Progressive Christians

Well that's weird.

 

I want to apologize. I literally did not see that post at all. It was exactly what I needed. Thank-you.

 

Feel free to read the fairy tale for yourself or just look at the pictures = http://www.thebricktestament.com/home.html

 

You can simply Google the questions for yourself or you can use a source such as Biblegateway https://mobile.biblegateway.com/keyword/ and type in a keyword. It is best to use about five different Bible versions. It will give you all of the verses that contain the keyword in the versions that you select so don't rely upon just one version since they all use different words in some verses.

 

You have been on this forum almost 9 years and the fairy tale has been discussed from all angles during that time. You should have some in-depth knowledge of it by now.

But I will go through the trouble of spoon-feeding you once more but don't expect it in the future. Read the fairy tale for yourself or Google the question.

1. He called Gentiles swine and dogs. = Matthew 7:6, Matthew 15:24-27

2. He told his Apostles to stay away from Gentiles and Samaritans. = Matthew 10:5-6

3. He said that his Apostles would only judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew 19:28-29

4. He said that he had only been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 15:24

5. He never preached to the Gentiles or spoke to them unless he absolutely had to and then it was only a short word or two. Matthew 27:11

Based on the totality of the words and actions of the Jesus character he was a racist religious bigot who followed the intent of the First Commandment in Exodus 34:11-16. The only thing he didn't do was kill people.

 

I'm well aware of ways of searching the bible.

The part that is a lot harder is understanding the full meaning of passages that are found.

Suggesting that the "dog" reference indicates racism is a serious stretch, not matching accepted understanding of the message of Jesus.

Look, my own beliefs are pretty strongly atheistiic, but I don't see any value in attempts to tear apart the messages of Jesus on how humans should comport themselves.

The more sources favoring humanitarian drections we can find the better off we are.

 

From the Church fathers to current Christian exegesis supports your position. These are not issues among Christians, per se.

 

I'll preface this with saying I'm a fairly devout Catholic. Allowing married men to become priests won't help the sexual abuse of children crisis--the incidence of child sexual abuse by unmarried Catholic priests is about the same as the incidence of child sexual abuse by married Protestant ministers. It will help the loss of priests we have to marriage. Of the twenty or so priests that I can remember attending Masses with, four or five have left the priesthood to get married. In the Orthodox church (and the eastern rites of the Catholic Church), priests can't marry, but married men can become priests.

 

Its not my job to research your claims or guess where you got your references. Its your job to supply the links, citations and quotes as part of your post that substantiate your claims. Maybe you need to revisit your Middle School writing teacher. Mine taught me that I, as a writer, am obliged to provide the reader with the tools to check the credibility of my claims. If you are too lazy to do it, don't write.

By the way, I knew you were stretching in your conclusions based on those scriptures. That is why I asked you specifically for the scriptures.

 

Yes, you are correct and perhaps why some seminarians/ deacons get married before ordination to the priesthood. I knew Orthodox bishops must be celibate. Rome also allows married priests before ordination in the cases of Anglican/ Lutheran priests becoming Catholic. I've never heard of sexual abuse of children in Orthodox churches. This is where Protestants made the right decision to allow clergy to marry.

 

This idea that the holiest people should repress their sexual desires is just middle age nonsense. Its psychologically unhealthy, because sex is healthy and natural, and releasing those urges is natural and healthy. Repressing those desires and feeling guilty for having them just creates pent up sexual issues. Its time to stop listening to the bible for sexual advise and instead listen to psychologists and your own critical thinking.

 

Yes indeed.
"The Vatican’s Gay Overlords" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/opinion/vatican-gay-priests.html

 

I didn’t know this, The above is more like Protestant.
They broke away from what the church leaders added...earning your way to heaven and the strict (secretive) heirachy within the church.

 

You are engaging in wishful thinking because the Jesus character plainly told his disciples to stay away from Samaritans and Gentiles and he did not include Gentiles in his clique. You have better morals than him so why do you want to follow his?

 

Do you think the church fathers will bad mouth their golden goose? They want people to believe in it so that they will get paid. It is all about the money. Remember how Moses conned the people into giving his buddies a fully-paid retirement plan at the age of 55 while they had to work till the day they died.

 

Corinthians and Ephesians had been Gentiles (non-Israelite) in the past but they were preached to and converted:

https://www.google.com/search?q=whe...rome..69i57.6408j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8




There is no record of Jesus killing any humans. But his adherents did - if he was a prophet he should have known this was going to happen. Therefore, he, too, is a killer.

 

I don't see your passages in the Bible as significantly affecting Christianity in the US today.

The Bible includes other aspects that we have moved beyond today - such as slavery and the position of women.

The thing is, Christianity has moved on those issues.

I don't see your direction on this topic as constructive and certainly not likely to succeed in any useful direction.

In fact, you run a serious risk of losing simply by demonstrating that those who don't share Christianity are no better than irritating.

 

I don't see any merit in suggesting that Jesus should have **** on the grounds that there are those who would commit clear sins.

Besides, those sinners would probably have committed the same sins either way.

 

OK, I did go a little over the top there, using the "Shut the...up" letters.

It was suggested that Jesus should not have preached his direction, because some would misunderstand and commit crimes as a result. I see that as totally unreasonable.

 

Translate what Wyrd writes through a gnostic glossary.

 

I have a difficult time judging an individual based upon a book of stories, re-written and translated many times over. Strict adherence of that kind of document precludes personal thought or responsibility.

For the record, I choose to believe in God. Logical thought makes this difficult, but I choose to ignore logic in this case. FOR ME PERSONALLY. I find it makes me a better person and a more compassionate person. And it provides comfort for me. I don't, however, believe that it should influence laws. Beliefs are personal things - they can influence MY behavior, but they should not be used to influence a state or country.

 

By liberals, I'm sure.

SOME Lutherans have caved on moral issues, the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods emphatically have not.

The vast majority of the 70,000,000 Anglican Communion do not buy into the gay agenda. The dying US Episcopal church is a minority church with a majority complex. There are more Nigerian Anglicans in church every Sunday than in the US, Canada and the UK combined, and the Nigerians are quite orthodox.

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions," II Tim. 4:3.

IMHO the Catholic enforced celibate priesthood is the reason for the pedophile scandals, which are really homosexual scandals, most of the perps and victims being male. Their priesthood attracts gays. It is an unbiblical policy, the Bible saying "It is not good for man to be alone" and "A Bishop should be the husband of one wife", Peter was married.

 

As a nondenomination Christian, i tend to view all denominations and any 501c3 church with skepticism. Abandonning speech that may be political in exchange for tax breaks just reaks of fraud. I dont find it surprising in the slightest that religious leadership so concerned with money would turn out to be sexual abusers. I say stay away from any religious organization that would self-sensor for extra cash. They're likely corrupt.

The slow but steady trend for Christians to quit church and move to small at-home Bible studies indicates that Im likely not alone in this sentiment. It gives me hope that folks are embracing spirituality outside of established, authoritatively interpreted doctrine and quite demonstrably for-profit institutions.

 

So Dr. ML King was wrong in his public effort to end Jim Crow? Same with Wilberforce ending the slave trade? Both were motivated by their faith.

 

Quite right - I chose my words poorly. Influencing one's political view is something that we cannot regulate. But using religious belief as justification for passing laws should not be done.