gc1765

I guess September 11, 2001, March 11, 2004 (Spain), July 11, 2005 (London) weren't major and disruptive developments in your book? What do those have to do with Hezbollah?

There does appear to be a lot of contradictions in my opinion. Do a google search for "bible contradictions" or something similar, they probably have a more comprehensive list than I could come up with.

I'd say your examples are just one more example of contradictions in the bible. That is one more reason for me personally not to take the bible literally word for word, but to only extract out the essential aspects of how to live a decent life, which in my opinion would include do not murder or steal, honour your parents, forgiveness, and at least trying not to judge others as much as possible etc... If two priests want to get married, they have not commited a sin against me, so I personally will not judge them. If you want to judge them that is your perogative.

The Church of England (or you or I or anybody in this forum) may choose to judge somebody because we are not afraid of being judged in the same measured way. I think Jesus meant that as more of a threat, if you judge others you will be judged (which is a bad thing). Anyways that's just one passage, there are others: Jesus is saying do not judge others if you are a sinner, because you would be a hypocrite. How many in the church are without sin? or this; Once again only Jesus may judge and condemn, since he is the only one without sin. or this: or this: "But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,"

He was too busy reading about goats, duh

Well that goes back to the point I have been trying to make all along. The bible may say that homosexuality is wrong, and you accuse these priests of picking and choosing what they want to believe in. As you said yourself "either you believe in it or you don't". Well if that's the case, then either you believe "Do not judge others..." (and other similar references) or you don't belive in Christianity at all. So why is it not OK for these priests to ignore the part in the bible about homosexuality, but it's OK for the church and others on this forum to think they can judge these priests and believe they don't belong in the church?

If you don't want to discuss with me that is fine, but yes I do really think what I wrote. My mistake. I meant to say condemn. Sometimes I get those words confused So, I guess you have no other response to my latest remarks? I bet I didn't change your mind! No, I didn't respond because I didn't think you wanted to discuss it. But since it appears that you do, here it goes: Yes, you are right here. I meant to say he let them become homosexuals, not that he made them. Well that would appear to contradict what I said earlier, that only God/Jesus can judge what is and what is not a sin. It also says if he sins against you, not if he sins against God.

Well that's a good question, and it seems that there are many contradictions like that in the bible. So actually I don't know the answer.

If you don't want to discuss with me that is fine, but yes I do really think what I wrote. My mistake. I meant to say condemn. Sometimes I get those words confused

Then why did God give us the 10 Commandments if there would be no laws? And He placed a lot of importance on it! If you believe what I am saying about only God/Jesus may punish, then the 10 commandments were given to us not so that we can apply the commandments here on earth in the form of laws, but so that God can use them to judge us. It's not that humans can't be punished, it's that only God/Jesus can make that punishment. If you don't believe me and you believe that humans may punish eachother, then you must believe in the punishments laid out in the Old Testament, ie stoning to death. Also, the 10 commandments are in the Old Testament. Someone else on this board has pointed out that laws in the Old Testament do not apply. If we assume they do apply, then we must assume that the appropriate punishment for them also applies. So I would then ask you, do you believe that people should be stoned to death as in the examples I have previously shown? He told us what is and what is not a sin so that we can abstain from doing these things, he did not tell us what a sin is so that we could judge sins in others. Christ used his judgement? Isn't that what I'm trying to say, that only Jesus/God can judge?

Yes, I know he gave Peter the responsibility to continue the church, but did he give Peter, and for that matter all humans, the power to punish sinners? I don't think I referred to any punishments being done by the church. I said that according to the bible, only Jesus (he without sin) has the authority to punish.

Thanks for the references. The first reference doesn't say anything about not being allowed to belong to the church, it just says "treat them as a pagan (or heathen depending on the version) or a tax collector". I imagine that only God could cast the first stone against a pagan or tax collector. As for the second reference, if I'm understanding this correctly, it seems that God made them homosexuals as punishment for not worshipping God and then punished them for being homosexuals? Am I reading that right? Are there any references where Jesus himself condones homosexuality?

Yes, so why is it OK to ignore the punishments that God specifically commanded us to uphold but not OK to ignore the parts about homosexuality? Can you show me where it says homosexuality is wrong the in the New Testament?

Only God can make the final judgment. But the Church can judge whether the action goes against their faith or belief. 1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Matthew 7:1-2 Are you serious? If we go by your interpretation...there wouldn't be any laws at all! Read my statement again. "....the church can judge whether the ACTION goes AGAINST THEIR FAITH or belief." Of course the Church knows what is against its belief! IT IS THE CHURCH's responsibility to bring people to GOD! Exactly my point. If we interpret the bible literally, there would be no laws. Only God could issue punishment. Once again, if we take a literal interpretation of the bible, then no, they can not judge what is and what is not a sin, and therefore can not judge what is and what is not against their beliefs.

It will be interesting to see if the Church of England treats them the same as it would treat a heterosexual priest who commits fornication. That's for the Church to decide. Whether we agree with what the Church says or not....it is still considered the rep of God. If one finds himself at odds with the rules of a church, then why not start their own religion? That's how the Protestant church came to be, if I'm not mistaken. Or why not join other churches that conformed with the wishes of humans. Some church condone and accept homosexual marriage. Why not just believe what you choose to believe and worship on your own time? Why do you have to join a church?

Yes, hopefully we will be able to shift our society to that of Somom and Gomorrah soon. What righteous priest wouldn't want that? You mean Sodom and Gomorrah? Do you honestly believe that God is going to destroy our society because two priests want to get married? Doesn't this go back to the argument that I was having with sharkman that the laws of the Old Testament are apparently irrelevant?

Yes but that was Jesus doing the punishment. As it says in the New Testament, only Jesus/God may punish as they are the only ones without sin. If you believe everything in the New Testament, then you must believe that only Jesus/God may punish people, but I think that goes contrary to what the vast majority of Christians believe. Can you show me the reference in the bible where it says this? Also, can you show me where it says in the New Testament that homosexuality is a sin? Thanks.

What you are saying is ludicrous. It's not ludicrous. It's straight out of the bible, actually. Read John 8:3-11 and Matthew 5:38-41. Compare that with our justice system. Now, do you actually believe that our justice system is based on Christianity? So? Just because the Constitution recognizes the supremacy of God does not mean that our laws are based on Christianity. I think my examples above make that very clear.

I'm one of those "pick and choose" Christians. I believe in the fundamentals of forgiveness, charity etc. but I do not take the bible literally. Does that make me Christian? I don't know. And no, I am not gay. Christianity is based on both the Old Testament and the New Testament. You can not "pick and choose" what you believe. The Old Testament is still, supposedly, the word of God. When Jesus came he specifically removed certain aspects of the Old Testament, like the Sabbath & what food can be eaten...but the rest still applies. If you are a Christian, do you not still believe that we came from Adam & Eve? Isn't that what most Christians believe? So why is it ok to pick and choose verses from say Genesis, but not from other books of the bible? And by the way, how many people live by the word of the New Testament. Do you believe in punishment? Sorry, I guess you can't since if you believe everything the New Testament says then you would let God cast the first stone. P.S. Can you show me exactly what Jesus said about homosexuality? It's been a while since I've read the bible so I can't remember.

Only God can make the final judgment. But the Church can judge whether the action goes against their faith or belief. 1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Matthew 7:1-2 See my post above, and you'll see how the church has swayed with the times. How many people are being stoned to death in Canada?

And the right doesn't do this? Like with abortion and SSM?? But isn't the law and constitution based on Christian values? No, the laws of Canada are based on what is "best" for Canadians. If the law was based on Christian values, no one would be punished because we'd all be turning the other cheek, or waiting for God to cast the first stone. Not to mention that rich people would be forced to give up their money to charity.

Yah, uh, what about what God says. You know, the one their church is based on? I love it when people pick and choose which stuff they'll follow in the bible and which they decide to ignore. Specially when they are priests for crying out loud. Are you a Christian? Do you believe everything the bible says? Do you think homosexuals should be killed? " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13 Should anyone who blasphemies be stoned to death? "anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death" Leviticus 24:16 Or maybe stone to death a stubborn & rebellious son? "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death" Deuteronomy 21:18-21 I could go on and on but I wont. Virtually everyone picks and chooses what they want to believe, I doubt there are many, if any, people who believe every word of the bible. The examples above are just a few reasons why. So if these priests want to "tie the civil knot", I say kudos to them for standing up for what they believe in, even if it is not popular. Only God can judge their actions, not others in the Church of England.

The people who ran the sponsorship program. Have you forgotten who they are already? Long before the sponsorship scandal, the federal Liberal party throughout the 1970's nickel-and-dimed some Canadians to buy the votes of other Canadians. Please do not tell me you forget something as divisive as the National Energy Program. Nothing was new in the 1990's except that the abuse of taxpayers and the corruption got worse. Ok, so who in the current Liberal caucus ran the sponsorship scandal? I was always under the impression that Gagliano was the one running it, but of course he is not a current member. So who are the current members you are speaking of that ran the sponsorship scandal? I'm too young to remember the National Energy Program except for what I have read about it, but I don't think that's the issue here. Besides, how can the current Liberal party be blamed for something that happened in the 70's? In what sense? Why did you vote Liberal? what do they offer that the current ruling Conservative party does not offer to you? Several issues I suppose. Off the top of my head: 1. Liberals would have maintained their tax cut of the lowest income bracket from 16% to 15%, and raising the basic personal exemption. The conservatives promised to raise it back to 16% (though they settled for 15.5%) and lower the basic personal exemption. Instead they would cut the GST, which would not benefit me nearly as much as a reduction in personal income taxes. 2. Same-sex marriage. While I am heterosexual, I still believe in equality and I can not vote for someone who does not believe in equality. 3. Liberals were planning on decriminalizing marijuana, the conservatives put an end to that. 4. The Kelowna accord Also: The Liberals plan to reduce the debt, Harper being for the Iraq war etc... There are a few good policies from the Conservatives, especially their plan to give a tax break on bus passes, but most of their policies I disagree with. In your opinion, should Canadians treat them as if they had a completely clean slate? In other words, should Canadians completely forget about the Liberal party's past and treat the Liberals as if it was a completely new party? If we assume that no-one in the Liberal party was responsible for the sponsorship scandal, then yes I would give them a clean slate. If there is any evidence to suggest that there are current members who were involved in the sponsorship scandal, or even knew about it, then I would say no they do not deserve a clean slate. But so far I have not seen that evidence.

Kudos to them for doing what they want, regardless of what anyone else says.

How come every assertion of rights of Christians or Jews is derided by someone as "racist"? Examples? Who is calling who a racist?