That's not very Christian of them.
The Bible does say that gay sex is a sin, but nowhere does it say gays should be shunned.
If anything, the standard Christian view is to condemn the sexual activity, but show support for the gay.
The only reason why I prefer Christianity over Islam is the majority of what 'Jesus' had to say, was pretty enlightening stuff.
Whereas Mohammed was a war-mongering paedophile.
(Just my opinion)
Well what you said was the Bible tops the Quran. But that is not a comparison between the Bible and the Quran, that is a comparison between Jesus and Muhammad. If that is what you are comparing, than Muhammad is miles better than Jesus and I will tell you why...
Christianity is a monotheistic religion, they believe in one and only one God. Christians believe that Jesus was God on Earth in human form, and by God they mean the God of the Bible. Otherwise, it would not be monotheistic. This is the God that made all the horrible laws. But even worse than that, this is a God who commands and personally commits genocide, and both commands and personally murders children on scales and in numbers that are beyond imagine. Compaired to the God of the Bible, Muhammad is a saint. That is who Christians believe Jesus to be. Muhammad does not claim to be God.
Now, if you hold no religious belief are not Christian or Muslim, and are comparing the two as human philosophers, based on their recorded time on earth as flesh and blood human beings, I would agree that I prefer the philosophy of Jesus.
But that is not a preference for Christianity over Islam, that is a preference for Jesus over Muhammad.
There is good and bad in both the Quran and the Bible. People love to cherry pick the worst of the Quran and the best of the Bible. In truth they are both awful. As a God, Jesus is horriable, and as a book, so is the Bible.
I suppose...
The world is ruled by Christians and Jews so it's not surprising that the Bible is depicted as being the lesser of several evils.
Religion should be scrapped altogether really.
The "put to death" according to Biblical context has little to do with actual killing and more about "spiritual death". The Old Testament also says adulterers should be put to "death". It also says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" when in the Old Testament adulterers were supposed to be stoned, sparing the adulteress's life.
Yes, I know that The Old Testament says all of that, and a lot worse, these are just more examples of why it is a horrible book. And it was not a "spiritual death" these laws are taken quite literally in The Old Testament, and those punishments are acted out in more than one Bible story.
But the Old Testament does not say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", that would be found in The New Testament.
I am sorry, but no it is not. The New Testament is not an "amendment". No Christian Denomination that I am aware of considers the New Testament to be part of the Old Testament, or quotes New Testament writing as being part of The Old Testament. They are two separate Testaments about two separate periods, separated by a substantial amount of time, which together make up the Christian Bible.
Amazing how christians can reinterpret anything in the bible to suit any argument: if it means "spiritual" death why doesn't it say so? Or is your god deliberately obtuse? Which part of "put to death" is so hard to understand?
The book wasn't written by gawd; it was written by men. That should explain the whole idiocy of the book right there.
Gawd didn't write the Harry Potter series either, but plenty of idiots are taking it as truth and realty, too.
Gay people give aids so we should shun them!
← View full post
That's not very Christian of them.
The Bible does say that gay sex is a sin, but nowhere does it say gays should be shunned.
If anything, the standard Christian view is to condemn the sexual activity, but show support for the gay.
--
VinnyB
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
5
5
You are correct, the Bible does not say gays should be shunned, it says they should he put to death. That is so much better.
Just another reason it is one of the most horrific books ever written.
--
Alyss
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
sega31098
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I think the Quran top's it, though.
--
VinnyB
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I don't think one tops the other, I think they are both horrible.
--
Alyss
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The only reason why I prefer Christianity over Islam is the majority of what 'Jesus' had to say, was pretty enlightening stuff.
Whereas Mohammed was a war-mongering paedophile.
(Just my opinion)
--
VinnyB
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well what you said was the Bible tops the Quran. But that is not a comparison between the Bible and the Quran, that is a comparison between Jesus and Muhammad. If that is what you are comparing, than Muhammad is miles better than Jesus and I will tell you why...
Christianity is a monotheistic religion, they believe in one and only one God. Christians believe that Jesus was God on Earth in human form, and by God they mean the God of the Bible. Otherwise, it would not be monotheistic. This is the God that made all the horrible laws. But even worse than that, this is a God who commands and personally commits genocide, and both commands and personally murders children on scales and in numbers that are beyond imagine. Compaired to the God of the Bible, Muhammad is a saint. That is who Christians believe Jesus to be. Muhammad does not claim to be God.
Now, if you hold no religious belief are not Christian or Muslim, and are comparing the two as human philosophers, based on their recorded time on earth as flesh and blood human beings, I would agree that I prefer the philosophy of Jesus.
But that is not a preference for Christianity over Islam, that is a preference for Jesus over Muhammad.
There is good and bad in both the Quran and the Bible. People love to cherry pick the worst of the Quran and the best of the Bible. In truth they are both awful. As a God, Jesus is horriable, and as a book, so is the Bible.
--
Alyss
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I suppose...
The world is ruled by Christians and Jews so it's not surprising that the Bible is depicted as being the lesser of several evils.
Religion should be scrapped altogether really.
The "put to death" according to Biblical context has little to do with actual killing and more about "spiritual death". The Old Testament also says adulterers should be put to "death". It also says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" when in the Old Testament adulterers were supposed to be stoned, sparing the adulteress's life.
--
VinnyB
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
4
4
-
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
Yes, I know that The Old Testament says all of that, and a lot worse, these are just more examples of why it is a horrible book. And it was not a "spiritual death" these laws are taken quite literally in The Old Testament, and those punishments are acted out in more than one Bible story.
But the Old Testament does not say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", that would be found in The New Testament.
--
sega31098
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The New Testament is considered an amendment to the Old Testament to Christians.
--
VinnyB
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
I am sorry, but no it is not. The New Testament is not an "amendment". No Christian Denomination that I am aware of considers the New Testament to be part of the Old Testament, or quotes New Testament writing as being part of The Old Testament. They are two separate Testaments about two separate periods, separated by a substantial amount of time, which together make up the Christian Bible.
Amazing how christians can reinterpret anything in the bible to suit any argument: if it means "spiritual" death why doesn't it say so? Or is your god deliberately obtuse? Which part of "put to death" is so hard to understand?
--
thegypsysailor
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
The book wasn't written by gawd; it was written by men. That should explain the whole idiocy of the book right there.
Gawd didn't write the Harry Potter series either, but plenty of idiots are taking it as truth and realty, too.
--
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Are you serious? Do some people think Harry Potter is factual? What is the world coming to?