Why i left Christianity.

misposted......

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

...
I understand so much more of who Jesus was now.
...

Many see Jesus as having a role that is expanded far beyond the particular religion he is usually identified w/, as an ascended master for ALL of humanity. One of many who have come here in ALL ages (including our own) to help humanity expand their consciousness.

Originally Posted by TeeHee

...Yes, I can see how people turn to society and culture to govern their system of belief. However, I'll put more emphasis on the code of ethics and conduct, where the rule of thumb practiced in most legitimate Christian churches is if there's no scripture to support it, then it isn't supported, and it isn't up for debate.

So if it’s not in the scripture, which I assume is the Bible, then it’s not supported. Hmmm. Seems like the constitutionalists argument that if a US law isn’t in the Constitution, then it isn’t something they acknowledge, ignoring the last 200+ years of US law. So the church’s beliefs that evolved in the nearly 2000 years after the Bible was written are irrelevant???? So I guess this would advocate a country's ruler, as enforcer of the religion, to be able to round up anyone considered to be a religious heretic to be publicly executed. Maybe we should bring back stoning.

Originally Posted by TeeHee

The question is whether the example Episcopalian is leading in a direction that is good. I mean the Episcopal church doesn't have a good track record right now in ordaining homosexuals.

I assume that your statement that ‘the Episcopal church doesn't have a good track record right now in ordaining homosexuals.’ is in regards to their ordaining gays & lesbians, rather than their REFUSAL to do so, but this isn’t entirely clear. This possible ambiguity becomes fairly clear quickly in your text.
http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/re.../prNRLR_072309

Originally Posted by TeeHee

Their past come back to outside churches questioning whether the Episcopal churches actually believe the scripture that they preach, was for them to reconsider not ordaining any flaming homo.

➦➦➦ SAY WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ↵↵↵ I could hardly believe my eyes.
You actually put in print the phrase ~~~‘flaming homo’~~~ for the whole world to read. Is this how you choose to represent ‘legitimate’ Christianity???????? Wow.

Many would consider that choice of words ✥✥✥ FLAMING BIGOTRY ✥✥✥. Seldom is such utter intolerance expressed so plainly these days, particularly on this type of forum where tolerance is valued.
These 2 words encapsulate soooooooo much.

Originally Posted by TeeHee

Sure we are taught to submit to the governing authorities in our society, but there is a limitation to that, when society contradicts scripture. I find it ironic how one usually argues that it is cultural at the time or place of the Bible, then turns around and uses society and culture as an argument in having authority.

Although I realize how certain rules are implicit and open to interpretation. But where they are explicit... ex., "wives submit to your husband" the husband is supposed to be the spiritual leader in a household, is most often not agreed upon by those who do not understand it.

Many others fully understand these teachings, they simply don't agree w/ them & have chosen other beliefs that suit them. This is their right just as much as it is your right to choose your beliefs. One can choose their own beliefs, but they can't require that others believe them too. Nor do they have the right to look down on others as lesser for having different beliefs.

Are you & your church still adhering to practicing regular live burnt animal sacrifices as part of their religious ceremonies as proscribed repeatedly in both the old & new testaments? I bet not. If not, why is this elective interpretation of the scriptures allowed? If God’s word is to be taken w/o question, why isn’t all of it? Or is it, in this case, valid that this isn’t culturally relevant in 2011 to sacrifice a live animal, let its blood run on the alter, then burn it in front of the congregation or that this specific teaching is to be taken as religious allegory while the rest of the scriptures are to be taken literally?????

Originally Posted by mattie

So if it’s not in the scripture, which I assume is the Bible, then it’s not supported. Hmmm. Seems like the constitutionalists argument that if a US law isn’t in the Constitution, then it isn’t something they acknowledge, ignoring the last 200+ years of US law. So the church’s beliefs that evolved in the nearly 2000 years after the Bible was written are irrelevant???? So I guess this would advocate a country's ruler, as enforcer of the religion, to be able to round up anyone considered to be a religious heretic to be publicly executed. Maybe we should bring back stoning.



I assume that your statement that ‘the Episcopal church doesn't have a good track record right now in ordaining homosexuals.’ is in regards to their ordaining gays & lesbians, rather than their REFUSAL to do so, but this isn’t entirely clear. This possible ambiguity becomes fairly clear quickly in your text.
http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/re.../prNRLR_072309



➦➦➦ SAY WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ↵↵↵ I could hardly believe my eyes.
You actually put in print the phrase ~~~‘flaming homo’~~~ for the whole world to read. Is this how you choose to represent ‘legitimate’ Christianity???????? Wow.

Many would consider that choice of words ✥✥✥ FLAMING BIGOTRY ✥✥✥. Seldom is such utter intolerance expressed so plainly these days, particularly on this type of forum where tolerance is valued.
These 2 words encapsulate soooooooo much.



Many others fully understand these teachings, they simply don't agree w/ them & have chosen other beliefs that suit them. This is their right just as much as it is your right to choose your beliefs. One can choose their own beliefs, but they can't require that others believe them too. Nor do they have the right to look down on others as lesser for having different beliefs.

Are you & your church still adhering to practicing regular live burnt animal sacrifices as part of their religious ceremonies as proscribed repeatedly in both the old & new testaments? I bet not. If not, why is this elective interpretation of the scriptures allowed? If God’s word is to be taken w/o question, why isn’t all of it? Or is it, in this case, valid that this isn’t culturally relevant in 2011 to sacrifice a live animal, let its blood run on the alter, then burn it in front of the congregation or that this specific teaching is to be taken as religious allegory while the rest of the scriptures are to be taken literally?????

Yea, some say faggot, them there queers, flaming gay round these parts, others gay, but at the end of the day they are just homosexuals. Why call them gay, because it is more progressive, evolving, liberal, or socially acceptable?

You seem to have an issue with those who refer to homosexuals in any other way than your own? Now give to me a quick lesson on what is socially acceptable nowadays. What is there, some manual now on how to refer to homosexuals? Do you have it written down somewhere?

[SeaZen]

Originally Posted by TeeHee

Yea, some say faggot, them there queers, flaming gay round these parts, others gay, but at the end of the day they are just homosexuals. Why call them gay, because it is more progressive, evolving, liberal, or socially acceptable?

You seem to have an issue with those who refer to homosexuals in any other way than your own? Now give to me a quick lesson on what is socially acceptable nowadays. What is there, some manual now on how to refer to homosexuals? Do you have it written down somewhere?

How about just using the word "homosexuals" instead of "flaming homo", faggot, queers etc.? Do you also still refer to black people as the "n" word in your parts? Referring to a group of people using derogatory language of any kind is bigotry. No need to write it down somewhere. Just use your common sense.

It seems like "Shim" has returned under a different pseudonym. The screen name indicates someone who is here for the sole purpose of stirring things up just for the sake of stirring things up. There is no descriptions whatsoever in this persons profile. Best we ignore this individual and allow the moderators to handle this.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by SeaZen

Christians IMO are missing the point entirely by obsessively clinging to and interpreting written words and turning them into unyielding spiritual rules, laws and truths that if not followed will put you on gods bad side. Books are merely a tool to assist you in finding the truth within, not a one time, singular, exclusive, ultimate rulebook handed down by a punishing god.

This is quotable. Excellently said.

You and Mattie are on fire!


The menu is not the meal.
~Alan Watts

The roadmap is not the destination.
~ Miss Hepburn

[skygazer]

Nicely said, mattie (post14).

Originally Posted by SeaZen

How about just using the word "homosexuals" instead of "flaming homo", faggot, queers etc.? Do you also still refer to black people as the "n" word in your parts? Referring to a group of people using derogatory language of any kind is bigotry. No need to write it down somewhere. Just use your common sense.

It seems like "Shim" has returned under a different pseudonym. The screen name indicates someone who is here for the sole purpose of stirring things up just for the sake of stirring things up. There is no descriptions whatsoever in this persons profile. Best we ignore this individual and allow the moderators to handle this.

Common sense? Did you say black people! $%*@)@#$!!!! "My nigga," (Denzel Washington--Training day) ever hear that blaring on the radio by some negroid that's rapp'n in them there videos in modern day hip hop pop culture? On that subject, they should outlaw guns, gold teeth, gold chains, and 22 inch rims from rap videos! But back to your reference, granted some negros get upset when being referred to anything but an African American, especially by a confederate flag waving, raccoon cap wearing, four by four stump jump'n good ol' boy. Why I even heard someone vent on another who had referred to them there colored folk as black. What is there some type of liberal bible on what is proper for today's society?

Edit profile information? Nope, no can do for you to troll through a members personal information, perhaps you want to chase them around the internet? and convert them to your liberal way of thinking? What're you looking for, to call someone many nasty names like a bigot by labeling them if they don't conform to your liberal ways? Anyways, can't do it until not a newbie, its the forums, but the ignore list does work, and you're on it now.

[SeaZen]

Originally Posted by TeeHee

but the ignore list does work, and you're on it now.

Thank you! There is obviously no more use in carrying on a discussion with you anymore Shim. Your bigotted sarcasm shines through. Time to leave you to the admins to deal with.

Originally Posted by TeeHee

Yea, some say faggot, them there queers, flaming gay round these parts, others gay, but at the end of the day they are just homosexuals. Why call them gay, because it is more progressive, evolving, liberal, or socially acceptable?

You seem to have an issue with those who refer to homosexuals in any other way than your own? Now give to me a quick lesson on what is socially acceptable nowadays. What is there, some manual now on how to refer to homosexuals? Do you have it written down somewhere?

OK, no problem at all w/ providing a quick lesson that is obviously needed. Glad to help out. As you are interested in having it written down I would suggest printing out this post for future reference. It can be titled, ‘Mattie’s 2011 List of Acceptable & Unacceptable Terms For Homosexuals.’

One need not use the term gay. Homosexual or same sex oriented male is fine.

Calling a homosexual a ‘flaming homo,’ ‘faggot,’ ‘them their queers,’ or ‘flaming gay’ is NOT, NOT, NOT decent & acceptable in 2011. BTW, those who say, ‘them there queers’ could use an English lesson as ‘them there’ should be those. I don’t care what the local customs are. I live in one of the most conservative parts of the US & most, even those who aren’t comfortable w/ same sex orientations don’t often use this language, particularly in a public venue, such as a forum like this. These are unacceptable pejorative terms that normal people just don’t use. Ignorant & hateful.

Using these ugly terms isn’t in the least bit Christian. Jesus taught ✥✥✥ TOLERANCE ✥✥✥ about those who are different. Some Christian denominations even in the Bible Belt are openly welcoming of homosexuals & lesbians.

It is very revealing that you are defensive about being called out on using these inapproprite prejudiced terms. I sense some hostility about ‘progressive, evolving, liberal, or socially acceptable.’ These might be areas worth exploring.