Christian Heroism

[kelltrill]

Just to elaborate on what you said, Whitney, here is an article proving that Christians are still promoting the murder of "witches" in modern society.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/1 ... 24943.html

[fdesilva]

The problem with the WBC is not that they make mistakes; it's that they get 100% on the exam covering biblical laws regarding  homosexuality.... and follow that teaching to the letter.

If the teaching is wrong, why is it in the learning materials?

Hi
Would you say Hitler also whould have got 100%
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

How about some one like Frédéric Ozanam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Ozanam

[pinkocommie]

Hitler?  Seriously?  

[fdesilva]

What counts as a "reputed teaching body"?  If you ask the Pope he'll tell you it is immoral to use a condom even if you have AIDS and want to protect your wife. ...

Tell me, in your opnion, has a person with aids, have the right to have a child?

[Whitney]

What counts as a "reputed teaching body"?  If you ask the Pope he'll tell you it is immoral to use a condom even if you have AIDS and want to protect your wife. ...

Tell me, in your opnion, has a person with aids, have the right to have a child?

 It would be immoral to transfer the AIDS on purpose...which is why a condom would be a good idea.  Do they have the right? probably depends on where you live...there are no laws against having babies if you have x disease in the United States.

What does your question have to do with explaining who a "reputed teaching body" is?

[Sophus]

The problem with the WBC is not that they make mistakes; it's that they get 100% on the exam covering biblical laws regarding  homosexuality.... and follow that teaching to the letter.

If the teaching is wrong, why is it in the learning materials?

Hi
Would you say Hitler also whould have got 100%
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Quite possibly. He acted a lot like the God of the OT.

[fdesilva]

It would be immoral to transfer the AIDS on purpose...which is why a condom would be a good idea. Do they have the right? probably depends on where you live...there are no laws against having babies if you have x disease in the United States.

What does your question have to do with explaining who a "reputed teaching body" is?

With regards to

What does your question have to do with explaining who a "reputed teaching body" is?
 

I am nominating the Catholic church
As such the Popes statement is relevant.
So from your point of view it is immoral to transfer AIDS to you partner. Then in that case to have sex with the aim of having a child, for a person with aids would be immoral as it can also give aids to the partner and child? Do you agree?
Well the Church does not take this view. All people have the same right with or without Aids or any other disease. Aids is one of the many diseases that can shorten once life, However life no matter its length is seen as equal in value.
If you were to tell a person that has aids they should wear a condom, is that not the same as saying they do not have a right to have a child via sex?

[elliebean]

The problem with the WBC is not that they make mistakes; it's that they get 100% on the exam covering biblical laws regarding  homosexuality.... and follow that teaching to the letter.

If the teaching is wrong, why is it in the learning materials?

Hi
Would you say Hitler also whould have got 100%
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

How about some one like Frédéric Ozanam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Ozanam

Don't deflect my question. Either answer it or don't, but don't insult my intelligence.

[fdesilva]

The problem with the WBC is not that they make mistakes; it's that they get 100% on the exam covering biblical laws regarding  homosexuality.... and follow that teaching to the letter.

If the teaching is wrong, why is it in the learning materials?

Hi
Would you say Hitler also whould have got 100%
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

How about some one like Frédéric Ozanam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Ozanam

Don't deflect my question. Either answer it or don't, but don't insult my intelligence.

Obviously I don't agree with "WBC is not that they make mistakes; it's that they get 100% on the exam covering biblical laws regarding  homosexuality..."
What I am saying is that you need to take the teaching of the bible via a reputed body. I am happy to nominate the catholic church as one

[elliebean]

Obviously I don't agree with "WBC is not that they make mistakes; it's that they get 100% on the exam covering biblical laws regarding  homosexuality..."

Obviously you don't know the material well enough to debate it.

What I am saying is that you need to take the teaching of the bible via a reputed body. I am happy to nominate the catholic church as one

And you nominate yourself as the authority on the catholic church? Good luck with that.

[pinkocommie]

I nominate Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Whitney]

So, because the Catholic church discourages the use of condoms and therefore aids in the spread of AIDS you think they are the ones who are interpreting the Bible correctly?

If you were to tell a person that has aids they should wear a condom, is that not the same as saying they do not have a right to have a child via sex?

And no, If I tell a person who has AIDS that they should wear a condom I am not saying they do not have a right to have a child via sex.  I am telling them that it isn't a good idea.  You seem to be confusing what someone ought to do (morals) with what they are allowed to do (legal rights).

Oh, and how again does discouraging condoms mean the Catholic church gets to decide what the entire Bible really says.  After all, these are the people who pray to saints and I'm pretty sure praising idols is why Moses threw the first set up tablets down.

[Sophus]

Since it looks like this thread is headed down this road I want to throw this out in the open... Whenever I bring up a nasty OT verse, many protestants are quick to say "well, that's the OT, Jesus changed all that." Really? Because they still cherry pick and teach from a lot of the stuff in the OT. And theologically speaking, there's this:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

So..... am I missing something? Why is the OT considered any less significant than the NT. There's no logic in cherry picking except to keep one's religion from appearing too repulsive in modern times.

[fdesilva]

And no, If I tell a person who has AIDS that they should wear a condom I am not saying they do not have a right to have a child via sex.  I am telling them that it isn't a good idea.  You seem to be confusing what someone ought to do (morals) with what they are allowed to do (legal rights).

Correct me if I am wrong please,
When you say “it isn’t a good idea” you mean its not morally a good thing to do right?
If that be the case, am I not right in saying that in your opinion it immoral for a person with aids to have a child via sex.?

[fdesilva]

Since it looks like this thread is headed down this road I want to throw this out in the open... Whenever I bring up a nasty OT verse, many protestants are quick to say "well, that's the OT, Jesus changed all that." Really? Because they still cherry pick and teach from a lot of the stuff in the OT. And theologically speaking, there's this:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

So..... am I missing something? Why is the OT considered any less significant than the NT. There's no logic in cherry picking except to keep one's religion from appearing too repulsive in modern times.

The NT is the objective, explanation and  fulfilment of the OT