Let's start a campaign against fundies called 'what bible are you reading?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

Now, I'm not much of a Christian (OK, I'm not a Christian at all), but can you imagine the campaign? When neo-cons try to use Christianity to justify their twisted worldview we use 'What bible are you reading?' and counter with a list of (mostly) New Testament quotes that clearly oppose their way of thinking. What do you think?

Remember to ask 'What Bible are you reading?'

[Cannikin]

1. That sounds fantastic...

Thats always the first question I ask myself when I hear the hate spew: What God do YOU worship??? I was brought up thinking God was all knowing, all loving...and didn't need George Bush or anybody else to pass judgment for him.

[RUexperienced]

2. I'd be interested in seeing your list...

<<<counter with a list of (mostly) New Testament quotes that clearly oppose their way of thinking.>>>

Let me know if you have one. Specifically regarding gays, abortion and marriage.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

4. Nope. I came up with this idea in about 30 seconds. Does it show?

I always come back to 'judge not, lest ye be judged, though'.

[RUexperienced]

5. If that's the best you can do

you will have your ass handed to you on a plate by someone who knows what it says.

You should probably read it before you try to tell others what it says.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

7. Actually, I do know it pretty well, but as this is the lounge, perhaps

a little fun is allowed?

[RUexperienced]

8. If you know it pretty well, tell me about the list

you would put together to do battle with the fundies on abortion, gays and marriage.

Even if its not complete, let me know what you have.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

10. Actually, I don't think I will, because I don't trust your motive here.

[RUexperienced]

19. I guess I don't trust your motives either

You say: "I'm not much of a Christian (OK, I'm not a Christian at all)" but then you go ahead to tell Christians how to believe and how not to believe.

People are going to question YOUR motives if you show up at a Buddist convention, claim you are not a Buddist and proceed to tell them what to believe.

They would probably tell you that if you don't like their religion and can't find one that suits you, just to invent your own.

Its not that hard.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

35. My post was about combatting the neo-con attempted hijacking of religion

for partisan gain. I'm not telling anyone what to believe. If you want to read more into it, read away.

[Bertha Venation]

38. Hi, RU -- you're reading an awful lot into

Lord Byron's intent. A lot that's not there, I must say.

The Bible does not address abortion or gay marriage. There's plenty in it about marriage in general, though; the Hebrews' forefathers were polygamists, of course, and revered King Solomon had -- what was it, 300 wives and 700 concubines? In the new testament, two items on marriage come to mind (loosely paraphrasing): Jesus was asked if he condoned divorce, and he replied "no;" and Paul told his readers to stay unmarried if they could, but if not, to marry, "for it is better to marry than to burn."

[RUexperienced]

50. I just have a problem with people who say

"I am not a christian, and don't know the bible, but would sure like to be able to shove it down their throats"

Do some people take selected verses to support their agenda? Yes.

But if he, being a non-christian, doesn't like what the bible says, he should start is own religion. Then we can attack him with HIS good book, like he is trying to do here.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

52. I never said I didn't like what the bible says.

I take great offence at people who deliberately use the bible to further neo-conservative agendas. I was raised Presbyterian, so I did have to go to Sunday School for about ten years. I am not a Christian, but I'd like to be able to counter those who use their faith as a battering ram.

[Bertha Venation]

54. I see your POV.

But I think you're not seeing Lord Byron's point.

I agree with him that we can turn the tables on FECs who use their bibles in (what I think are) unchristian ways. FECs claim that the bible is the inspired and 100% infallible word of God. Well, then, one who worships it as such has no right to tell me I must live by it if he is not living by it.

[RUexperienced]

62. I can understand your point and agree with much of what you say

but when someone who does not know a religion, live by that religion or subscribe to that religion uses his perceptions of its doctrines to bash people who do subscribe to the religion, it kind of gets under my skin.

Let the priests and believers argue amongst themselves.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

63. Sorry, but if people use the bible to attack us, we'll fight back

with any weapons at hand.

[INTELBYTES]

64. Give me an example of how people are attacking you with the bible.

If people are "attacking" anyone with the bible then they themselves need to be taught the message of the book. Do you have examples of how people are attacking you?

[Bertha Venation]

67. I don't know if Lord Byron is gay, but I am.

I'm certain you won't doubt me when I tell you that, on that basis, I am attacked with the bible every time I discuss religion (or orientation vs. choice) with a FEC.

I can give you specific examples, but I'm sure you know what the "clobber passages" are. If not, I'll post them. The main one used is Leviticus 18:22; the next one (and the one trotted out when OT vs. NT is discussed) is in the first book or two of Romans.

[RUexperienced]

82. So how do you respond

to Romans 1 or 2 regarding gay relationships?

[Bertha Venation]

95. There are a few approaches

but the one I usually take is pointing out that orientation isn't mentioned anywhere in the bible. When the bible condemns homosexual sex, updated translations make it clear that it's in the context of rape (including gang rape) or prostitution.

I also point out the context of Romans 1, 26-27: Paul is talking about idolatry, and the rituals idolators used -- specifically re: homosexuality: temple prostitution.

Paul, for his faults, his vehemence, his apparent misogyny, makes clear his belief in grace. No FEC I have ever known have found it possible for that grace to extend to (just for one example) a married gay person without advocating that person's instant divorce. :crazy:

The bible doesn't address orientation anywhere. The concept was unknown to the men who wrote the bible. And, lesbians aren't mentioned at all (unless you consider Ruth & Naomi, which I don't believe was a lesbian).

I'm happy to discuss this & more in more depth with you, if you're interested, in another forum here on DU. I'm not sure which one would be most appropriate, but I'll find out if you're interested.

[RUexperienced]

102. So help me out

Is homosexual sex outside of marriage a sin? In other words, can casual homosexual sex lead to God's judgement?

[Bertha Venation]

103. That's not for me to say.

For me, it would be a sin, but not a "mortal" one (as I believe the Catholic would say).

I do know this: casual homosexual sex is sinful, and can lead to God's judgement, to the exact same degree as casual heterosexual sex.

In other words, I believe firmly that God does not have two different sets of rules for straight people & gay people. We're all just folks.

[RUexperienced]

104. That's for sure..

<<I believe firmly that God does not have two different sets of rules for straight people & gay people. >>

[TrogL]

116. How do you respond to Romans 2:1

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

[INTELBYTES]

125. Ya gotta love the King James Version!

It makes reading interesting. Yep, you pulled out a good verse. Christians are only to judge fellow Christians. How are we to judge the world?

But then again who is judging you to begin with? Because we don't agree with some of the things the world agrees with, such as homosexuality, does that mean we are judging you? Nope, it just means that we don't believe as you do, and believe that we shouldn't have that kind of activity amongst the Christian body.

[Bertha Venation]

133. "that kind of activity amongst the Christian body"

You do realize, Intelbytes, that our (mine & Mrs. V.'s) church home doesn't much care what she & I do behind closed doors? In fact, I'm certain they don't even think about is. (Imagine that.) They see two followers of Christ, committed to each other and to the church and their family, community, etc. . . . strange, isn't it, that that's all that matters?

Wait -- don't answer that here. Perhaps you'd care to answer it in the other thread, to which I linked in post # 132.

[TrogL]

136. Let's see your take on

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

[Bertha Venation]

135. By trying to take it to heart,

and live like that teaching makes a difference in me. It's hard for me to realize that just as it's not their place to judge me, it's not my place to judge them for having judged me.

[INTELBYTES]

140. Bertha, I'll just concede in order that we might move on.

I respect the great arguments you have. The fact is I don't have all the answers. I do agree that Christians have overstepped their boundaries by pretending they have no issue within themselves that need to be addressed.

If you are a Christian, as I believe I understood your early post, I think that it is awesome, and that you and I will be eternally celebrating Him beyond this temporary housing we are in today.

[Bertha Venation]

142. Peace

It's hard for me to give up. Thanks for passing the peace pipe.

[RUexperienced]

149. Christians are asked to make judgements all the time

We are taught to go to a person in private for correction, then take another with you. The next step is to take it in front of the church. And only if there is still not change in behavior the person is put out of fellowship.

I think that one of the biggest reasons Jesus did not judge the woman committing adultery is that the "religious people" only brought Jesus the woman, not the man she was committing adultery with. Jesus knew it was a set up from the beginning. But don't forget, Jesus still told her, "Go and sin no more." Most people usually omit that part of the story.

Jesus also told his followers to get the log out of their eye first. And why do they need the log out of their eye? "So you can see clearly and get the speck out of your brother's eye."

Are you saying that Christians are not allowed to make judments against people who exploit the poor? People who are cruel to children? or people who refuse to pay their taxes?

And if we are allowed, or even instructed, to judge this behavior, why not other behavior.

[INTELBYTES]

151. RU, we should only judge, I prefer the word counsel, other Christians.

Those of the world and not in the Spirit are none of our concern. Although our laws are based on Christian foundations, we are a unique people, a royal priesthood. The world cannot understand our rebukes or reproofs because they are not given a spirit too.

[RUexperienced]

152. I agree

[INTELBYTES]

107. Christians should lead by example not condemnation.

Unfortunately some overzealous Christians are trying to enforce their beliefs upon you. There beliefs, as I am a Christian are not wrong in our lives, but shouldn't be imposed on those that are not yet Christians. Some churches, though, that profess to be "Christian" twist the bible to their own interpretation so that they can justify any kind of lifestyle.

[TrogL]

146. define "lifestyle"

[INTELBYTES]

148. who's mine or yours? I can oly speak of my own.

[TrogL]

153. I see you're avoiding the question

"lifestyle" is a codeword used by the Rabid Religious Right to indicate its opinion that homosexuality is a "choice" rather than an immutable characteristic.

Now let's hear your definition.

[RUexperienced]

150. I agree... I think

[blondeatlast]

71. You might want to Google "Fred Phelps."

A sicker mind NEVER walked the earth; if God is an avenging God, as Phelps believes, Phelps is in for a giant shock upon his demise.

[RUexperienced]

83. I just did... He's a wacko.

But we have our wackos too.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

88. Well, we in Canada are in the position that a party which consists

largely of fundamentalists have taken over the main opposition party. Here's some information.

http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=539

'The new Conservative Party leader must consolidate the core of Western alienation and appeal to those Ontarians who voted twice for Mike Harris -- while reaching out to Quebec and Atlantic Canada, young Canada, urban Canada, multicultural, multi-faith and no-faith Canada. The new leader must also be careful with the relationship between his or her religious convictions and stances on public policy issues, given the emotions aroused by wedge issues that speak more to our values than to our interests.

Unlike many Americans, Canadians do not wish their political leaders to wear their religiosity on their sleeves. Former Alliance Party leader Stockwell Day learned that a Canadian political party, unlike the Republicans in the U.S., cannot be built upon the base of Christian fundamentalists who are less than 15 per cent of Canada's population.'

The Canadian Alliance, who dominate my province have merged with a smaller right-wing party to form the Conservative Party. The CA vote at the last election was 25.7%
The CA leader at the last election was Stockwell Day, a man who believed in literal creationism, that the earth is around 6,000 years old and man co-existed with dinosaurs. He advocated the teaching of creationism in schools. He told a local magazine, Alberta Report in 1984, "Standards of education are not set by government but by God, the Bible, the home and the school."
He has said homosexuality is "not condoned by God" and maintains being gay is a matter of choice.
The party this man led in the 2000 election received 60% of the votes in my province.

[RUexperienced]

65. Examples please.

[HEyHEY]

66. Are you kiddin

How about whenever you hear some thumper say something along the lines of "Homosexuals is wrong, says so in the bible"

[INTELBYTES]

90. The Bible does say that but why should you care.

If you are a Christian and believe in the bible, then you would know the bible does say this. If you are not a Christian, then why would you let this bother you?

[Bertha Venation]

97. I hope Lord Byron answers.

I imagine his answer might be something like: because it's wrong. Or: because the fundies don't only address Christian gays, they address them all. Or: oppression is oppression.

If I'm killed for having only one ear, is it right that it was done by people with two ears? Would it be a more just killing if it were done by people with only one ear?

[INTELBYTES]

126. LOL, what???

You are forgiven then for having only one ear. Go and sin no more.
:silly:

[Screaming Lord Byron]

98. If we're talking about Sodom and Gomorrah, as I recall, that's about

a city that was damned for abusing the sacred trust of hospitality. They were practicing forced-sodomy and bestiality, isn't that right? I think we can all agree that forceful anal rape is wrong. As for homosexuality, I recall no other references. Incidentally, you are aware of King James (as in the King James Bible, of course) and his sexual orientation, aren't you? Would he have put his name to a book that condemns people of his sexual persuasion to eternal damnation?

By the way, are you implying by your post that you take the Bible as literal fact, or do you see it as man's interpretation of the divine?

[TrogL]

117. Where does it say that?

They were practicing forced-sodomy and bestiality

[Screaming Lord Byron]

154. Maybe I've totally misinterpreted it, but it's this section

"Before the guests went to bed, the men of Sodom surrounded the house. All the men of the city, both young and old were there. They called out to Lot and asked "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight> Bring them out to us!" The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with them"
Obviously, that's from the Good News Bible, so it's an attempt at modernization of the text for modern kids, but the gist is there. As I recall from the King James, it's much more colourful, with sodomy, bestiality, adultery, all the stuff you instantly look up in Sunday School when you're twelve.

[INTELBYTES]

128. I don't know about King Jimmy...

I don't use his version anyway. I use the NASB. But King Jimmy is the version that God allowed centuries of Christians to use by His divine nature.

Sodom and Gomorrah was a wicked city. It was actually a godly man that tried to save the people of the city. You fail to appreciate that fact. But Sodom and Gomorrah was a depraved city. There was nothing too perverse for them. (don't try to say I'm calling homosexuality perverse. I'm making a statement about the city). God gave this one man the chance to find one person of virtue in the city. None could be found. Angels were sent to the city in the form of men, and the men of the city tried to have their way with them.

Homosexuality is named a few places in the bible. If you need references I can give them to you. But I didn't dispute the message of your orginal thread on the basis on homosexuality and don't want to now. Let's keep on the subject that you started.

And yes, I do believe the Bible as literal fact.

[Blue-Jay]

134. Literal fact, huh?

So the world is about 40,000 years old?

I'm just asking, not trying to flame.

[INTELBYTES]

137. Hi Blue Jay!

I wasn't there when it was made, (although I feel old enough), so I couldn't tell you how old the earth is. I do believe it is far younger than the millions of years we are told by science.

[TrogL]

143. The world was made in October 23rd, 4004 B.C.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm

[INTELBYTES]

145. Thanks for the link! I'll take it home tonite and study it.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

99. also, I'd say that to believe that politicians of a fundamentalist faith

can seperate their beliefs from their secular actions and campaigns is naive. I don't believe in the word of the Qu'ran, but certainly the actions of those who have twisted its words have affected us.

[HEyHEY]

139. Because fundies won't stop wavin it in my face!

I'm not gay, but when these people in public forums tell me gay people are going to hell for being gay, I look at it as something that I have a right to be pissed of at, and to speak out against. And you can say, "if you aren't christian, what do you care?" well plenty of people are christian, and this kinda crap brainwashes them into thinking gay people are eveil, hence snowballing hatred.

[Bertha Venation]

68. RU, please see post linked below for at least a partial answer, thank you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=599858&mesg_id=601411&page=

[blondeatlast]

69. Where does he attack the Bible?

He understands that a lot of the Old Testament is countered by the New.

And I AM a Christian. We have enough people opposed to us on the boards; let's not make another enemy out of an ally.

I'm with you, LB--here's a handy online tool with a great search engine and concordance.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

[Bertha Venation]

72. blonde--cool tool!

Thanks :7

"let's not make another enemy out of an ally" hear, hear. I'll do my humble best.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

77. Thanks, I didn't realize that such an innocuous post would cause offence

again, let me say that I have no problem with Christianity, or in fact any sort of faith.

[RUexperienced]

84. It is attitudes like this that drive people into the GOP

[Kathy in Cambridge]

96. I think you're overreacting a bit

and as someone who is quasi-religious, and was thinking of exploring Chrisitianity further, it's attitudes like yours that actually drives people like me farther away from organized religion because of the extreme intolerance shown by its members.

I don't think Byron meant any disrespect. The Lounge is a place to have fun; if he had started a religious thread in GD, he would expect to be flamed.

[TrogL]

114. Here's a better one

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

[HEyHEY]

75. His problem is christians attacking us with THEIR good book

ANd that's my problem too

[INTELBYTES]

91. HeyHey, I ask Lord Byron this as well,

what examples do you have of them attacking you with thier good book?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

92. It's all in post #88. HEyHEy and I live in a province where views like

those mentioned in the post are all too common

[INTELBYTES]

93. OK, thanks for the clarification, but let me pose the question differently

How are you being attacked. I see the "why" now, and it seems to be about homosexuality, but in what way are you being attacked, persecuted against, or neglected because of these views. Other than they offend you because they don't believe as you do, what else bothers you?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

100. It's becomes a question of interpretation.

Our Fundamentalists can only accept their interpretation of the bible to the exclusion of all others. I would like Christians of the left to challenge this interpretation with an equally-valid liberal interpretation.
My objection is to people that let their religious beliefs guide their approach to public affairs. I'm more concerned about Day's approach to teaching than his bigotry towards homosexuals, which is, unfortunately par for the course among fundamentalists of his type.

[INTELBYTES]

106. In the US, it is now legal for you to have a gay relationship.

I do agree with you that a politician should not use something plucked from the bible for political gain. Whether they sincerely believe homosexuality is wrong or not, they are using a sacred book for gain, when them, themself need to look inward at their own spiritual walk. So our disagreement isn't about the content of the bible, but how it is used by those who try to use it for some kind of higher public gain. That said, I do agree with you.

[Bertha Venation]

108. This is hardly the point.

"In the US, it is now legal for you to have a gay relationship."

What the SCOTUS has said doesn't matter. The law doesn't matter. These people say the bible must supersede & overturn the laws they choose.

They are trying to use their interpretation of the bible to codify the denial of a basic human & civil right: the right to marry.

That said: I agree, it's against how the bible is used that's the target. But in reality, the bible is used by people. Those people want some serious gettin' after -- I will be damned if I allow these people to write my current second-class-status into the Constitution!

[INTELBYTES]

109. Oh spare me!!

What "basic human and civil rights" have you lost? Have you lost property? Have you been persecuted? Have you been thrown in jail? Tell me about your persecution? Marriage was a Christian institution to begin with. Now you want to cling to the Christian practice of "marriage" because it buys you acceptablity? Sounds like quite the sell-out to me.

Let me emphasize that Christians have no place imposing any "laws" on non-Christians. They are suppose to be the "light" and the "salt" of the world. If they try to enforce their will upon a group of people, it will only lead to negative feelings. (As you can see from this thread.) If Christians were doing what they should be doing, they would be seeking their own sanctification to begin with, then sharing only as led by the Spirit.

I'm not going to be pulled into a "gay-bashing" party. What I believe about homosexuality only applies to those in my Christian community. That being said, just as Christians shouldn't impose their values upon the gay community, the gay community in kind should not try to impose their lifestyle on the Christian community.

[Bertha Venation]

110. Who's trying to draw you into a gay bashing party?

"Marriage was a Christian institution to begin with." Give some world history a serious read. You've bought a lie.

"Now you want to cling to the Christian practice of "marriage" because it buys you acceptablity?"

Hell no! I don't need acceptability. I need EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW as guaranteed to me by the Constitution of the United States.

Are you aware that there are one thousand forty-nine (1,049) rights, benefits, responsibilities and entitlements that come with a marriage license here in the U.S.? Intelbytes, I can be denied the right to be at my beloved's bedside if she's dying. That's just ONE of the many rights I am fighting for. No amount of money spent on legal documents (and we have spent it, and killed many trees in the process) can positively assure me the iron-clad rights that a straight couple can get with routine ease by spending five minutes at the county courthouse.

And you don't think my civil rights are denied?

I'm talking about fundamental civil rights, Intelbytes. Follow along now:

1. Both SCOTUS and the United Nations have made it clear that marriage is a fundamental human right.

2. I am currently denied that right.

3. Some politicians and millions of regular joes think that's as it should be. In fact they have offered an amendment to the Constitution! to codify this denial of my equality!

Is that really so hard to understand?

As for this: "That being said, just as Christians shouldn't impose their values upon the gay community, the gay community in kind should not try to impose their lifestyle on the Christian community." Are you sure you don't want a gay-bashing party? Because comments like this will start one.

Let me ask you a calm and quiet little question or two:

What is "the gay lifestyle?"

How do you imagine gay folk would attempt to impose this "lifestyle" on the Christian community?

Looking forward to your answers.

[INTELBYTES]

112. A lot to answer, let's start in Genesis!

This is where the marriage mandate is give between adam and eve. you remember "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh". That, in Genesis chapter 3 is the marriage mandate.

You need marriage for practical purposes not for the solemn institution that it was set up as in the beginning. "Protection" is a strange word for you to use. You don't want protection, you want rights that are afforded the legally, universally accepted marriage between a man and a woman. Say what you mean and don't wrap it up in garbage like "protection", and "attacks". If legalization of your lifestyle is what you want, then state it that way.

There is nothing stopping you from getting "married". I'm sure you can find a number of people do to if for you. But the issue of making it recognized so you and your partner can share benefits is a whole new thread. It isn't Christians holding you back. If you ask many straight non-Christians they would uphold the "man-woman" marriage. So don't attack Christianity for you not getting your way.

Being that I am quite straight and proud of it, I wouldn't know what a "gay lifestyle" is. I'm not sure I would want to know either.

But if it's any consolation, I love you just the same!

[TrogL]

120. Oh, by the way, where did Cain's wife come from?

Since you brought up Adam and Eve.

[Bertha Venation]

132. Let's not -- at least not here...

Intelbytes, I want to continue this converstaion, but we've already diverted Lord Byron's thread enough. I'm sure he didn't start this thread in the hope that it would turn out to be a discussion of civil rights & the bible.

In fact, in diverting the thread in this way we've obscured his point altogether.

Please see this thread, in the proper forum for this kind of discussion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=113&topic_id=4953

Please re-post your comments titled "Let's start in Genesis" there, and then let's take it from there. What do you say?

[TrogL]

115. How about the lesbian friend of mine

who had her car vandalized and spray painted with phrases like "read the Bible"

[INTELBYTES]

129. There are extremists everywhere.

your point is like saying that one gay pedophile makes all gays pedophiles. You make other pretty interesting points in this thread. I'd figured this kind of baiting would be beneath you.

[TrogL]

138. It's the extremists we're complaining about

I have never complained about mainline Christianity. I am a mainline Christian and have had long discussions with various priests about homosexuality.

Let me quote one.

"Homosexual acts are at odds with scripture and the Traditions of the church. Be that as it may, I will never address the issue one way or the other on the pulput. If anyone presses me on the issue, they will first have to listen to my views on bankers. DON'T GET ME STARTED!!"

[ldoolin]

89. Abortion...

...is not mentioned *anywhere* in the Bible, with the only possible exception being Numbers chapter 5.

Numbes 5 appears to be a command by God to the priests of Israel to perform abortions. Although that particular passage is disturbing for highly sexist overtones so I'm not so sure it would be a good "proof text" to use for a pro-choice position; it's not a pro-choice passage but a pro-"God commands you to perform abortions on women who conceive out of wedlock" verse.

The other possible pro-abortion text can be found in Exodus 21:22-25, where God assigns a lower value to the fetus than to the mother.

That's it. There are no verses in the Bible that are anti-abortion.

Unfortunaately, there are plenty of anti-gay verses in the Bible so I'll leave any Biblical examination on that issue to somebody else.

[TrogL]

101. Have a look here

[annak110]

3. Good idea, and I'd like to add mine.

I've been trying to get preachers and priests to take up Social Gospel (the original version) and Liberation Theology and push both hard across the country to try to serve the poor and the jobless and blot out the capitalist, self serving, fundamentalist crap on both the Catholic and Protestant fronts. Social Gospel was very popular in the U.S. after the big financial crash in 1896 when the people in the south central region of this country voted Socialist and the Democratic Party (early in the 20th Century) took up the ideas from that period. The Catholic Hierachy has, for years, been trying to kill out Liberation Theology which was becoming the supporting faith of the poor in Central and South America and which defied Papal nonsense. Remember we killed a lot of people down there and this was the reason, this and the attempt to destroy the humane ideas of Vatican II.

Another thing, I'm not a Christian either.

[RUexperienced]

6. You are not a christian, yet you are trying to tell them how

to practive their religion? Doesn't that seem odd?

Kind of like Karl Rove or Ralph Nader telling Terry McCauliffe how to run the party.

[annak110]

59. Which ones am I trying to tell? Which of the multiple personalities

of this single god am I trying to tell "them" to follow? I'd feel much safer and so would the people who suffer under fundamentalist nonsense if the preachers would start presenting the humane, ethical, and decent side of the second of the monotheistic religions which is either the Social Gospel and/or Liberation Theology. Believe me, if the preacher is following the god that lashes out and kills people when frustrated (Pat Robertson's god) then that preacher or priest is working for the rich and cares not at all for the rest of human kind. You might want to notice that the person who started this is also not Christian but certainly has the right idea.

BTW, and this should really tear you up, Ralph Nader is far and away superior to the fascist Karl Rove and would also be far more honest and much more interested in the rights of the people than Terry McCauliffe has ever been

[blondeatlast]

74. So tempting, but I WON'T go there . . .

Kind of like Karl Rove or Ralph Nader telling Terry McCauliffe how to run the party.

[Nevernose]

9. Acts 4:34, and other quotes from Acts

are where much of the basis for Christian Socialism come from, if I'm not mistaken.

And on a similar note, there are several large liberal Christian organizations/denominations out there. The Evangelical Lutherans are pretty darn liberal (their employee health plan pays for abortions, they ordain gays as ministers, the bible needs interpreting, etc.).

At church the other day, the pastor went on a total left-wing rant, ranging from everything to paying our taxes and giving to the poor, to the fence the Israelis are building, to our current Unchristian President. It was beautiful; I wish my Southern Baptist friends could have been there.

[annak110]

60. Sounds great!

I know most churches appear to be split in half over the issues.

BTW I was taken by my cousins to the Baptist church when I was young. All my friends went there too, it was the biggest church in town (or any other town I ever visited). I asked too many questions from the beginning and got out as soon as possible. At the time we just referred to it as "The Baptist Church" since we didn't think there was any such church in the north. And, at the time,
that church was much closer to being a support for the people than it is now, but that was 60 years ago.

[blondeatlast]

73. Here's a hopeful link, even if you aren't Christian.

http://www.clnnlc.org/

Clergy Leadership Network--check it out.

[INTELBYTES]

11. Why would you want to alienate those of us who are Christian?

Can we not be Christian and believe in the Bible, yet be democrats as well? Do you insinuate that all democrats are atheist?

By the way, my Bible of choice is the NASB.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

12. Not sure where you're taking that from.

I'm talking about using the text of the bible to refute the claims of neo-conservatives who would use it to further their right-wing aims. There is a strong, proud tradition of left-of-centre christianity, which I for one cherish. My own political party, the NDP was founded by a Baptist Minister, Tommy Douglas. I'm all for Christianity on the left, myself.

[INTELBYTES]

14. You say in your orginal thread "I'm not a Christian at all".

I don't hold that against you, but hope some day you do become one. I do believe in the Bible and every word in it. It is inflammatory to use such a sacred book to poke fun at the right-wingers because it eventually comes back and bites us in the ass. Bush has a huge following because he is bible believing. I see us losing people in our party because of how the ACLU are percieved attacking Christianity and they, for better or worse, are in peoples mind linked to the democratic party. I think it's a bad arguement to get into. That being said, I'll defend the Bible to the end.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

15. I was stating that for clarification.

[INTELBYTES]

I wouldn't attack budism either.

I believe we have room for lively debate but the premise of using religion to heckle others may not be a wise choice. You do make some valid points in how the right wingers try to use the bible for their advantage though, and with that point I will well agree.

[truthspeaker]

16. aren't you sick of the reich wingers distorting your Bible?

I don't think the intent of the OP was to poke fun. I think the intent was to use the Bible itself to show how un-Christian the wing-nuts are. The perception that the ACLU is attacking Christianity comes from the wing-nuts. I would think that other Christians would want to fight this perception and other distortions themselves - and often they do (Rev. Barry Lynn of American's United, for example). But occasionally I see evangelicals on DU who leap to the defense of the Pharisees, instead of joining with mainstream Christians and secular Americans in fighting against them.

What gives?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

17. Yeah, to clarify, I have a healthy respect for the bible as a philosphical

work. I'm not a Christian, but I agree with much of the philosophy of Jesus.

[INTELBYTES]

22. Yep, I have already agreed with that.

But the bible should not be used for anyone as a tool to attack another party or group of people. The bible, is among other things, a reference guide on how one is to live their lives. If a person lives the life according to what the bible teaches, particularly the New Testament, then it will be evident within them. They don't need to stand on the mountain tops and wrap the bible, or the flag around themselves as the right-wingers too to get attention.

[truthspeaker]

27. ok- so what do we do about those people who use the Bible for political

ends? They have gotten way too powerful to ignore.

[Bertha Venation]

42. Constantly remind them of the fact it's unconstitutional!

Constantly remind them that the U.S. is not a theocracy. Constantly remind everyone of that fact, actually, because FECs do not care that this isn't a theocracy. I wouldn't be surprise if it were learned that 95% of FECs thought this country should be ruled strictly by the bible.

We have to be loud, consistent, and everywhere with the message that their use of their religion in politics is unfair, potentially oppressive, and unconstitutional.

(FEC = fundamentalist evangelical Christians)

[Liberal Veteran]

32. However, we need be just as well armed with biblical scholarship to refute

...their particular wild claims about the Bible. I have been studying the bible, it's history, it's context, and it's meaning for most of my life and I can run circles around most of the right wingers who use the bible as a weapon of condemnation and oppression.

When we see the bible being used in that manner, it is our duty to correct them or to clarify their misunderstanding.

[RandomKoolzip]

34. Wait a minute...

"But the bible should not be used for anyone as a tool to attack another party or group of people."

Let's just pretend the Crusades never happened, then.

[INTELBYTES]

46. Who said the crusades were good?

Who defends the crusades today? That was part of the English history. Not all decisions are wise. Especially those made in the name of God to satisfy mens needs. You cannot use the crusades to condemn Christianity. That's like saying "because some people abuse the welfare system, the whole system is bad".

[RandomKoolzip]

111. Oh, then let me rephrase what I said...

Let's just pretend the Spanish Inquisition never happened then.

[INTELBYTES]

127. Bad also...

When man does something in the name of God it usually turns out bad, because in fact God is not in it. He is only the excuse men use to do bad things to other men. Don't blame God for our stupid mistakes.

[blondeatlast]

81. Just what is wrong with quoting Scripture at those who "quote" it to you?

[blondeatlast]

79. Indeed I am . . .and when I read the same bushit being spewed back at me

from the anti-spiritualists on DU, it really cracks me.

[TrogL]

118. We're not anti-spiritualist

we're anti-Fundamentalist

[Kamika]

80. I believe alot of rightwinger christians have better morals then most ppl

The reason they are all war and gun nuts isn't because they are christians it's their most often poor, and non academic upbringing.

Hence they grow up like that.. you can draw a parallel to muslim fanatics.

But I will bet you money that if you'd put one of these guys in some city like NYC and a guy would have a stroke or something, THEY would be the first guys to help him.

[Lost4words]

105. Huh? n/t

[Intelsucks]

20. Jesus INTELBYTES! Ooops, I mean Lordy!

[Liberal Veteran]

29. Does your bible also include these books?

1. Additions to Daniel
2. Judith
3. Esdras
4. Additions to Esther
5. Susanna
6. 2 Maccabees
7. 4 Ezra
8. Prayer of Manassheh
9. Sirach
10. Wisdom of Solomon
11. Baruch (including the Epistle of Jeremiah)
12. 1 Maccabees
13. Tobit
14. Bel and the dragon

[INTELBYTES]

33. I believe those are books of the apocrapha (sp).

Our bible does not contain them, but to those more knowledgable and discerning can be used as a reference in conjunction with the bible. Those that cannonized the bible, for whatever reason saw fit to not include them. They were scholars far more knowledgable in scripture than myself to try to disagree with on that decision.

[Liberal Veteran]

40. I guess my point was this:

These are books of the apocrypha. They are still included in the Catholic bible and even in the protestant bibles up through the 1600's.

That's one of the problems I have with the notion of total inerrancy of the bible. A bunch of scholars got together and said "this belongs" "this does not" and now we have three or four versions of a the same inerrant bible. But they cannot be inerrant if some are more complete than others. And let's not even go into the possibilities of that which has been removed from our bible from the start including New Testament Apocrypha such as:

The Apocryphal Gospels:

1. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
2. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
3. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
4. A 5th Century Compilation of the Thomas Texts
5. An Arabic Infancy Gospel
6. The Gospel of James
7. The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
8. The Gospel of Mary
9. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
10. The Gospel of Nicodemus
11. The Gospel of Bartholomew
12. The Gospel of Peter
13. The Gospel of Thomas
14. The Gospel of Philip
15. The Gospel of the Lord
16. The Secret Gospel of Mark

The Apocryphal Acts:

1. The Acts of Andrew
2. The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew
3. The Acts of Andrew and Matthew
4. The Acts of Barnabas
5. Martyrdom of Bartholomew
6. The Acts of John
7. The Mystery of the Cross-Excerpt from the Acts of John
8. The Acts of John the Theologian
9. The History of Joseph the Carpenter
10. The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary
11. The Passing of Mary
12. The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew
13. The Martyrdom of Matthew
14. The Acts of Paul
15. The Acts of Paul and Thecla
16. The Acts of Peter
17. The Acts of Peter and Andrew
18. The Acts of Peter and Paul
19. The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
20. The Acts of Philip
21. The Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius
22. The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate
23. The Death of Pilate
24. The Acts of Thaddaeus
25. The Acts of Thomas
26. The Book of Thomas the Contender
27. The Consummation of Thomas

What I am trying to say is that claim of bible inerrancy is so complicated that it would take a lifetime of study, if not several lifetimes to come to the conclusions of inerrancy.

Adding in the factors of context, translation, modern language fluidity (such as the word abomination having the same meaning in it's translation as we think of the word today) and combine that with a group of people who up and decided what was canon and what was not and came to different conclusions, some of which are followed by one church while other's don't even publish it in their texts, the problem becomes more complicated.

That is not to say I don't believe in the bible. I believe the bible is the work of man that tells of our relationship with God, but in fact that tellings are colored by the perceptions of the person doing the telling.

That's a far cry from Tammy Mae Whitebread coming out of her Sunday Church service declaring everything in the bible is absolutely the word of god, inerrant, and ghost written by the holiest Ghost of all.

[INTELBYTES]

57. The bible was written by man but God inspired.

You make very valid points. But you have to start somewhere. These "scholars" that decide which books would be allowed in the book known as the bible were a large group of scholary church fathers that had a painstaking job of which criteria should be allowed as the books authorized by God. I'm not familiar with all the criteria they used, but I do know they did not discount the validity of the books of the apocrapha. These books were missing a key element that would put them with the 66 books chosen. Yes the Catholics do use these books, but if I'm not mistaken, they use them as a supplement to the St. Joseph's bible.

I'm not a rocket scientist, and I wouldn't know the first thing about building a rocket. But if these learned men wrote a book about building a rocket I'd have to give them the credibility for knowing their business and accept the premise of their book. If they decided to add supplements that were not an orginal part of the book, the book itself stands as the authority and not the supplements.

I'm not make light of our discussion, I'm just trying to point out that you can't let all the perpherial stuff about the bible stand in the way of the message it gives.

[TrogL]

119. If you are not familiar with the criteria

then you need to find out.

The apocrapha were not "supplements". Neither were they "peripheral".

[blondeatlast]

85. Beautifully stated; and my sentiments exactly.

The Bible is a work of man, IMHO, therefore prone to inaccuracy and interpretation.

It makes a great self-help book, but one still has to think it out for one's self.

[blondeatlast]

78. Please look into this organization . . .

http://www.clnnlc.org/

Why are you parroting RW talking points?

[TrogL]

113. So you've given up on wheels?

I do believe in the Bible and every word in it

First Kings 7:23

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Or in other words, pi = 3.0 - that sucka's gonna leak.

Don't gimme that crap about rounding errors, you said "believe every word" and if they were rounding it would be 31 not 30. The people of the time built large structures to remarkable degrees of accuracy. They couldn't make errors like this and have the buildings stand up (which some of them still are).

[Bertha Venation]

39. and I'm all for Christianity practiced as Christ practiced it. n/t

[TrogL]

121. NDP?!?!?!

*throws holy water, waves cross around, prepares for exorcism*

[Breezy du Nord]

61. I think he means that some Christians

Like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, are full of BS and half of the things they say and do (mostly say) are not what Jesus would do.

[blondeatlast]

76. I'm Christian, and not the least bit offended by LB's post.

Let's please not read harm where none is intended . . . I think LBs idea is a good one (I've been using it for some time now, actually).

[Zuni]

13. As a christian myself

I would love to stop seeing the word of God being misused and abused by intolerant RW crackpots with hidden political/economic agendas.

[camero]

18. Fundies are "scribes and Pharisees".

I use all the verses where Jesus criticizes them to debunk their arguments. Works like a charm. Then if they try to refute the next question becomes, "are you questioning Jesus?".

They are scribes and pharisees where the outside of the cup appears to be clean but the inside is filthy and rotten.

[Liberal Veteran]

21. Here's a short list....

On defense: Jesus said "Love your enemies." and "Blessed are the peacemakers." If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:44; 5:9; 5:39.)

On social programs: "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." (Matthew 19:21.)

On rugged individualism and the pursuit of self-interest: "Love your neighbor as yourself." "So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you."(Matthew 22:39; 7:12.)

On financial success: "Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." "You cannot serve both God and Money." (Matthew 19:23; 6:24.)

On the philosophy that "greed is good": "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." (Luke 12.15.)

On paying taxes: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (Matthew 22:22.)

On School prayer: "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:5-6)

On crime and punishment: "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." (John 8:7; Matthew 7:1,2.)

On climbing the social ladder: "The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'" (Matthew 11:19.)

On money-hungry televangelists: "In the temple courts found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and other sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. (John 2:14,15.)

On the free lunch: "Taking the five loaves and two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves ... The number of those who ate was about five thousand men ..." (Matthew 14.19,21.)

On the perks and privileges of power:" After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe with the towel wherewith he was girded." (John 13:5)

On moral absolutes: "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a'pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?" "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Matthew 12:11; Mark 2:27.)

On family: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple." Also : ",Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?' Pointing to his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers.,, (Luke 14:26; Matthew 12:48,49.)

On race relations: In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus praised the morality of a hated foreigner over his own countrymen. (Luke 10:30-37.)

On the superiority of one's native country: "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions : 'Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.'" (Matthew 10:5,6.)

On letting others pull themselves up by their own bootstraps: "When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." (Luke 14:13,14.)

[truthspeaker]

28. Nice! but they already have refutations worked up for these

Except they will claim that you are taking verses out of context and/or applying your own interpretation, while the verses they cite about hating gays and non-Christians are (of course) the plain reading of the text, with no interpretation possible.

[Liberal Veteran]

30. These are all from the words of Christ......

As Christians, the major concern must be what Christ himself said.

Someone who tosses out Leviticus to me is going to get an earful about the 613 commandments of Torah that they as Christians don't follow.

[TrogL]

122. Do they read Greek? Hebrew?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

37. Thanks. That's exactly what should be used.

[Lars39]

23. Not sure this would work, although I like the phrase.

True fundies believe in the inerrancy of the bible; there are no mistakes in it and it is literally true. These folks are the truly brainwashed, and nothing but deprogramming by someone used to dealing with cults will work.

[INTELBYTES]

24. Your hired!

If you can deprogram me, than you have a higher power than God Himself. I wanna see that!!

[Lars39]

25. I am talking about true fundamentalists, not christians.

[blondeatlast]

86. Careful, if anyone can do it, it's Lars39!

[TrogL]

123. Let's talk literalism, for starters

http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/bibquote.html

[Liberal Veteran]

26. I just wish some Christians would spend some time reading about Christ....

My experience, which is no way, shape or form limited, in dealing with people who often call themselves Christians tend to spend most of their time in the Old Testament and the Pauline Epistles and rarely venture into the parts of the Bible that would seem to be the important parts to Christians. Those parts would be the Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those are the only parts of the Bible that directly deal with the life of Christ and his teachings and yet for many Christians, it seems to be the only parts of the bible they go out of their way to avoid reading.

It really irks me to no end when a Christian invokes the Torah to criticize me. I have decided that from now on I will only reply to those people by asking them if they obey all 613 commandments of the Torah and watch them try to weasle out of that.

[INTELBYTES]

31. actually...

the New Testament put away things of the Old Testament. That is why it is called a New Testament, or covenant. In the Old Testament, a sacrifice was needed to cover sin. In the New Testament, One came to be the ultimate sacrifice. Those people judging you should read, Romans 2:1 "You, therefore have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things."

[Liberal Veteran]

36. I myself don't put much faith in the Pauline epistles....

Especially given that many of those epistiles that are attributed to Paul were not written by him. Paul most certainly did not write Epistles, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, and it's unlikely he wrote Ephesians and much debate on the issue of Colossians. I think they have significant value, but I don't think they override the lessons of the Gospels themselves.

[INTELBYTES]

44. Most scholars agree that Paul did write ....

I and II Timothy going on the salutation alone, experts agree Paul wrote them. There is some dispute with the uncharacteristic vocabulary and style, but evidence is overall supportive of him writing these books.

Titus does not have a question about his authorship unless you have some information I've not yet read.

In Ephesians, Paul identifies himself in 1:1, 3:1, 3:7 and others I can give you if you request them. There has been some dispute on the basis of the absence of his particular greeting style. The majority of the scholars give him over as author though.

Colossians is not disputed as his, unless you have evidence otherwise. All in the early church familiar with the subject ascribe the author as Paul himself.

I'm not debating or debunking you. You may have evidence to the contrary which would be interesting to hear. In my studies however the above is true and widely accepted.

[Bertha Venation]

47. FECs counter this with Christ's statement that:

he came not to destroy the law & prophets, but to fulfill them.

The thing that frustrates me most about debating FECs (besides the fact that they scoff at the idea of a gay follower of Christ) is that once they hear your rebuttals they shut you off. At least that's been my experience. I usually get dismissed w/ a "go and sin no more" or "god bless you you poor little lost lamb" or "repent or burn." Most FECs I've debated don't really understand much at all.

[INTELBYTES]

48. Hi Berttha!

That completely jives with what I said in post 31. Look, I know this isn't the place for this discussion because I don't want to sound like I'm giving a bible class. I'm more than willing to answer individual questions though. Jesus did come to fulfill the law and prophecies. If your familiar with the bible, as I'm sure you are, then you already know about the prophecies he fulfilled. As far as the law is concerned, he is the culmination of the law. He was the ultimate sacrifice that ended sacrifice required of the law once and for all. If you study Romans chapters 1 through 5, you find that he now replaces the law with himself. Meaning those that live under grace, no longer live under the Law. Law is for the flesh, grace is for the spirit.

[truthspeaker]

49. INTELBYTES you're preaching to the choir

I think the point of the OP was that WE know that, but millions of people claiming to be Christians do not (or choose to ignore it). The OP was trying to get people to use the parts of the Bible you're talking about to combat those who would use other parts of the Bible to justify hatred and intolerance.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

51. Yeah. That's it in a nutshell, thanks Brenda.

[Bertha Venation]

53. tell me what you think of this

You know Peter's dream w/ the sheet from heaven, containing all the "unclean" foods and God's voice that told him to eat them? He said "no, I won't! Because your law says they're unclean!" But God countered, "Look, I have said they're now clean. I have made them clean. Eat!"

I once thought I could use this as a rebuttal against my dad's assertion that since I'm gay I'm going to hell. What do you think of that story as a rebuttal to anti-gay "Biblical teaching?"

(The doctrine of eternal salvation didn't faze him; even though he believes in it, it doesn't seem to apply to us lesbos. :shrug:)

[INTELBYTES]

58. Peter was a jew. of course, and the jews had restrictions on what...

...was clean and unclean to eat according to the Levitical laws. Peter was going to be spreading the gospel to both the jews and the gentils. God was breaking him out of the "Law" mode. He was showing him the foods once thought unclean, pork, and shellfish to name a few, were not off limits to eat. Peter was once rebuked publically by Paul for falling back into jewish practices.

This has nothing to do with gay or lesbianism. Those issues are between the person and their Saviour to work out.

[Bertha Venation]

70. "This has nothing to do with gay or lesbianism"

Of course not. My point is completely missed.

Never mind.

[INTELBYTES]

130. OK, I'm never minding.

Anything else?

[TrogL]

124. He won't get it

Their argument is that Jesus overthrew the dietary and ritual laws (eg. burnt offerings) but the rest stayed. Problem is, I don't know exactly where he said to overthrow the ritual laws.

[TreasonousBastard]

41. Ain't gonna work.

They believe what they believe, and it's all in the King James version. The only "true" one.

Newer translations, Apocrypha, Gnostic Gospels, Dead Sea scrolls, Vulgate... none of it makes any difference.

Best not to argue religion with them at all. Just argue to keep their religion out of the law.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

43. yeah, this is one of those 'seemed like a good idea at the time' posts n/t

[Bertha Venation]

45. I think it's a useful thread. n/t

[Kamika]

55. *officially killing this thread*

There! I shot it.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

56. OUCH! I think you missed.

Anyone got a pair of pliers?

[blondeatlast]

94. It can, however, quiet thgem down a bit. I have used the method on

a very small scale for years.

[ThoughtCriminal]

87. Sermon on the Mount

Pretty much slams most right-wing Fundie beliefs. As far as the New Testament, they often rely on the writings of Paul rather than Jesus. I think it is worth pointing out that he was not one of the Apostles. He never met Jesus and was self appointed.

[Cannikin]

131. This was a fantastic thread.

Thanks for starting it. I'm sorry you were point was missed. I realize you are trying to mount a defense from those who will try to use religion to impose restrictions and make a second class of a people they don't understand. And to remind them of the message of love, and forgiveness that the book was meant to teach.
Many argued that we have no need for rights. Before I was restricted from seeing my partner in the ER after an accident, I had never really thought about things like that. I'm sure many of these people have never really tried to imagine being in our situation. But hey..they probably see it as being our 'choice' also.

Thanks again,

Cannikin

[Bertha Venation]

144. I surely enjoyed it.

see post # 132. Does that discussion interest you? It was one of my favorites in other boards long since shut down. I'd like to discuss how the bible is used against us with Democrats who do so. It's strange to me, but I know one such Dem. personally: my dad. He doesn't care to examine his thinking, but I think others might.

[INTELBYTES]

147. I finally rechecked your post 132.

I put a reply in that new thread. C-Ya!

[JVS]

141. Just make sure to bring your A game