quote:

Forgiveness doesn't mean going back for more abuse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

I was having a discussion with somebody today when he brought up the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner" saying that he is a Christian and that he lives by this Christian dogma.

However, this phrase is not in the Bible--no place. And further, it was not even a Christian who first uttered this phrase, but Mahatma Gandhi.
Today, the phrase is used by fundies as an excuse to beat up on homosexuals, pro-choice supporters, immigrants, women who (gasp) dare to want their health insurance to provide their birth control as a part of their no-copay preventative coverage, and every other group that does not proscribe to the fundamentalist narrow view of the world.

Oddly, this guy claimed the phrase to justify being friends with somebody who is not good for him. Since becoming friends, the guy I was having debate with has been robbed, used, gotten suspended from school and nearly lost his housing because of this toxic friendship. But he hates the sin and loves the sinner. He also forgives and forgets. I told him I also forgive. I've forgiven my-now-ex husband for cheating on me. I also divorced his ass. Forgiveness doesn't mean going back for more abuse. And hating the sin/loving the sinner doesn't mean that either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

When it comes down to cases though, it has to be two disinterested eyewitnesses. No hearsay and no one who can in anyway benefit. So if your two best buds swore they snuck into your tent and saw your wife having sex with someone else, that testimony would not count.

In actuality, there are no recorded cases of stoning because of adultery.

quote:

John 7:53-8:11
King James Version (KJV)
53And every man went unto his own house.

John 8

1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake

Desfip.

25 years ago I met a lady. In minutes it became apparent that she is gay. At that point I said something that, very fortunately, I cannot now accurately recall. Being the very bright and capable person that she is, in seconds those words were stuffed back from whence they came. I was invited to chew them over as long and as thoroughly as I liked, and decide for myself whether to spit or swallow. Today, this lady is my best friend. She is moving back to Seattle from Pennsylvania, along about May, and has invited me to live with with her.

I am going to tell you something. I don't like what you have said. I don't like it because you have made clear that you do not understand the religion you support. But that you nevertheless support it. In addition, you have shown that you believe that the reason I do not support Catholicism is because I do not understand it. I suspect that these notions have been handed you en bloc by your forbears, and that you have never actually sat yourself down and thought these important ideas through. We are going to do that, now.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+7%3A53-8%3A11&version=KJV

quote:

John 7:53-8:11
King James Version (KJV)
53And every man went unto his own house.

John 8

1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Jesus wrote in the dust of the ground a new law. A law in opposition to the old law, said to be handed man by God. Said by priests. This was his purpose in visiting this planet. Not to reign in might and glory, but to inspire change. It is important to me that you understand what change it was that he was attempting to create, because I have to live with you.

Jesus Christ did not rely upon the power implicit in claiming to speak for much less actually speaking as God. He did not rely either upon the law or its' letter. Nor did he rely upon cleverness, flattery or evasions to win his point. Jesus Christ did not even go so far as to even make a point. What he did was reach into each persons heart and lead them to decide for themselves what the right thing was and whether or not to do it.

Money is power and power is money. The Pharisees had a lot of each of these and Christ was telling people to listen to their hearts. And letting them. This had a lot to do with why Christ wound up nailed to a tree. Not everyone agreed with him. It is still that way today. Two of the major branches of Christianity are the followers of John and the followers of Peter. Peter wound up nailed to a tree, upside down, on Palatine Hill. Because that is where the money, power and influence was, and he wanted it. John went in the other direction. Johns' followers spent a lot of their time getting wiped out by Peters' followers. See : Catharism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism

The difference between Peter and John is that John would try to help people and Peter would try to control them. The followers of John would "Not Kill". The followers of Peter would burn people at the stake, in order to terrify people, into doing what they said, which they claimed was equivalent to the voice of God.

Stop following Peter. Start following John. I mean, if you cannot follow your own example.

Thank you.

Note to Admin ; Don't remove this post. Instead, move this thread to Politics and Religion. Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake

Desfip. <snip>


I am going to tell you something. I don't like what you have said. I don't like it because you have made clear that you do not understand the religion you support. But that you nevertheless support it. In addition, you have shown that you believe that the reason I do not support Catholicism is because I do not understand it. I suspect that these notions have been handed you en bloc by your forbears, and that you have never actually sat yourself down and thought these important ideas through. We are going to do that, now.