How did Christ handle rejection?

First of all, who the **** cares if Adam_PoE actually STARED DISPASSIONATELY DOWN THE BARREL OF A LOADED GUN? If he's bullshitting, he's bullshitting; if he's not, he's not. It doesn't matter. If he actually felt the need to lie about himself to prove what an INTERNET BADASS he is--and I doubt that he feels that need--then that's a personal problem that would be best dealt with by smiling and nodding our heads.

Secondly, let's think about this:

1. Gunshot to the head = quick and painless death.
2. Crucifixion = not quick and not painless.
3. Weight of humanity's sins vs. bullet lodged in frontal lobe.
4. Hematidrosis vs. "I'm more robotic than Keanu Reeves in those godawful movies about the evil computers."

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
We're not talking about me. We're talking about how secular humanists have to do mental gymnastics to define murder as being fundamentally morally wrong.

so we're not talking about you, we're talking about what you think of me?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Considering that the pilgrims founded America, yes, it is.

I don't recall the story in which the Pilrams jumped off the boat and said they'd just founded the United States of America and published the Declearation of Independence or the constitution that governs that nation. But if my experience has been lacking, I'm certainly eager for you to point that out. How christian of them to found a nation where there already was one, though. (Or many, for that matter)

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Because they're barbarians. It has nothing do with Christianity or lack thereof.

The wholesale lot of them? Certainly there is any number of practices that are exercised by some muslims I would also consider barbaric. But I recall a number of similar practices that appear in the bible that aren't so different. And why is that? Because some people can't get past their religion. Even when their religion has advanced past that stage.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
In short: Everything you regard as morals and values is based upon "because I think this is how it should be."

As I have already said, "because I think..." isn't all that different from "because I believe..." The upside of my argument is that I don't depend on the words, culture and superstitions of people who supposedly lived 2000 yeas ago. Which, ironically, is what you accuse others of being barbarians for doing.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
smiling and nodding our heads.

Sage advice. Did you learn how to do that in Sunday school?

Originally posted by Devil King
As I have already said, "because I think..." isn't all that different from "because I believe..." The upside of my argument is that I don't depend on the words, culture and superstitions of people who supposedly lived 2000 yeas ago.

That's not an upside in any real way.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not an upside in any real way.

"because I believe..."

Originally posted by Devil King
"because I believe..."

Is still no different than "because I think" it's just less arrogant.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is still no different

Originally posted by Devil King
As I have already said, "because I think..." isn't all that different from "because I believe..."

Operative word in both being "I".

Originally posted by Devil King
so we're not talking about you, we're talking about what you think of me?

I don't recall the story in which the Pilrams jumped off the boat and said they'd just founded the United States of America and published the Declearation of Independence or the constitution that governs that nation. But if my experience has been lacking, I'm certainly eager for you to point that out. How christian of them to found a nation where there already was one, though. (Or many, for that matter)

The wholesale lot of them? Certainly there is any number of practices that are exercised by some muslims I would also consider barbaric. But I recall a number of similar practices that appear in the bible that aren't so different. And why is that? Because some people can't get past their religion. Even when their religion has advanced past that stage.

As I have already said, "because I think..." isn't all that different from "because I believe..." The upside of my argument is that I don't depend on the words, culture and superstitions of people who supposedly lived 2000 yeas ago. Which, ironically, is what you accuse others of being barbarians for doing.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
At this point, I think we can safely switch to how you've managed to avoid the point.

well then why don't you enlighten me to your point and I'll address the conversation from there.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
And yet...they're the settlers who established the foundations of America.

Settlers aren't in question. Our differing perspectives of who founded this nation is apparently the point. And while we're at it, why don't you point out the document in which the founders of this nation espoused the absolute validiy of your biblical and religious certainty; as I asked? Once you've pointed out the document that claims christianity, or any other religion for that matter, as the founding principle of this nation's foundation, then we'll have something to debate. As it is, again, there is no mention of religion in the documents drafted by the supposedly fanatical founding fathers of this nation. Despite your claim that they were extreme and resolute bible thumpers, there seems to be no claim of that desire having ever been written into law or even voted on as a motion in those founding meetings. In fact, you'll only come across measures proposed and measures soundly denied when it comes to the recorded minutes of those meetings. Basically, they voted not to even consider religious debate. That doesn't say much for the notion that they were all cross wearing, god fearing orthodox that took every step with a measure of divine consideration.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No, not all of them. And "sandmonkey" != Muslim.

I know what sandmonkey is supposed to imply.

Is that it? Not "all of them"? The muslim women you see wandering the CD aisle of Wal-Mart are not implicated in your blanket statment? Between the to of us, I find them pretty damned laughable. Think of it; they subscribe to a religion that keeps them in the bee suit but they're at Wal-Mart.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Those who believe the Bible believe it as the word of God and thus a foundation. Yours beliefs are...well, whatever is chic.

And yet your profound explaination requires so few words...

We all understand the magnitude of what you believe the "WORD OF GOD" to imply. It's just that some of us are not impressed by it. More over, many of us have not bought the 5 dollar admission price of the ticket to the staged freak show. By all means, you believe that there is a woman with a human head and a snake's body...and maybe even that it's the result of the theory of evolution, despite that not being hoe evolution works. Maybe it's the work of "the Devil!!!!" I simply see it as a chick who's learned to profit from you buying a ticket by craming her head through a hole in the floor.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
...nah they'll enjoy this more.

Would it make you feel better to know that I've never seen The Wizard of Oz from beginning to end? I can't get through musicals. I just can't relate. I've never understood the story-advancing aspect that anyone would suddenly burst into song.

I think the only one I've made it through is The Lion King.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
He clearly wasn't certain, "God why hath you forsaken me?"

Jesus was the son of God, but he was also the son of Mary- he had humanity in him also.

I do have a question here, why would God question himself?

Originally posted by Devil King
Would it make you feel better to know that I've never seen The Wizard of Oz from beginning to end? I can't get through musicals. I just can't relate. I've never understood the story-advancing aspect that anyone would suddenly burst into song.

I think the only one I've made it through is The Lion King.

Originally posted by Robtard
I do have a question here, why would God question himself?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I earned a reputation for being "the gay one" when I defended homosexual Catholic's (and non-Catholics) right to attend Church events.

So, essentially much of the congregation decided that I must be gay myself- however, they never tend to say it to my face.

Father Brimley, the Parish Priest, took my side on the issue though, which made it easier. 🙂

Thus, as a matter of principle I never deny homosexuality- JIA however seemed to disaprove of that and say it was an insult to embrace the sin...

Whilst in this I see your good intent in this, there are multiple things that prevent homosexual persons from attending selective church events; most specifically the receiving of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The error in your reasoning here is that you do not equate homosexuality to sin, which according to scripture as well as Church teaching through the ages, had authoritatively linked it to be so. Such verses from scripture such as Leviticus 20:13 clearly show this:

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death.

As can be clearly seen, homosexual persons are committing mortal sin, or "the sin that leads to death". Now the Catholic church theologically teaches that persons committing mortal sin should not receive Holy Communion as per Christ's own words in 1 Corinthians 11:27:

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Extrapolating upon this, since homosexual persons cannot, by definition, receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ, they cannot be saved, as is stated by both Church dogma, and the definition of mortal sin.

The proper course of action when one is dealing with homosexual persons in the Church is to not "accept" them and let them participate in Church activities, for that would be a grotesque insult to their eternal well-being; making them comfortable in damnable sin. The proper course of action in such a case is to make very clear that homosexuality is a sin, and that unless confession and penance is made, there is no chance of salvation. It is far more evil to allow someone to stay in the church with sin, than to separate them, for they spread their evil-doings as a result. The pedophilia scandal was an exemplary case of this.

As for people with homosexual tendencies, it is their cross to bear. To not act upon those tendencies can give great merit to the person, but to fall to Satan and sin on these matters is of the utmost detestability. In your particular case, I feel that you should not be "pushed" into this position, spend some time with God on the matter.

Cheers!

Originally posted by Transfinitum
abomination death unworthily -Cheers!

I just thought I'd clear up your post by cutting out all the parts that muddy the waters of your point. You seemed to be doing a lot of useless babbling when your point could have been made much more simply.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
HUGE gay stigma

what is that, like, a stereotype?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Whilst in this I see your good intent in this, there are multiple things that prevent homosexual persons from attending selective church events; most specifically the receiving of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As I said, Church EVENTS. The event in question was a trip of the congregation to a theme park called Alton Towers...anyway. I am fully aware they can't take Communion, I never argued they should. As i said, EVENTS.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
The error in your reasoning here is that you do not equate homosexuality to sin,

You are guilty of schism my friend.

The Holy Father said, (when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)

"although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

Thus you are wrong, being homosexual is not a sin. Sodomy? Yes, that is a sin...as in masturbation, oral sex and indeed anything which results in the ejaculation of sperm into anything other than your wife's vagina (bar certain medical cases) Or so says Humanae Vitae.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
As can be clearly seen, homosexual persons are committing mortal sin, or "the sin that leads to death". Now the Catholic church theologically teaches that persons committing mortal sin should not receive Holy Communion as per Christ's own words in 1 Corinthians 11:27:

I never said they should recieve Communion, I said they had the right to come to Church to witness Mass, attend Church dinners, trips and so on.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Extrapolating upon this, since homosexual persons cannot, by definition, receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ, they cannot be saved, as is stated by both Church dogma, and the definition of mortal sin.

As stated Homosexuality is not a sin, to say otherwise is schismatic- acting upon your homosexuality is ofcourse sinful, as is acting on any sexual lust.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
The proper course of action when one is dealing with homosexual persons in the Church is to not "accept" them and let them participate in Church activities, for that would be a grotesque insult to their eternal well-being; making them comfortable in damnable sin. The proper course of action in such a case is to make very clear that homosexuality is a sin, and that unless confession and penance is made, there is no chance of salvation.

They were well aware of where they Church stood on homosexual acts. We do not encourage it by inviting them to attend services.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
It is far more evil to allow someone to stay in the church with sin, than to separate them, for they spread their evil-doings as a result. The pedophilia scandal was an exemplary case of this.

It comes down to "What would Jesus do?" doesn't it. Would he eat with gay people? Yes, he did it with tax collectors and prostitutes- a huge social taboo at the time. It is sinful to turn anyone away from God's Church, he opens the door to all peoples.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
As for people with homosexual tendencies, it is their cross to bear. To not act upon those tendencies can give great merit to the person, but to fall to Satan and sin on these matters is of the utmost detestability. In your particular case, I feel that you should not be "pushed" into this position, spend some time with God on the matter.

As I explained im not homosexual, but if people want to call me that I don't mind.

Ultimately, everyone is allowed to come to a Church service- because we can't expect people to know, understand or like our beliefs if we don't let them experience them. Jesus said tend the sheep- thats everyone. The good sheperd would leave the flock and go out and save the lost lamb- that should be the Church's mission, if someone is a practicing gay- then thats sinful...but that doesn't mean you can't have a cup of tea in the Church kitchen...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
As I said, Church EVENTS. The event in question was a trip of the congregation to a theme park called Alton Towers...anyway. I am fully aware they can't take Communion, I never argued they should. As i said, EVENTS.

Well then I have misunderstood you; in such cases that do not impact the holy sacrifice of the mass or the sanctity of the clergy, of course they should attend.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You are guilty of schism my friend.

Do not be so quick to judge, accusations are very grave matters indeed, and should be made with only the most exquisite of evidence

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The Holy Father said, (when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)

"although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

Thus you are wrong, being homosexual is not a sin. Sodomy? Yes, that is a sin...as in masturbation, oral sex and indeed anything which results in the ejaculation of sperm into anything other than your wife's vagina (bar certain medical cases) Or so says Humanae Vitae.

I believe we are in confusion here. Are we discussing homosexual persons (implying that they are presently engaging in homosexual activities) or persons with homosexual tendencies, which, as I have said before ("As for people with homosexual tendencies, it is their cross to bear. To not act upon those tendencies can give great merit to the person"😉 are not in sin.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
It comes down to "What would Jesus do?" doesn't it. Would he eat with gay people? Yes, he did it with tax collectors and prostitutes- a huge social taboo at the time. It is sinful to turn anyone away from God's Church, he opens the door to all peoples.

Very true, but then again, though Christ ate with the sinners of the time he corrected them from their erred ways and did not dine with them as prostitutes or tax-collectors, but as newfound followers of Christ, repentant for their sins. The issue at hand here is simply a misunderstanding, your points of allowing homosexual persons to church activities outside the sacraments (excluding confession and baptism, those are always helpful in such a case 🙂 ) stands. Though any active homosexual should be educated on the severity of his sin on most outings.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
As I explained im not homosexual, but if people want to call me that I don't mind.

Ultimately, everyone is allowed to come to a Church service- because we can't expect people to know, understand or like our beliefs if we don't let them experience them. Jesus said tend the sheep- thats everyone. The good sheperd would leave the flock and go out and save the lost lamb- that should be the Church's mission, if someone is a practicing gay- then thats sinful...but that doesn't mean you can't have a cup of tea in the Church kitchen...

Agreed, though one should instruct a practicing homosexual to not receive communion etc., as one would do to any other sinner. Though (and this is my opinion, not church dogma) persons with homosexual tendencies tend to be the ones that commit perversions in the confessional etc. that lead to such grave atrocities against the Church as the present scandal in the Diocese of Los Angeles, where my present church of residence is being sold off to pay the debt. My two cents worth.

But all in all, a misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
persons with homosexual tendencies tend to be the ones that commit perversions in the confessional etc. that lead to such grave atrocities against the Church as the present scandal in the Diocese of Los Angeles, where my present church of residence is being sold off to pay the debt. My two cents worth.

You shouldn't be so quick to tar all homosexuals with what some priests (and others) have done in a gross minority. I wonder if you allow this loss to spur you to discrimination against them? Homosexuality is not some sort of "Super Sin"

Originally posted by Transfinitum
But all in all, a misunderstanding.

So it would seem.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You shouldn't be so quick to tar all homosexuals with what some priests (and others) have done in a gross minority.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I wonder if you allow this loss to spur you to discrimination against them?

Discrimination? Au contrare! It is quite obvious what caused the sex scandals: the cardinal was told by PHD holding psychologists that these formerly homosexual priests would not act on those tendencies ever again. In reality, the problem is with the cardinal listening to psychologists instead of following traditional church practice of not ordaining people with any strong, recurring perverted tendency, including homosexuality.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Homosexuality is not some sort of "Super Sin"

But it is a major factor in the two main sins of this age the Church must combat, abortion and homosexual marriage. In itself, no, homosexuality is just another grave sin. But with the alarming trend of our culture in the western world to promote homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice" rather than a sin, it leads to horribly unnatural civil occurrences, such as homosexual marriage and allowing that culture to seep into the Church has been alarming, and could prove disastrous.

I thought homosexual men were an abomination?....doesnt that qualify as a supersin...lol...