"I quit being a Christian...."

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for being a-holes who occasionally engaged in sodomy as well. if you remember correctly, one of their achievements was to want to rape the first stranger they see (the angels). the fact that lot offered his daughters instead is ... best left for another time where we discuss the evils of the bible.
they were murderers, forn ...[text shortened]... being faithful to one another, maybe even being good christians, maybe even raising 1 or 2 kids?

The Bible indicates that the wickedness within the city had become intolerable, it was not just about sodomy.

So tell me, how many cities have you visited recently that had a raping greeting party waiting for ya? (Other than San Fransisco that is) 😛

Originally posted by vishvahetu
The thing is,....is that Christianity is partly true and mainly false, and its the false part that causes so much trouble.

If they could only spiritualize christainity, then they would have a force to be reckoned with.

vishva

So what is "mainly false'?

Originally posted by whodey
So fundamentalists are incapable of being the same way?

You can use that term in a couple ways, as either an indication that one believes a certain set of propositions fundamental to the faith or, pejoratively, as an indication of unreasonableness, bigotry, etc. KellyJay is fundamentalist is the first sense, not the second. Better?

Originally posted by bbarr
Come on, do you really think KellyJay is a fundamentalist? Have you read his posts? He is devout, but he is also tolerant and kind. Love the sinner, hate the sin. But doesn't even judge people on the basis of their sins. He has repeatedly said that the state of a man is between him and God, and that only God can judge. You really think Anne Rice had this ...[text shortened]... in mind? If so, then the proper response among Christians like KellyJay is "Good riddance!".

If you vouch for him I will take it back. I must have been wrong to include him in the stereotypical group I was talking about.

Originally posted by galveston75
Sorry old buddy but your so wrong about Satan. Fooling ones like yourself into believeing he doesn't exist is one of his best weapons and it obviously works.

Why do elephants paint their balls red?
So they can hide in cherry bushes

Ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree?
That clearly shows that painting their balls red works!

Originally posted by bbarr
You can use that term in a couple ways, as either an indication that one believes a certain set of propositions fundamental to the faith or, pejoratively, as an indication of unreasonableness, bigotry, etc. KellyJay is fundamentalist is the first sense, not the second. Better?

So if Kelly believes that a homosexual act is a "sin" does this make him a bigot and unreasonable?

Originally posted by whodey
So if Kelly believes that a homosexual act is a "sin" does this make him a bigot and unreasonable?

It makes him a homophobe. It shows his hate within. He denies love for certain people, against the words of Jesus and StPaul. Very unchristian, isn't it?

Originally posted by whodey
So if Kelly believes that a homosexual act is a "sin" does this make him a bigot and unreasonable?

No. In my opinion, it simply makes him wrong. Kelly is not going to discriminate against homosexuals who want to go to church, or gay-bash, or even make rude comments to homosexuals about their lifestyle. Hell, he probably wouldn't even be opposed to homosexual partners being able to enjoy some of the rights of domestic partnerships. He can correct me if I'm wrong. But nothing about KellyJay's demeanor here, or anything he's written, leads me to believe that he has any hatred towards homosexual people, or really any people at all.

This is something Ivanhoe got exactly right, years ago. The putative sin of homosexual intercourse is no different in kind, doctrinally, than the sin of premarital sex, or sex using contraception. I'm not saying that any of these are sins. I am an atheist, and a moral philosopher, and don't go in for the notion of sin. But Ivanhoe treated these activities as roughly equivalent sins. They all depart from the Catholic ideal of sexual relationships. There is no extra badness associated with homosexual activity. I get the same sense about KellyJay.

Originally posted by whodey
The Bible indicates that the wickedness within the city had become intolerable, it was not just about sodomy.

So tell me, how many cities have you visited recently that had a raping greeting party waiting for ya? (Other than San Fransisco that is) 😛

thats what i said

Originally posted by FabianFnas
It makes him a homophobe. It shows his hate within. He denies love for certain people, against the words of Jesus and StPaul. Very unchristian, isn't it?

Er....um....St. Paul spoke out against homosexual conduct.

Originally posted by bbarr
No. In my opinion, it simply makes him wrong. Kelly is not going to discriminate against homosexuals who want to go to church, or gay-bash, or even make rude comments to homosexuals about their lifestyle. Hell, he probably wouldn't even be opposed to homosexual partners being able to enjoy some of the rights of domestic partnerships. He can correct me if I o extra badness associated with homosexual activity. I get the same sense about KellyJay.

I'm glad to hear it. It reminds me of a debate I got in with TOO. I was saying that in our church the religious leaders were expected to not engage in sin openly and if they did they were confronted. If they then continued they were then asked to step down. Of course, all TOO talks about is the sin of homosxuality and how it is bigoted to think of their activity as sinful, so he began calling me a hypocritical SOB. Of course, this has NOTHING to do with homosexuals going to church, rather, only the expectation that the leaders of the church agree to and uphold the expectations required to shepherd the flock of the organization.

So would you label Whodey as an unreasonable bigot and hypocrite or just misguided like Kelly?

Originally posted by whodey
Er....um....St. Paul spoke out against homosexual conduct.

Read the 1st Corintian chapter 13 verse 13. This is the words of StPaul.

Originally posted by whodey
I'm glad to hear it. It reminds me of a debate I got in with TOO. I was saying that in our church the religious leaders were expected to not engage in sin openly and if they did they were confronted. If they then continued they were then asked to step down. Of course, all TOO talks about is the sin of homosxuality and how it is bigoted to think of their a ...[text shortened]... ch agree to and uphold the expectations required to shepherd the flock of the organization.

Seems you are still trying to distance yourself from your bigotry and hypocrisy through your continued use of deceit. Seems like this is how bigots and hypocrites remain so.

I was saying that in our church the religious leaders were expected to not engage in sin openly and if they did they were confronted. If they then continued they were then asked to step down.

Once again, unless homosexuals are having sex in front of the congregation, they are not "engag[ing] in sin OPENLY".
Once again, you indicated a while ago that in your church ALL members are considered "leaders" which in effect ostracizes homosexuals.

Of course, all TOO talks about is the sin of homosxuality and how it is bigoted to think of their activity as sinful, so he began calling me a hypocritical SOB.

Once again, what makes you a hypocrite is that you support the ostracization of homosexuals from your church because of their "sin", yet, by your own admission, you continue to sin and others in your church continue to sin and you don't ostracize yourselves. For example, the overweight "leaders" in your church are not "confronted" no less "removed" even though they are likely more "openly sinning" than any homosexual has. I have explained this to you time and again, yet you insist on portraying my position as one where I call you a hypocrite because you believe their activity is sinful.

Of course, this has NOTHING to do with homosexuals going to church, rather, only the expectation that the leaders of the church agree to and uphold the expectations required to shepherd the flock of the organization.

It has everything to do with the hypocrisy of excluding homosexuals from membership/leadership for their "sin", even though other members/leaders who continue to sin are allowed to remain including yourself.

So would you label Whodey as an unreasonable bigot and hypocrite or just misguided like Kelly?

If KJ's position was accurately portrayed by Bbarr, I would consider him wrong, but not necessarily a bigot or hypocrite.

You however have shown yourself to be something very different. For example, just a few posts back you made the following comment: "So tell me, how many cities have you visited recently that had a raping greeting party waiting for ya? (Other than San Fransisco that is)" which is a clear indication of your bigotry.

With your continued and open use of deceit on this forum, if you weren't a hypocrite, you would remove yourself from "leadership" in your church.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[quote] For those who care, and I understand if you don't: [b]Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being "Christian" or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to "belong" to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten ...years, I've t ...[text shortened]... Anne Rice has had her eyes opened to the hypocrisy that is Christianity.

Comments?[/b]

I feel the same way, although I remain plugged into my local church.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I feel the same way, although I remain plugged into my local church.

Where's your marching band? Life is decidedly unfair.