poverty rate for you? Do the math. Divide the total worth of the catholic church by 2.5 billion and lets see what number you come up with to eradicate poverty. Even if you divide the amount with the number of estimated catholics in the world, it would still not eradicate even catholic poverty, much less world poverty.

The fact is, the church, like any organization of comparable magnitude, needs operating expenses. The larger the work, the bigger the operating expense. It would be even larger if all the lay people involved in church work actually got paid, instead of simply volunteering. If you broke up the church's assets and distributed it to the poor, then the catholic church will be IN NO POSITION TO HELP ANYONE, EVEN ITSELF.

Not to mention the fact that an amount like that freely given would trigger world-wide inflation of biblical proportions that would make the current global economic situation look like a picnic.

Please peddle your robin hood economics someplace else.

It was nice when you characterized my interpretation of Jesus' 6 words of commandments to be simple-minded. It's pretty hard not to get the message from six simple words, but your actions suggest that you haven't been able to do so. You seem to have a desperate need to make things complex.

Nonsense.

Your interpretation of jesus' words is simple-minded. How you got from a natural inclination like sex to the commandment of love is beyond me.

LOVE GOD and LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF are just about as simple as one can get and still be profound. You can't do these simple things though, you have to take the less important scriptures about gay people and conflate them while studiously ignoring Jesus direct commands to you.

Tell me, should a masochist love others as himself???? Should he love god in the same manner???? As I said, you proceed within the framework of 'I' alone or 'thou' alone -- never 'I and thou'.

Your ideas are simple-minded, at best. It is bereft of facts, logic and context.

One of the reasons that I have taken up the fight for gay rights is that the Pope and you and Andy and Who and most of the rest of the Christian population are so poorly educated that you don't know the difference between homosexual and transsexual people, so all the stupidity and hatred that you vent on them is spread onto me as well. And the stupidity of the Catholic church was not mitigated by the millennium apology in that the stupidity didn't stop. We need a new name for the people who ignore Jesus' teachings and focus on using the Old Testament as a weapon to hurt others.

I don't hate homosexuals and transexuals. Someone being homosexual or transexual does not interfere with the way I interact with them. Heck, I even took the time to analyze exactly what's wrong with your argument, did I not?

The reason the state should not promulgate a law to marry homosexuals is INDEPENDENT of what I feel.

Facts and logic. Get over it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nonsense. Is 50% of the world's population a conservative enough poverty rate for you? Do the math. Divide the total worth of the catholic church by 2.5 billion and lets see what number you come up with to eradicate poverty. Even if you divide the amount with the number of estimated catholics in the world, it would still not eradicate even catholic poverty, much less world poverty.

The fact is, the church, like any organization of comparable magnitude, needs operating expenses. The larger the work, the bigger the operating expense. It would be even larger if all the lay people involved in church work actually got paid, instead of simply volunteering. If you broke up the church's assets and distributed it to the poor, then the catholic church will be IN NO POSITION TO HELP ANYONE, EVEN ITSELF.

Not to mention the fact that an amount like that freely given would trigger world-wide inflation of biblical proportions that would make the current global economic situation look like a picnic.

Nonsense is right, how many could have been helped with just the money paid out to ransom the pedophile priests? The Pope could set an example by living like Mother Theresa, the Cardinals too. Liquidating the church's assets would take time and the world would adjust. Of course you wouldn't agree to this being a good idea since it was just that idiot Jesus who talked about giving what you have to the poor, and you don't pay attention to His most important commandments so why shouldn't you ignore this too.

Nonsense. Your interpretation of jesus' words is simple-minded. How you got from a natural inclination like sex to the commandment of love is beyond me.

Wow! That was pretty far out even for you, Nums. Another lie, I've never equated sex and love as you imply. Jesus said you shouldn't lie either, but I guess if you're gonna ignore some of His teachings you might as well ignore all the rest.

Tell me, should a masochist love others as himself???? Should he love god in the same manner???? As I said, you proceed within the framework of 'I' alone or 'thou' alone -- never 'I and thou'. Your ideas are simple-minded, at best. It is bereft of facts, logic and context.

I'm impressed, you managed to top your last ridiculous statement with this one. Only you are talking about sex. I'm guessing that you don't get enough sexual outlet in your marriage and even as a nominal Catholic you can't justify sex outside of your marriage, so you obsess about it. This does explain some of your hang up with "context" since you can't separate sex and love without a lot of help. It's sad to see even a nominal Christian equating Jesus' commandment about love to be about sex.

I don't hate homosexuals and transexuals. Someone being homosexual or transexual does not interfere with the way I interact with them. Heck, I even took the time to analyze exactly what's wrong with your argument, did I not? The reason the state should not promulgate a law to marry homosexuals is INDEPENDENT of what I feel. Facts and logic. Get over it.

So you are ignorant on two fronts instead of one, that's an improvement? Coprophagy isn't prohibited in the Bible, but people do that. Why aren't you campaigning against them? The truth is that if religion didn't condemn homosexuals, then there would no reason to treat them differently than any other group.

In all the discussions about gay and trans people no one has yet to provide any rational or logical reason to deny them equality. Many have tried, but there simply isn't any reason and there never has been.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I find it intersting and informative that while Nums, Who, and Andy run amok with Christian dogma, deny the teachings of Jesus, and advocate hatred and persecution, that no real Christians show up to stop the hijacking of their religion.

I keep hearing that it isn't just religious people who want gays and trans people kept in their place, but yet it's only self-identified Christians who argue for this persecution. Many times I've been told that lots of people dislike gays and it isn't just the self-identified Christians who are leading the charge to punish them--so where are all these other people?

Are there any Christians on this site who actually believe that when Jesus said the two most important commandments were to LOVE GOD and LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF that He actually meant it? That all other commandments and scriptures should be measured against these two?

 

[Dr.Who]

The fact that all the church's billions might not end hunger permanently is no reason to not try and certainly no reason for the Pope to live like a king.

Judas said the same thing.


Yet, ealier God gave instructions for the construction of the artifacts in his tents.
And for the building of Solomon's grand temple.
And god for the building of King David's large estate.
And when expensive oil was poured on Jesus he accepted it.

btw, while the building the pope lives in is quite large (well actually not so much by todays standards) how large are his personal quarters? Does he live a stoic life of self denial? Are you making goatherder arguments again without any facts to back them up?

And just how large is it. Well, one could easily walk around it and it houses almost 800 people. How much room is left for the pope? I would remind you that virtually the only posessions the Pope owns are his apartment and his cloths - and those he gives back when his life of compete sacrifice for the church ends. How much would you like to bet that you own more cloths than the pope?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Judas said the same thing.

Judas may have been the bravest of all the disciples since he is the one who has gotten the worst treatment from history. He fulfilled an absolutely essential role in what happened, without him there would have been no ressurection. Implying that what I said is fallacious or evil or something because Judas said something similar is a guilt by association ploy, a debating trick, nothing more.

Yet, ealier God gave instructions for the construction of the artifacts in his tents.
And for the building of Solomon's grand temple.
And god for the building of King David's large estate.
And when expensive oil was poured on Jesus he accepted it.

btw, while the building the pope lives in is quite large (well actually not so much by todays standards) how large are his personal quarters? Does he live a stoic life of self denial? Are you making goatherder arguments again without any facts to back them up?

And just how large is it. Well, one could easily walk around it and it houses almost 800 people. How much room is left for the pope? I would remind you that virtually the only posessions the Pope owns are his apartment and his cloths - and those he gives back when his life of compete sacrifice for the church ends. How much would you like to bet that you own more cloths than the pope?

Every time I've seen the Pope he's been arrayed in grand style with heavy embroidered robes and a gnarly hat, he drives a dinosaur Popemobile, and he is the head of one of the largest religious enterprises in the world. The man rolls in money--look at how much they ponied up for the pedophile priests.

Was Jesus lying when He talked about the accumulation of wealth?

 

[Dr.Who]

Judas may have been the bravest of all the disciples since he is the one who has gotten the worst treatment from history. He fulfilled an absolutely essential role in what happened, without him there would have been no ressurection. Implying that what I said is fallacious or evil or something because Judas said something similar is a guilt by association ploy, a debating trick, nothing more.
Every time I've seen the Pope he's been arrayed in grand style with heavy embroidered robes and a gnarly hat, he drives a dinosaur Popemobile, and he is the head of one of the largest religious enterprises in the world. The man rolls in money--look at how much they ponied up for the pedophile priests.

Was Jesus lying when He talked about the accumulation of wealth?

Jesus reprimanded Judas. I suppose that is one of the sayings of Jesus that you would remove from the bible?

The pope does not own the wealth. A few nice work clothes, and a company car don't make him any less humble.

Jesus was not against wealth. He was against an improper relationship with money. After all when Judas complained about the money he stated that it was worth a years wages so they carried around a lot of money.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Jesus reprimanded Judas. I suppose that is one of the sayings of Jesus that you would remove from the bible?

Not at all, Judas was a vital person in the Christ story and his interactions with Jesus have some significance. If you had actually paid attention to what I have written on this subject you'd know that the story of the adult Jesus is part of what I'd save.

The pope does not own the wealth. A few nice work clothes, and a company car don't make him any less humble.

Jesus was not against wealth. He was against an improper relationship with money. After all when Judas complained about the money he stated that it was worth a years wages so they carried around a lot of money.

Do you suppose that having hundreds of millions of dollars to pay out to ransom pedophile priests would be considered part of an "improper" relationship with money? The church has billions, people are starving, where is the Love Others As Yourself in that?

 

[numinus]

Nonsense is right, how many could have been helped with just the money paid out to ransom the pedophile priests? The Pope could set an example by living like Mother Theresa, the Cardinals too. Liquidating the church's assets would take time and the world would adjust. Of course you wouldn't agree to this being a good idea since it was just that idiot Jesus who talked about giving what you have to the poor, and you don't pay attention to His most important commandments so why shouldn't you ignore this too.

Your robin hood economics would cause MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT ACTUALLY SOLVES. Or would your rather that this contextless discussion be made to accomadate the economic context?

Oh, and jesus' ministry received donations from rich and powerful patrons for the use of the ministry, and not solely to be distributed to the needy.

Duh?

Wow! That was pretty far out even for you, Nums. Another lie, I've never equated sex and love as you imply. Jesus said you shouldn't lie either, but I guess if you're gonna ignore some of His teachings you might as well ignore all the rest.

Nonsense.

Did you not say that homosexuality may be considered an act of conjugal love?

Please deny the statement let us see you lie some more.

I'm impressed, you managed to top your last ridiculous statement with this one. Only you are talking about sex. I'm guessing that you don't get enough sexual outlet in your marriage and even as a nominal Catholic you can't justify sex outside of your marriage, so you obsess about it. This does explain some of your hang up with "context" since you can't separate sex and love without a lot of help. It's sad to see even a nominal Christian equating Jesus' commandment about love to be about sex.

Haven't I claimed previously that sex, whether hetero or otherwise, can never accrue to a moral good in and of itself?

Duh?

So you are ignorant on two fronts instead of one, that's an improvement? Coprophagy isn't prohibited in the Bible, but people do that. Why aren't you campaigning against them?

Because no one I know eats excrement. Nor is eating excrement particularly high on society's moral ills department.

Hello?

The truth is that if religion didn't condemn homosexuals, then there would no reason to treat them differently than any other group.

Wow.

And all the while I thought that everyone is unique.

In all the discussions about gay and trans people no one has yet to provide any rational or logical reason to deny them equality. Many have tried, but there simply isn't any reason and there never has been.

That is correct.

Your problem stems from your inability to distinguish between equality and uniqueness.

 

[numinus]

Judas may have been the bravest of all the disciples since he is the one who has gotten the worst treatment from history. He fulfilled an absolutely essential role in what happened, without him there would have been no ressurection. Implying that what I said is fallacious or evil or something because Judas said something similar is a guilt by association ploy, a debating trick, nothing more.

That is exactly what is wrong with gnostic thought. It completely ignores responsibility in the exercise of one's free will. And I'd imagine you'd love such a situation.

At the very least, judas was guilty of being clueless. He iwas a zealot (iscariot probably coming from scarii). He was forcing his zealot world-view on everyone else, orchestrating a confrontation between jesus against roman and jewish authorities. He probabaly figured that a confrontation would initiate a general revolt.

Come to think of it, your ideas are much like judas', as far as forcing your own belief on others is concerned.

Every time I've seen the Pope he's been arrayed in grand style with heavy embroidered robes and a gnarly hat,

What point other than fashion sense are you aiming for here?

he drives a dinosaur Popemobile,

Unfortunately, it is necessary ever since jp2's attempted assassination. The first thing he did, btw, was visit his assassins in jail to forgive him.

and he is the head of one of the largest religious enterprises in the world.

The man rolls in money--look at how much they ponied up for the pedophile priests.

Nonsense.

Like any organization, the church is being managed financially. Its not like he can buy anything that he pleases. He would have to request and justify it.

I read that when jp2 requested a pool built in his summer residence, it was denied due to financial constraints. He justified it by saying that a pool is immensely cheaper than another conclave. By the same reasoning, building a private pool would be immensely cheaper than swimming in a public pool.

Was Jesus lying when He talked about the accumulation of wealth?

What exactly did you imagine jesus say about the accumulation of wealth, hmmm?

 

[numinus]

Not at all, Judas was a vital person in the Christ story and his interactions with Jesus have some significance. If you had actually paid attention to what I have written on this subject you'd know that the story of the adult Jesus is part of what I'd save.

Of course he is vital to the story. He is, after all, one of the antagonists. I can't imagine how, even without any context, a story can proceed without an antagonist.

Duh?

Do you suppose that having hundreds of millions of dollars to pay out to ransom pedophile priests would be considered part of an "improper" relationship with money?

Is this true? The american justice system may be bought?

How do you expect people to believe anything you say if you insist on conjuring errors of fact and errors of logic, hmmm?

The church has billions, people are starving, where is the Love Others As Yourself in that?

Not only is the church managing various charities around the world, it is also a major contributor to them. Caritas comes to mind.

Now, if you are saying that you have given all your assets and put all your salary to charity, then you might have a point.