[Hannibal]

I know this thread isn't about Catholicism but if the Vatican decides that gay is OK then I will definitely bring it up with my priest. That is the definition of blasphemy for fuck's sake.

[rpg]

What this "pastor" is doing is trying to up his membership by a couple thousand by pandering. He is itching for an upgrade in housing from a million dollar crib to a 5 mil crib. I would bet good money his wife is cucking him regularly

[Dr. Howard]

(02-20-2015 07:17 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  

I know dick about the Bible or religion. I've been to church four times my entire life, and supposedly my family is Catholic? I went twice to Mormon church where they had a special guest speaker who told us that "Kane killed Abel, so god turned Kane's skin black, and that's why there's Negros in the world today". ....

I've never heard that before, its got some history in the mormon church apparently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

Old testatment wise Cain went onto have children and so did his new brother Seth, and the old testatment has Noah's granchild Cush went on to found the Cush empire in Sudan/Nubia and those are some dark skinned dudes over there.

[N°6]

Avoid any form of Christianity which is fused with pop-culture.

Study after study has found that when a church tries to become hip in an effort to avoid becoming 'irrelevant' its male membership collapses and it is not long until the doors of that church close for the last time.

A traditional critique on 'The Rite of Sodomy' by a Roman priest is found here:

https://zaidpub.files.wordpress.com/2012...-vol-i.pdf

[N°6]

(02-19-2015 11:41 AM)SirTimothy Wrote:  

Quick fun fact: The church he started is called Mars Hill Bible Church, almost exactly the same name as Mars Hill Church, where the famous "man-up and marry a single mom" pastor Mark Driscoll used to preach.

Chilling (why is a Christian assembly named after the Roman god of war who in antiquity had little or no temples dedicated to him owing to his blood-lust?).

Didn't someone who was once important within Christian circles say that 'marrying' a divorced woman is adultery?

I joined a Christian dating site to see if I could find some potential relationship material. I was shocked at the type of women who are interested in me. On average, they were 4-5 years older, with kids and 5/10 in looks. Some weren't even divorced (yet?) but merely 'separated'. I began to dread logging on to check my inbox because seeing just how deeply the rot has spread left me in a state of depression.

[RexImperator]

I guess it's obvious that these women think "Christian" guys are chumps.

[Suits]

(02-22-2015 04:40 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 11:41 AM)SirTimothy Wrote:  

Quick fun fact: The church he started is called Mars Hill Bible Church, almost exactly the same name as Mars Hill Church, where the famous "man-up and marry a single mom" pastor Mark Driscoll used to preach.

Chilling (why is a Christian assembly named after the Roman god of war who in antiquity had little or no temples dedicated to him owing to his blood-lust?).

Geography.

[Clockwerk]

You can't be Christian and openly gay. Homosexuality is a sin, that is, a transgression of Divine Law; there is no dispute that the Bible, in all the places that counts, irrefutably makes Homosexuality sin.

You can't be Christian and openly gay, because being a Christian requires you to struggle with your sins. You can't just stroke Homosexuality off the list of sins. Being gay is not holy.

However, if someone addressed their personal homosexuality as a Christian AS sin, they're still Christian. This is why we need decent pastors. They're the ones that need to counsel us through our sin, including homosexuality.

I skimmed through these posts but I didn't see anything about the origin of homosexuality. I recently found an interesting link about "Pottenger's Cats" where he fed two cat groups raw vs. cooked food. He observed that the cooked food group would have increasing gender bending activity due to missing micronutrients in their food. The missing micronutrients would have epigenetic effects on the cats, and the cats would transfer these traits to successive generations.

http://henrymakow.com/2015/02/Does-Cooki...er-Us.html

[iknowexactly]

(02-19-2015 12:32 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

How about referring to the core doctrinal books of the New Testament (the Pauline epistles) as "letters from 2,000 years ago"? That's basically equivalent to writing off the four books of the Gospel as "fairy tales of the mythical Jesus". You can't hold either of those viewpoints while still credibly calling yourself a Christian. The Bible is either the word of God or it isn't. We don't get to pick and choose

Who says so?

[enderilluminatus]

The bible says it is true so it is true. Stupid, i know, but im just trying to cut off the atheist vs christian clusterfuck that is gonna happen soon enough

[Col. Tigh]

(02-20-2015 08:44 AM)Hannibal Wrote:  

I know this thread isn't about Catholicism but if the Vatican decides that gay is OK then I will definitely bring it up with my priest. That is the definition of blasphemy for fuck's sake.

My understanding is the Catholic Church already says "gay is OK," and has for a while. At least insofar as one is gay, rather than committing gay acts. An academic distinction in most cases, to be sure.

[RawGod]

(02-22-2015 04:35 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

Study after study has found that when a church tries to become hip in an effort to avoid becoming 'irrelevant' its male membership collapses and it is not long until the doors of that church close for the last time.

Very true. Without commenting on what is "real" or "true Christianity", the simple fact is that when a religious group starts to accommodate the culture, it's on the road to irrelevance. Only the hard-line sects thrive in the long run. Mormonism, Islam and (slightly different case) Orthodox Judaism are all doing fine while Protestantism is halfway through a century-long slide to oblivion thanks to its pop-culture and pro-women appeasement.

[El Chinito loco]

(02-20-2015 07:17 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  

I know dick about the Bible or religion. I've been to church four times my entire life, and supposedly my family is Catholic? I went twice to Mormon church where they had a special guest speaker who told us that "Kane killed Abel, so god turned Kane's skin black, and that's why there's Negros in the world today".

A black comedian could just stand up on stage and recite lines from the Book of Mormon, Latter day Saints and make it a comedy routine all in itself. No need for commentary just repeat the whole Black Kane mythology verbatim. It's hilarious.

I remember my mother using one of those free mormon books we got in the late 80's as a door stop back in the day. Even with her (then) limited english she knew enough and said the entire religion was horse shit.

Joseph Smith was just a pussy obsessed cult leader. I give him points for superior game by starting his own cult harem though.

[SirTimothy]

(02-22-2015 08:12 PM)Col. Tigh Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 08:44 AM)Hannibal Wrote:  

I know this thread isn't about Catholicism but if the Vatican decides that gay is OK then I will definitely bring it up with my priest. That is the definition of blasphemy for fuck's sake.

My understanding is the Catholic Church already says "gay is OK," and has for a while. At least insofar as one is gay, rather than committing gay acts. An academic distinction in most cases, to be sure.

I think it goes along the lines of "being tempted" vs. "giving in to temptation", which kind of makes sense. But in practice, churches in America do seem very tolerant of divorce, which is usually a sin, so many of them may eventually even decide the "acts" aren't a sin, like Mr. Bell apparently has.

[monster]

The Church will eventually support same sex marriage, no doubt about it.

Remember: the church is an evolving organization that changes with the times. The Church makes it out as "this and this is God's word and it must be this way" but that's one of the biggest untruths out there. The Church depends on public support and while they are certainly a laggard in adopting mass opinion of many cultural and societal aspects they DO adopt them at the point where they gain/keep more Churchgoers than they would lose.

The Church is and always has been a political organization masquerading as a a spiritual one. Marriage and rearing children, too, is essentially a political function designed to support and fund (through either labor, tithe, or tax) the larger organization as a whole, yet marriage masquerades as the ultimate blue pill concept of "eternal love" where you find your matching half for life.

From a spiritual prospective I don't see the problem with it. The central core of Jesus teaching was "to love thy neighbor" (see the 4 types of love here) and I have personally noted that when I let go of my unfounded grudges and hatred for types of people as inconsequential and irrelevant to anything that's truly important I'm such a happier and more likeable person.

[Samseau]

(02-22-2015 11:13 PM)monster Wrote:  

The Church will eventually support same sex marriage, no doubt about it.

Remember: the church is an evolving organization that changes with the times. The Church makes it out as "this and this is God's word and it must be this way" but that's one of the biggest untruths out there. The Church depends on public support and while they are certainly a laggard in adopting mass opinion of many cultural and societal aspects they DO adopt them at the point where they gain/keep more Churchgoers than they would lose.

The Church is and always has been a political organization masquerading as a a spiritual one. Marriage and rearing children, too, is essentially a political function designed to support and fund (through either labor, tithe, or tax) the larger organization as a whole, yet marriage masquerades as the ultimate blue pill concept of "eternal love" where you find your matching half for life.

From a spiritual prospective I don't see the problem with it. The central core of Jesus teaching was "to love thy neighbor" (see the 4 types of love here) and I have personally noted that when I let go of my unfounded grudges and hatred for types of people as inconsequential and irrelevant to anything that's truly important I'm such a happier and more likeable person.

By the Bible's standards just about everyone today is going straight to hell, so at this point what's the point in trying to save a bunch of fags? It's just casting pearls before swine. Most people today who break the Christian faith (most Churches included) wouldn't care if you told them what the Bible actually says. All you can do is let them rot.

[monster]

(02-23-2015 12:01 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Most people today who break the Christian faith (most Churches included) wouldn't care if you told them what the Bible actually says.

Very true. Just like the government could care less about what the Constitution and Bill of Rights says

They're both just political organizations that have outgrown the fundamentals they were founded on in both size and complexity.

[enderilluminatus]

To be completely fair being a member of a game forum and insisting on a legalistic interpretation of the bible is kinda silly

Adultry is a sin...

[Samseau]

(02-23-2015 12:35 AM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

To be completely fair being a member of a game forum and insisting on a legalistic interpretation of the bible is kinda silly

Adultry is a sin...

So how does one commit Adultery if unmarried?

[richler]

What is the appeal of being a Christian if the doctrine can be adapted to suit the fancies of any particular time and culture? Where is the permanence, then, or the sense of the non-human guiding hand who exists independently of our fads and changing mores?

It becomes a social club, or not even that: a mere flag of victory raised in a tedious, contemporary political conflict.

[richler]

Concerning adultery, then it is fairly clear that "game" practicioners are guilty of several sins mortal and venial, as are the women they consort with. Fornication is a sin.

Why not let the religion be what it is, rather than alter it so as to not fall afoul of its teachings? I am not a Christian but I would find it difficult to retain some faith in a religion's mystic truth while using my own behaviour as a lodestar for its interpretation.

[Samseau]

(02-23-2015 07:53 AM)richler Wrote:  

Concerning adultery, then it is fairly clear that "game" practicioners are guilty of several sins mortal and venial, as are the women they consort with. Fornication is a sin.

Why not let the religion be what it is, rather than alter it so as to not fall afoul of its teachings? I am not a Christian but I would find it difficult to retain some faith in a religion's mystic truth while using my own behaviour as a lodestar for its interpretation.

Except most of the Bible has nothing on "fornication." Those are bad translations. Read the original Bible: the word is "pornia" which is falsely translated into fornication, and I believe that's a (mostly) Catholic lie. Pornia is greek for prostitute.

The Bible condemns prostitution, and cheating on your spouse. But consensual sex between two unmarrieds?

All it says is that women who give away their sex without getting married are idiots. That they are dumber than whores, because at least whores get money.

But for men? Nothing.

The fact is, unmarried sex was unheard of back in Jesus's day. He simply didn't need to talk about it. You either got married to have sex, or you paid for it.

Simply lusting after a woman because you're a single-man really isn't that sinful. Ideally, the pure Christian can abstain from women altogether but banging a single-woman is pretty much a non-issue in the Bible. It was expected that women would insist on marriage before giving up the goods so there wasn't any need to preach about it.

I've read some other Early Christian monks and writers, and they say that sex with a woman outside of marriage is considered the most minor of sins in front of God (for a man) because "lust is deeply rooted in man." God created men to lust, the problem is when greed becomes involved (i.e. prostitution) or betrayal (adultery). But lust by itself? It's how love starts so obviously it cannot be that bad in itself.

Again, it's a different story for women. Women who have sex outside of marriage are considered less than whores by the Old Testament's standards. In the New Testament there isn't anything said, so we must assume Jesus did not correct the Old Testament because there wasn't anything to update.

A lot of today's moralizing about Christianity being anti-sex is just a bunch of faggot Roman Catholic bullshit that has nothing to do with the Bible. In a proper Christian society, the men are super manly, and chase after women hardcore and do anything they can to bang them. Meanwhile, the women play extremely defensively and only have sex once they acquire promises of commitment (i.e. marriage). If the women have sex without marriage, then it is considered a failure of the woman and the woman's parents. The man isn't considered to be anything bad because he's just acting according to his natural role as the initiator and pursuer as God created him.

[Samseau]

For the reasons mentioned above, it's infinitely more sinful to jack-off to porn on your computer (even if the porn is free, SOMEONE paid those prostitutes and you're keeping them practice alive by watching it) than it is to pick-up and bang a woman off the streets.

I remember for a long time being confused about these things too because so many Christians believe in false teachings, but then I just read the Bible and it was cleared up pretty quickly.

[richler]

That's interesting, Samseau. Thanks for bringing the translation issue up. I am not a Christian believer and am not always aware of how certain distortions may have introduced themselves into the religion's texts and practices over time. I am, however, aware that the will-to-distort is particularly prominent at the moment, and wrote my posts from a perspective of traditions existing independently of the self and of contemporary currents.

[Krusyos]

(02-23-2015 12:35 AM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

To be completely fair being a member of a game forum and insisting on a legalistic interpretation of the bible is kinda silly

Adultry is a sin...

It's something that I (and probably my fellow RVF Christians) struggle with immensely. However, we're in good company. St. Augustine was also a womanizer, and he's famous for saying "Lord, make me chaste, but not yet."

The way I look at it, I'm still young and I need to get my horniness out of my system. Then, I'll go unicorn hunting and settle down. I might even go to seminary and become a priest. Who knows.