Arkansas Church Kicks Out Young Gay Man For ‘Choosing A Sinful Lifestyle’

[lifeisgood]

I don't need any "commandments" to figure out how to live. By my experience, I have learned that helping others, helps me, too. By respecting others, I gain their respect. In appreciating others, I am in turn appreciated. And so on. And I find that life is better when lived in this way.

You have to have been taught what is good.
The person who taught you, had a guide to be able to teach you what is good for you, and I am almost certain, that that person(s) taught you the Ten Commandments in one way or another, which he/she learned from their ancestors, who in turn leaned from theirs, etc..

Not one person in the world needs to be taught to be bad.
To be good, on the other hand, definitely must to be taught.

Now, you are free to reject that though.

 

[PureX]

You have to have been taught what is good.

I eat a piece of cake, and I find that it's "good". Experience is my teacher.

Someone tells me to eat the cake, because it's good. So I do, and it is good. Who is my teacher, now?

Did I need to be told? No.
Did telling me help? It saved some time, perhaps. Perhaps not.

But recognizing the goodness doesn't have to be taught to us. It's innate.

So the bottom line is that I don't think it matters who or what the "teacher" is. Because the truth of the goodness is self-evident.

Not one person in the world needs to be taught to be bad.
To be good, on the other hand, definitely must to be taught.

Such value assessments are innate to the human mind. No one has to be taught to perceive value.

What we do have to learn is how to assess value, contextually. And we will be learning that all our lives, as the complexity and dynamics involved are virtually infinite.

Religions can help us do this, just as they can impede us in doing this. But they are not the ultimate source, nor the ultimate arbiter, as I suspect you really want to believe your own religion, is.

 

[lifeisgood]

I eat a piece of cake, and I find that it's "good". Experience is my teacher.

Therefore, your savior.

 

[lifeisgood]

Someone tells me to eat the cake, because it's good. So I do, and it is good. Who is my teacher, now?

Did I need to be told? No.
Did telling me help? It saved some time, perhaps. Perhaps not.

But recognizing the goodness doesn't have to be taught to us. It's innate.

Amazing that you are comparing eating a piece of cake with doing good things.

 

[lifeisgood]

So the bottom line is that I don't think it matters who or what the "teacher" is. Because the truth of the goodness is self-evident.

So, eating a piece of cake is the same as ‘thou shall not murder’. Interesting.

 

[lifeisgood]

Such value assessments are innate to the human mind. No one has to be taught to perceive value.

I get it. Eating a piece of cake has the value of ‘thou shalt not murder.’

 

[lifeisgood]

Religions can help us do this, just as they can impede us in doing this. But they are not the ultimate source, nor the ultimate arbiter, as I suspect you really want to believe your own religion, is.

I do not have a religion. I will participate with anyone who believes exclusively Jesus Christ and what He did at the Cross of Calvary.

I do, however, have a relationship with my God and my Savior the Lord Jesus Christ.

Religion murdered Jesus Christ.

 

[PureX]

So, eating a piece of cake is the same as ‘thou shall not murder’. Interesting.

If you are refraining from committing murder just because some ancient religious book tells you to, then you have way more problems than whatever you think is wrong with me! :chuckle:

 

[PureX]

Therefore, your savior.

I've said all along that Christ is not a religion, it's our reality. I don't need a religion to teach me about Christ. All I have to do is pay attention to my experience of reality.

You keep trying to wedge your religious dogma in here, somewhere, and for me, it simply has no place. It's unnecessary. Even distracting.

 

[lifeisgood]

If you are refraining from committing murder just because some ancient religious book tells you to, then you have way more problems than whatever you think is wrong with me! :chuckle:

If you are refraining from committing murder just because it is just like eating a piece of cake, then you have way more problems than whatever you think is wrong with me! :chuckle:

 

[JonahofAkron]

If you are refraining from committing murder just because it is just like eating a piece of cake, then you have way more problems than whatever you think is wrong with me! :chuckle:

Amen to that.

 

[lifeisgood]

I've said all along that Christ is not a religion, it's our reality. I don't need a religion to teach me about Christ. All I have to do is pay attention to my experience of reality.

I see. Whatever you say, God is, that is so because of your experience of reality. Got it.

You keep trying to wedge your religious dogma in here, somewhere, and for me, it simply has no place. It's unnecessary. Even distracting.

I have never had any conversation(s) with you except for this time about the Ten Commandments, which btw is NOT a religious dogma. I have no idea where you got the idea that I am trying to 'wedge' my religious dogma down your, or anyone else's, throat. I did not say 'thou shalt not murder,' etc. God did.

 

[ok doser]

I eat a piece of cake, and I find that it's "good". Experience is my teacher.

Someone tells me to eat the cake, because it's good. So I do, and it is good. Who is my teacher, now?

Did I need to be told? No.
Did telling me help? It saved some time, perhaps. Perhaps not.

But recognizing the goodness doesn't have to be taught to us. It's innate.

you eat a piece of dog excrement off the sidewalk - you find out that it's not good

you eat a piece of cake that's been molding for a week - you find out that it's not good

you eat a box of tacks - you find out that it's not good

you eat a box of rat poison - you find out that it's not good


perhaps this learning by "experience" isn't really a good idea, eh? :chuckle:

 

[lifeisgood]

Experience is my teacher.

Your faith is only as good as the object you place it in.

Your object of faith is your experiences; therefore, all you can receive is what your experiences can give you.

I have always wondered what Christian (OTHER) means.

 

[PureX]

Your faith is only as good as the object you place it in.

Your object of faith is your experiences; therefore, all you can receive is what your experiences can give you.

I have always wondered what Christian (OTHER) means.

The truth is what is. I place my faith in that truth. Even when I can't always know it or understand it.

I don't place my faith in the platitudes of ancient nomadic Jewish tribesman, now long dead. What they knew they knew in their own time and place. Which is not here or now.

 

[ok doser]

I don't place my faith in the platitudes of ancient nomadic Jewish tribesman, now long dead.

you reject the wisdom of the ages, for some foolish idea that your discernment will lead you further than if you learned from those wiser than you

what a fool you are

 

[kmoney]

I'm saying it because none of us were there, so we don't know what actually happened, or what was actually said.

Then how do you separate fact from fiction?

So you'd rather presume that Jesus went around placing irrational demands on people?

I don't consider it irrational. It's the goal. People fail, but that doesn't mean we should try for anything less.

I'm saying the provincial religious biases of the day are irrelevant. Jesus did explain sin to us. And as he explained it, it is something that occurs in us by the motive of our heart and mind. Not by breaking some ancient religious rule.

That Jesus transcended simple outward appearances doesn't mean he thought the Law was just 'some ancient religious rule' that could be completely discarded.

All you're doing is trying to deflect the sting of the accusation by accusing the accuser. And the only people who will fall for that are those who will fall for anything, no matter how silly or unreasoned, so long as it thwarts an accusation that they don't want to face.

O PureX, where is thy sting? O PureX, where is thy victory?

No, your accusation has no sting in this case. It has no basis and I don't have to avoid it through deflection.

The whole point is to punish him, and anyone else, for not accepting their beliefs as facts of God. The only legal way they have of doing that is to reject him and shun him. Of course it's authoritarianism. The whole point is that the theology club maintains it's illusion of self-righteous authority. Otherwise, they wouldn't care if he agreed with them, or not.

One other quick point I'll make is that I don't think this has much to do with their own authority. The position they're taking is one that is widespread throughout Christianity, not an extreme minority position that they are lording over anyone who goes to that church. I don't expect that to matter to you because it just means that most of Christianity is self-righteous and authoritarian, but I meant to make that point earlier and never did.

It's true, he was an ancient Jew, and as such supported their beliefs and rituals. Yet it's also true that they murdered him for daring to speak of a higher, spiritual way of living, that supersedes their dogmatic traditional religious rule. It's also true that Jews, then and now, do not proselytize, nor seek conversions. And yet Jesus did preach to anyone who would listen, and did admonish his followers to do the same (supposedly).

So he is somewhat of a dichotomy, and that's all the more reason for us not to presume he was preaching adherence to ancient Judaism.

Well, I will agree to this much. I don't think Jesus was simply preaching the continuance of Judaism as it has previously existed.

Yes, much of the time, we are. Often, deliberately so.

People are deliberately unconscious of something? How does that work? Doesn't deliberation require conscious thought and action?

 

[kmoney]

I know why, because it was already a sin in the law, He was speaking to those who already had and read and knew the law, and He also clearly defined marriage and its purpose, once that is established, there is no need to add all the things that marriage and its intent, isnt. (See Matthew chapter 19)

Yes, I think that could certainly be part of it.

 

[kmoney]

Then how do you separate fact from fiction?

I think you basically answered this here:

There's this thing called 'real life'. And in it, I can try out ideas that I hear about, or read about, or think up all on my own. And by trying them out, I can see if they work or not. And thus determine if they are worth accepting as being true, or not.

God gave me a life, and a brain, and a conscience, and I presume I was expected to use these gifts in conjunction with each other, to learn things. So that's what I try to do with them.

 

[PureX]

That Jesus transcended simple outward appearances doesn't mean he thought the Law was just 'some ancient religious rule' that could be completely discarded.

Of course he couldn't just disregard the laws of his time and place. Neither can we. But neither are we being held to the laws of his time, any more than he should be held to the laws of ours.

My point is that the laws change, as we change. As time passes, and circumstances change. And as we learn and grow as humankind. Applying ancient religious laws to today's humans is foolish, and counter-productive. It's also a form of false idolatry. And it's also a "trick" that authoritarian religionists use to falsely ascribe divine authority to themselves, so they can then lord it over others. All in all it's a bad idea and a bad practice. Yet modern Christianity has become rife with all these false and flawed motives. Based on the idolatry of ancient Jewish religious dogmas.

From where I sit, none of this bloated religiosity expresses or furthers the love, forgiveness, and healing promise of Christ. What it does do is give a lot of people the illusion that they are made more righteous than others by their religious beliefs and adherence, when they are not. Which of course makes it a popular drug for these folks to imbibe, but a drug none-the-less.