I get mostly walked on, if scooting counts as walking.
…and a spotty carpet.
It really ties the room together, man.
They were mistaken on some facts.You are counting me in that group, aren't you? Aren't you?
I actually had a big bang denier from years ago in mind. What an idiot. He was absolutely convinced that the big bang theory was some kind of Jesusified Lysenkoism like Creationism. He went on and on about how there was this vast conspiracy to suppress the Truth and even those atheistic scientists who weren't being directly paid by the Jesus Mafia were terrified of defying it.
All of this probably sounds familiar, if you change the adjectives around.
I get mostly walked on, if scooting counts as walking.
drags butt across carpet
So apparently there have been upset church's over a recent add run by McDonalds in France. Apparently the portrayal in it offends their sensibilities. Some said it was offensive.
My opinion some people just need to STFU.
How is that offensive?
Apparently those upset churches are pointing out why religion is not allowed into the public sphere in France. You know because they randomly wish that ~8% of the population doesn't exist because it "offends them".
I imagine Christianity is offensive to some Jews.
So apparently there have been upset churchs over a recent add run by Mcdonalds in france. Apparently the potrayal in it offends their sensibilities. Some said it was offensive.
Clearly the notion that gay people exist is morally offensive.
I gay know gay I'm gay and gay chastened gay and gay shall gay really gay do gay my gay very gay best gay as gay a gay man gay to gay consider gay their gay feewings gay and fee-fees gay and gay ensure gay they gay never gay see gay evidence gay that gay people gay exist gay.
I imagine Christianity is offensive to some Jews.
Not just Jews.
|
So apparently there have been upset churchs over a recent add run by Mcdonalds in france. Apparently the potrayal in it offends their sensibilities. Some said it was offensive.
Clearly the notion that gay people exist is morally offensive.
I find their taking offense to be morally offensive. Now what?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I find their taking offense to be morally offensive. Now what?So apparently there have been upset churchs over a recent add run by Mcdonalds in france. Apparently the potrayal in it offends their sensibilities. Some said it was offensive.
Clearly the notion that gay people exist is morally offensive.
Hmmm...I would guess:
I find you taking offense at them taking offense to be morally offensive.
|
I find their taking offense to be morally offensive. Now what?So apparently there have been upset churchs over a recent add run by Mcdonalds in france. Apparently the potrayal in it offends their sensibilities. Some said it was offensive.
Clearly the notion that gay people exist is morally offensive.
Hmmm...I would guess:
I find you taking offense at them taking offense to be morally offensive.
I'm morally offended that any of you could ever be offended.
|
|
I find their taking offense to be morally offensive. Now what?So apparently there have been upset churchs over a recent add run by Mcdonalds in france. Apparently the potrayal in it offends their sensibilities. Some said it was offensive.
Clearly the notion that gay people exist is morally offensive.
Hmmm...I would guess:
I find you taking offense at them taking offense to be morally offensive.
Then my work here is done.
Then my work here is done.I find their taking offense to be morally offensive. Now what?So apparently there have been upset churchs over a recent add run by Mcdonalds in france. Apparently the potrayal in it offends their sensibilities. Some said it was offensive.
Clearly the notion that gay people exist is morally offensive.
Hmmm...I would guess:
I find you taking offense at them taking offense to be morally offensive.
What if I just don't care. I mean it IS FRANCE after all.
Pelosi has a long, sad history of being selectively religious when it comes to advancing her agenda, one a Republican in her position could never get away with.
Selectively religious like all the pro-war, pro-death penalty, anti-abortion Catholics. Scalia's been getting away with it for decades.
Pelosi has a long, sad history of being selectively religious when it comes to advancing her agenda, one a Republican in her position could never get away with.Selectively religious like all the pro-war, pro-death penalty, anti-abortion Catholics. Scalia's been getting away with it for decades.
Pro-war I suppose I can get, but you're going to have to explain to me how the other two are selective. I'm not Catholic but I'm pretty sure that being ANTI-death penalty and PRO-abortion are cases where you'd be being selective about the reading, if I remember their beliefs correctly.
|
|
Pro-war I suppose I can get, but you're going to have to explain to me how the other two are selective. I'm not Catholic but I'm pretty sure that being ANTI-death penalty and PRO-abortion are cases where you'd be being selective about the reading, if I remember their beliefs correctly.Pelosi has a long, sad history of being selectively religious when it comes to advancing her agenda, one a Republican in her position could never get away with.Selectively religious like all the pro-war, pro-death penalty, anti-abortion Catholics. Scalia's been getting away with it for decades.
Orthos,
Commandment number 6. Repudiation of "An eye for an eye". "If a man should strike you..." "Vengenace is mine, sayeth the Lord". "Those that live by the swordc shall surely perish by it.". These sound anti-death penalty to me.Also no country in western Europe has the death penalty. So far, to the best of my knowledge, no Catholic campaign has been made to bring it back, so I'd think that might be a misreading/misremembering on your part of their teachings. Or, it could be a sign of utter ignorance on my part.
If we could print out all the ignorant statements about Catholics in this thread we could have our own book on the subject.
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
So I guess God is pro amnesty for illegal immigrants, eh?
|
|
Nancy Pelosi, messenger of God?
Pelosi has a long, sad history of being selectively religious when it comes to advancing her agenda, one a Republican in her position could never get away with.
Am I the only one who tires of the "Someone from our party would never get away with this" rhetoric? Both sides use it, and whenever they do I know they're full of s~!$.[/political rant]
|
|
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.So I guess God is pro amnesty for illegal immigrants, eh?
But OT was "replaced" by NT (except when it's talking about gays). [/sarcasm]
I gay know gay I'm gay and gay chastened gay and gay shall gay really gay do gay my gay very gay best gay as gay a gay man gay to gay consider gay their gay feewings gay and fee-fees gay and gay ensure gay they gay never gay see gay evidence gay that gay people gay exist gay.
Gayest post ever¹.
¹Excludes all posts made by Sebastian.
I thought the add was unintentionally sending the message that homosexuals should stay in the closet. I am not bashing McDonalds. I think it is very gutsy for them to run this and I applaud that. The dad being clueless just seems to perpetuate the "Don't ask, don't tell" attitude.
I thought the add was unintentionally sending the message that homosexuals should stay in the closet. I am not bashing McDonalds. I think it is very gutsy for them to run this and I applaud that. The dad being clueless just seems to perpetuate the "Don't ask, don't tell" attitude.
Interesting take on it, I had not thought of it in that light.
Orthos,
Commandment number 6. Repudiation of "An eye for an eye". "If a man should strike you..." "Vengenace is mine, sayeth the Lord". "Those that live by the swordc shall surely perish by it.". These sound anti-death penalty to me.Also no country in western Europe has the death penalty. So far, to the best of my knowledge, no Catholic campaign has been made to bring it back, so I'd think that might be a misreading/misremembering on your part of their teachings. Or, it could be a sign of utter ignorance on my part.
Second paragraph: I can agree to that. Again, I'm not Catholic, so I don't know where they do and don't overlap with the Bible. So any mistakes I make I blame completely on my own ignorance of the subject.
First paragraph: This is a common confusion I've run into when the subject is brought up. All the quotes except the Commandment you grabbed are regarding personal vengeance - a man being wronged grabbing his weapon and going on a bloody chase. The commandment is "You shall not murder", which again does not apply to the death penalty.
In contrast, the OT is filled with commands of "they shall surely be put to death" as a response to crimes that many of us - myself included - would consider nowhere near deserving it. (Disrespecting one's parents is the one that always unnerved me a bit, given that I can't think of a single child who didn't do that once... which suggests to me that something was implied in the original Hebrew that didn't quite make it through in translation. I could be wrong though.)
The NT supports this with statements like Romans 13, where Christians are commanded to show the proper deference to laws and civil governments (as long as they do not conflict with scriptural laws) and enumerates the rights that governments have that lone people do not. One of those is "for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath on him that does evil." (NKJV) The word "revenger" (which is a really... awkward choice of translation in the NKJV) is alternatively translated "avenger", obviously.
The passage gains these responses in commentary:
(6) God has armed the magistrate even with an avenging sword.
(c) By whom God avenges the wicked.
13:4 The sword - The instrument of capital punishment, which God authorizes him to inflict.
4. he beareth not the sword in vain-that is, the symbol of the magistrate's authority to punish.
One might argue "those are just commentaries", but I honestly can't see any other use for a sword - it's a weapon designed for death.
This outline provides a sermon on the subject. Points off for being somewhat badly organized and sparse (it is an outline after all) I would send you the actual sermon if I could. (That's actually the outline from the sermon my preacher used two weeks ago, so I've just recently had a refresh on this particular subject, heh.)
One might argue "those are just commentaries", but I honestly can't see any other use for a sword - it's a weapon designed for death.
Hope you don't see Matthew 10:34 that way because I'm taking that one metaphorical.
One might argue "those are just commentaries", but I honestly can't see any other use for a sword - it's a weapon designed for death.Hope you don't see Matthew 10:34 that way because I'm taking that one metaphorical.
Perhaps not death directly, but it surely does represent strife and disagreement in that verse, especially when you consider the verse that follows:
For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law:and a man's foes shall be they of his own household. (ASV)
[And you don't know how tempting it was to make a "government's job is to bear strife" joke here, but I'll refrain ;) In all seriousness that application COULD be put there... but it wouldn't make sense to.]
|
|
One might argue "those are just commentaries", but I honestly can't see any other use for a sword - it's a weapon designed for death.Hope you don't see Matthew 10:34 that way because I'm taking that one metaphorical.
I don't think that it refers to hacking people to pieces, but rather to change the nature of the traditional family to one of reverence.
Clearly the notion that gay people exist is morally offensive.
I gay know gay I'm gay and gay chastened gay and gay shall gay really gay do gay my gay very gay best gay as gay a gay man gay to gay consider gay their gay feewings gay and fee-fees gay and gay ensure gay they gay never gay see gay evidence gay that gay people gay exist gay.
Dude...are you gay?
|
|
One might argue "those are just commentaries", but I honestly can't see any other use for a sword - it's a weapon designed for death.Hope you don't see Matthew 10:34 that way because I'm taking that one metaphorical.Perhaps not death directly, but it surely does represent strife and disagreement in that verse, especially when you consider the verse that follows:
For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law:
and a man's foes shall be they of his own household. (ASV)[And you don't know how tempting it was to make a "government's job is to bear strife" joke here, but I'll refrain ;) In all seriousness that application COULD be put there... but it wouldn't make sense to.]
Arg, I just noticed that the post monster got my last post...
Anyway, that part of Mathew has to deal with changing the existing family structure to one more reverent of God. I'm not sure anything is combat related in that. Keep going after that:
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
I'd say that it's a call for proper reverence. If you go through the rest of the chapter it appears to be a call civic responsibility, to make all men your family.
Anyway, that part of Mathew has to deal with changing the existing family structure to one more reverent of God. I'm not sure anything is combat related in that. Keep going after that:
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.I'd say that it's a call for proper reverence. If you go through the rest of the chapter it appears to be a call civic responsibility, to make all men your family.
I agree it is, but there's also a sense of strife and aggression - namely, that religious differences between Jews who wanted to stick to the old law and Christians would indeed tear families apart, and Jesus encouraging his followers to believe and obey him despite that it might cost them the respect, favor, and/or company of their loved ones. (Which, of course, in turn could and would be applied to similar differences throughout the years to follow.)
Dude...are you gay?
This is starting to remind me of "RocknRolla."
|
|
I agree it is, but there's also a sense of strife and aggression - namely, that religious differences between Jews who wanted to stick to the old law and Christians would indeed tear families apart, and Jesus encouraging his followers to believe and obey him despite that it might cost them the respect, favor, and/or company of their loved ones. (Which, of course, in turn could and would be applied to similar differences throughout the years to follow.)Anyway, that part of Mathew has to deal with changing the existing family structure to one more reverent of God. I'm not sure anything is combat related in that. Keep going after that:
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.I'd say that it's a call for proper reverence. If you go through the rest of the chapter it appears to be a call civic responsibility, to make all men your family.
I still think the sword is symbolic. It's not asking the children to directly revolt against their parents, but to sever their ties should their parents not share the vision being imparted. It's not asking for violence.
I still think the sword is symbolic. It's not asking the children to directly revolt against their parents, but to sever their ties should their parents not share the vision being imparted. It's not asking for violence.I agree it is, but there's also a sense of strife and aggression - namely, that religious differences between Jews who wanted to stick to the old law and Christians would indeed tear families apart, and Jesus encouraging his followers to believe and obey him despite that it might cost them the respect, favor, and/or company of their loved ones. (Which, of course, in turn could and would be applied to similar differences throughout the years to follow.)Anyway, that part of Mathew has to deal with changing the existing family structure to one more reverent of God. I'm not sure anything is combat related in that. Keep going after that:
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.I'd say that it's a call for proper reverence. If you go through the rest of the chapter it appears to be a call civic responsibility, to make all men your family.
I never disagreed with that.
I thought the add was unintentionally sending the message that homosexuals should stay in the closet. I am not bashing McDonalds. I think it is very gutsy for them to run this and I applaud that. The dad being clueless just seems to perpetuate the "Don't ask, don't tell" attitude.Interesting take on it, I had not thought of it in that light.
That's how I took the thing too, when I watched it. It's pro-gay in the sense that it doesn't depict the kid as a child-raping monster that eats righteousness and pees out blasphemy, which would make it a fairly radical leftist ad in the US and most networks would refuse to air it. Instead the kid is a more or less average, normal teenager.
But the message seems to be that McDonalds is ok with it but don't try coming out to your dad.
Am I the only one who tires of the "Someone from our party would never get away with this" rhetoric? Both sides use it, and whenever they do I know they're full of s%#!.[/political rant]
Both of it and of the raw absurdity of it. Republicans routinely get away with cynical political uses of religion. Including when they appoint themselves the grand inquisitors against any non-Republican who cynically uses religion for political gain.
But blatant lies are pretty much what one must expect from the American right's editorialists.
Can we not turn to politics? That won't end well.Notice I have been quiet. :)
You're the guy who brought it up. They kicked you out of the monastery with the vow of silence because you couldn't stop singing showtunes, didn't they?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You're the guy who brought it up. They kicked you out of the monastery with the vow of silence because you couldn't stop singing showtunes, didn't they?Can we not turn to politics? That won't end well.Notice I have been quiet. :)
He's also the guy that ignored it after it was pushed more into politics. I'm guessing the original link was tongue in cheek, and not an invitation to identify which party had more hypocrites.
Oh well, I guess a meta-argument over who started what is still better than an actual politics argument.
Oh well, I guess a meta-argument over who started what is still better than an actual politics argument.
You started it! I'm telling!
Arg, I just noticed that the post monster got my last post...
Anyway, that part of Mathew has to deal with changing the existing family structure to one more reverent of God. I'm not sure anything is combat related in that. Keep going after that:
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.I'd say that it's a call for proper reverence. If you go through the rest of the chapter it appears to be a call civic responsibility, to make all men your family.
Correct. Or at least that's how I approach it exegetically. I certainly don't keep a typical 'nuclear' family lifestyle myself.
|
Oh well, I guess a meta-argument over who started what is still better than an actual politics argument.You started it! I'm telling!
I posted it! More to change the subject off the dumb commercial which had nothing to do with religion.
And my wife agree with you...I should stop singing......I just can't!