- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 7,128
- Location
- Your Echochamber
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I'm agnostic.
And I didn't imply that you were of any faith, only that you are defending biblical morality, which is inconsistent.
Then explain this photo of Fred Phelps and his wife with Al and Tipper Gore:
:shock: I'm convinced!
I've got pictures of my mom and Clinton, they mean nothing.
Ya actually it was because when Christ arrived on the scene he said that his followers would not follow the old traditions; such as, stoning to death.
Oh I got that, the reason I said that you didn't answer my question is because this NEW morality does not explain how god's old "morality" could be considered moral.
Not if you read the early life of Christ found in the books about him that didn't make it into the bible called the Apocrypha. Jesus sinned as a child
I've read them, and again I never said that Jesus hadn't ever sinned. I said that this passage suggests that it would be moral for one free of sin, which Christ is as some Christian apologists suggest (which I do not claim, I do not believe in sin.) These Christians reject any gospel outside of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
If you're not a Christian fundamentalist, why are you defending them, and then using Gnostic Christian gospels as if they weren't a straw man?
Ask Iran or any fundamentalist Islamic nation there is.
Why should I bother? I know it to be immoral, and faith based "because god said so, and he's god" responses don't cut it.