You seem to love the bible, let me know what you think of these bible verses (Old & New Testament). Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 says Rape a virgin, then pay the father off & she is your wife, Exodus 21: 7-8 says: Sell your daughter, she becomes a slave to her master, 1 Corinthians 14:34 says: Women are not allowed to speak in Church Deuteronomy 22:20-21 says Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night, 1 Timothy 2:12 says Women are not allowed to teach.. Now you know how much god loves you
Thanks very much for your input but I think Jesus dying on the cross tells me much more about how much God loves me.
Let me first start off by saying i am Catholic (Probably the worse Catholic on the face of the planet but Catholic none the less) and I think bringing up religion outside of church and bible study is bull. ESPECIALLY if you’re a Christian quoting mother teresa….
“This is the same Obama who promised to close the Guantanamo Torture Prison, but did not; the same Obama who promised to tell us the purpose for Washington’s decade-long war in Afghanistan, but did not; the same Obama who promised to end the wars, but started new ones; the same Obama who said he stood for the US Constitution, but shredded it; the same Obama who refused to hold the Bush regime accountable for its crimes against law and humanity; the same Obama who unleashed drones against civilian populations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen; the same Obama who claimed and exercised power to murder US citizens without due process and who continues the Bush regime’s unconstitutional practice of violating habeas corpus and detaining US citizens indefinitely; the same Obama who promised transparency but runs the most secretive government in US history.”—Paul Craig Roberts (via azspot)
Why is Jesus the most controversial and the most embarrassing name in the world?
No one is embarrassed if you talk about Buddha, or Muhammad, or Moses. Neither Buddhists nor non-Buddhists are embarrassed to talk about Buddha. Why are almost all educated, non-fundamentalist Christians embarrassed to talk about Jesus to non-Christians, and why are almost all non-Christians embarrassed to hear such talk?
If you’re not sure my assumption is true, test it, in any secular company, or mixed company, especially educated company. The name will fall with a thud, and produce sudden silence and embarrassment. You not only hear the embarrassment, you can feel it. The temperature drops. Or rises. It never stays the same.
You might answer that Christians are embarrassed not for themselves but for others: they are embarrassed only because they are sensitive to the embarrassment they know the name of Jesus will cause to non-Christians. But that only pushes the mystery back one step: why are non-Christians so embarrassed at this name? Why is “Jesus” the most non-neutral name in the world?
Jesus talk is like sex talk. There is no neutral language for sex. All our words about sex are either “sexy” or an attempt to avoid being “sexy”. They are either (1) the ecstatic language of love, or (2) the gutter language of raunch, or (3) the tension-releasing language of the laugh (sex and religion are the two most popular subjects of jokes), or (4) the deliberately impersonal, scientific, and technological language of clinical medicine. And our words about Jesus are either (1) love-words, or (2) blasphemy words, or (3) jokes, or (4) impersonal, technical, theological words.
Jesus is a sword. He divides. You cannot be neutral about Him until you make a deliberate effort to thrust something away, something in your heart: either passionate attraction or passionate rejection of something, or at least deep embarrassment at something. Is it just at Christians? Is it at Christianity? Or is it at Christ?
Why is He history’s greatest divider? Why is He the razor edge of the round world? What does He do to you, to put you on that edge, no matter who you are and no matter what you believe or don’t believe?
”—from “Jesus Shock” by Dr. Peter Kreeft (via greluc)
“Pope Francis rejects attack on old rite and says, ‘treasure tradition.’”
“The underlying message [from the Tavoliere bishops]: Summorum Pontificum should be cancelled, or at least strongly limited. But Francis said no.”
One thing that jumps out of the story is that the bishops of this region judged that their main pastoral priority - to be communicated to the Pope on a five-yearly visit - was to attack Summorum Pontificum. Forget abortion, embryo experimentation, the push for same-sex marriage throughout Europe, the loss of faith of many Catholics and our failure in catechesis and evangelisation. No, the really big problem is a small number of priests legitimately saying the old Mass. Given what Pope Francis has said about the danger of being a self-referential Church, I can well imagine he gave them short shrift.
student:yes, also colloquial irregularities occur frequently in any language and since you and the rest of our present company understood my intended meaning being particular about the distinctions between "can" and "may" is purely pedantic and arguably pretentious
He’s holding what may be the most powerful political office in the world.
He surrounds himself with atheists and suspected communists.
He spits on the Catholic Church’s beliefs as his administration tries to force Catholic and Christian business owners and organizations to pay for health insurance that will provide free abortions and contraception to employees.
And today he uttered these words: “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”
Your president said that.
Millions of babies have been tortured and killed by Planned Parenthood. But he said that.
He invoked our beloved God in one of the most cynical and evil statements ever made by a politician: “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”
This is blasphemy. In a single statement, our president has mocked and regurgitated upon the entire Christian community of this country.
American Life League is responding with all the justified rage and passionate love of life that we can muster.
We will erase Planned Parenthood and this political administration from memory.
She has no theological education, this woman who is about 65-70. Her husband passed away years ago. Her son came down with cancer and she took care of him till he died about a year and a half ago. Another son had the kids taken away and she is looking after them. She looks in on her dad who is…
How so? What do you mean by the term ‘freedom’ anyways?
There is no objective meaning, there is no objective value…no set path, The statement is to contrast the dogma and rules one must abide by if one has religious beliefs compared to that of an atheist…
Emotions, feelings, and individual taste are things that objectively exist. There are things that are objectively true for instance, the sun exists. Value on the other hand, is subjective and if one simply defines morals as what one ought or ought not do then yes, this is also subjective.
Okay. May I propose then, in a world of many world-views, the origin of moral relativism isn’t really rooted in our problem to obtain knowledge.
Why do I say this?
Let’s put the statement: ‘morality is subjective’ to the test, shall we.
In a functioning, humane society, I doubt I will find any one who is truly in support of the following:
Suppose I were to invite a diversity of people, all coming from different cultures, and place them in a huge conference hall. Consequently, they are demanded to stay a night locked in the room. However, suddenly one person starts to get hungry. It happens to be Cannabliism Cody, is anyone going to dare and tell him that what he is about to do- eat someone awake or asleep- is wrong? But how can they, if there is no right or wrong?
In other words, we aren’t confused about moral absolutes, we’re afraid of moral absolutes.