The Bible does not instruct Christians to kill gay people.

I'm thinking he was a nuclear physicist, or more likely an electrical engineer, but it's getting late so maybe I'm missing something.

- - - Updated - - -

If he saw a very recent painting of himself on the cross he'd proclaim "Daaaaamn, when did I get such killer abs! Nice 6-pack! Heck, ab machines haven't even been invented yet!"

 

or continue to worship him I suppose, not everyone wants to worship a god that doesn't have both a good and evil side to them

.

 

In the sit-com "My Two Dads", was it God and Joseph in the title roles? I don't watch too much TV as you can tell.

 

I don't deny my disdain for the activists who lie. I don't hate homosexuals or anyone else for that matter.

 

Then if the bible, if, contained passages that said to kill gays (you're not having to say it does or does not right here), would you remove those passages from the bible since you "don't hate homosexuals"? Would you? I would, because I'm a moral person.

 

There is enough violence against innocent people in the Bible for you to use as examples to make your point. Instead, you choose a hypothetical based on gays, because you can't prove that Christians are instructed to kill gay people.

I'm going to entertain your hypothetical anyway, just because I'm curious to see what you're up to.

I don't hate adulterers, fornicators, pornographers, abortionists…gays, lesbians, transgenders, bisexuals…

It's all sin to me. I concern myself with my own sin far more than I concern myself with the sins of others. You think we're obsessed with everything gay, but we're not. We're obsessed with the Gospel. For me to accept a part of the Bible (hypothetically) that instructed me to kill gays; I would also have to accept other parts of the Bible (real Scripture) that tell me otherwise. Would you like for me to list the real Bible references, words spoken by Jesus himself, to show that there's no way I could kill anyone?

 

So while we're tearing pages out of the Bible that we think tell us to do harm to others, we may as well tear out the parts that tell us how to forgive. It depends on your personal view, not the truth, after all. So, if I'm a Satanist, I'll go ahead and remove all references to Satan as God's evil nemesis.

 

I bet you are intelligent enough to go out and find a belief system that's not so violent against innocent people.

 

I just proved how religion causes good people to not be so good, as you (and Margot2, elsewhere) are simply incapable of answering "yes" to the following: "Then if the bible, if, contained passages that said to kill gays (you're not having to say it does or does not right here), would you remove those passages from the bible?"

You are a great person, I believe, and modern Secular Humanism could bring out your full potential (i.e. you could be honest with yourself and just answer "yes" to that question. Your future could be very bright.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not logical, and you know it, my friend.

 

A modern Secular Humanist would of course do that to their own texts (if they had texts like that as such) so I challenge you to be as moral as MSH, my friend.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't believe you one bit, so please prove that you're not lying to me by saying you'd remove parts of the Bible, if, repeat if, they did say to kill any of those obviously innocent people, hypothetically.

 

Please spare me your evangelism and pep talks. I answered your ridiculous hypothetical with the truth - that my Lord and Savior does not instruct me to kill anyone. I think this case is closed.

 

The New Testament commands Christians to not associate with non-believers.

 

Don't you see what Jesus has done to your morality, you can't speak against him, even if in a hypothetical example he did something immoral....that's fanaticism, pure and simple!

Religions teach fanaticism, but modern Secular Humanism (while very strident in it's beliefs) does not. Jesus is clearly hurting the morality of good people. Clearly, as is being demonstrated over and over on these forums. People can't condemn that "prophet" if that prophet, even hypothetically(!), committed a moral crime. They are brainwashed like I was as a theist years ago. I want to help them see a more moral way, because I care about them.

- - - Updated - - -

Will you moral Christians remove that part of your book? I would, because I'm moral (as a modern Secular Humanist). I'm beginning to question the morality of Jesus, however.

 

It's closed, but I will add one more remark. What you're doing is not clever. It doesn't reveal anything about believers other than they're willing to listen to and discuss their faith with anyone, even someone like you who has obviously gone beyond being a skeptic and is now at the evangelical stage of your newfound religion.

 

So are you saying that jesus was an elitist? It sure appears that way.

 

That does it for spreading the Gospel then, doesn't it? Where do you people come up with this stuff? Let's see what you're taking completely out of context now.

 

If you have the most powerful entity on your side, and the truth on your side, then you could easily just answer "yes, I'd remove those vile parts of the Bible if they existed". But you can't, because religion is a con. Someday, like I did years ago, you'll realize that religions are inconsistent and illogical (that's because fairy tales are that way.)

 

What if it could be shown to you, just say, for argument's sake, that the bible did teach Christians to not associate with non-believers, just say.....would you condemn it? I would of course condemn a Sam Harris book if it said for us to not associate with Christians. How do the two belief systems compare in this regard? Please let us know.

- - - Updated - - -

That's because it's getting to inconvenient for you, my friend. Please realize that Jesus has let you down, he's created a belief system that you can't fully defend.

 

I just posted this in another thread. But I think it's good for you to see here. This is how stupid you sound when you try to convey that secularists care more about people than theists. You can't even put your money where your mouth is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

 

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

2nd Corinthians 6:14

 

What do the verbs mean? And what do you mean by associate. Because if I'm associated with someone, they're not my friend. We clearly distinguish between associates and friends, with whom we fellowship.

 

fellowship is not a verb.

I wonder why xtians always are making up strange usages, like "walk by faith", "used of god".

What does "walk by" actually mean, in English? Why used OF god?

is it to make it sound special and sanctimonious?

 

But we are to love our enemies.
The "yoke" reference is simply regarding marriage.
I agree that Ronstar has made a poor argument, but not for the reasons you state.

 

Actually, we use it in a verb sense all the time in our faith. In the passage it is clearly used as a noun. What fellowship means what could we possibly have in common, which further illustrates that it doesn't mean associate. Paul was in Corinth, where the church was full of carnal Christians. They believed, but they still wanted to live their lives in ways that didn't represent Christ. Sound familiar? It's been happening since the beginning, so keep that in mind every time you wish to condemn an entire belief system on the failings of churches and individuals.

 

There's a lot of debate among Christians whether it means marriage. I can tell you that isn't my interpretation. And even if you do interpret it as marriage, you cannot make the case that we're not to associate with unbelievers. Jesus, Paul, all of us have been forced to associate with unbelievers, as we come into contact with them daily.