Progressive tenets of Jesus Christ

PrintSmith wrote: Apart from the obvious, that Jesus wasn't American, the balance of it is pure malarkey. Jesus wasn't anti-death penalty, far from it. Instead, he recognized that God gave to the State the authority to use it as a punishment. Remember what he said to Pilate during His Passion? He told Pilate that Pilate would not have power over Him, the power to put Him to death, unless that power had been bestowed upon Pilate, representing the State of Rome, by His Father? Nor was he anti-wealth, remember Joseph of Arimathea, the one who gave up his own tomb to lay the body of Jesus in? Nor was he anti-public prayer. Sermon on the Mount ring a bell? Did Jesus encourage, or discourage, prostitutes and crooks in their current occupations while he was "hanging out" with them? He wasn't just chillin' with them Z, he was there to encourage them to alter their evil ways.

No, I'm being kind by using ignorant to describe that meme, ignorant only scratches the surface.

I'd respectfully disagree on the "malarkey" assertion. Again, I've overstayed here and will address this in more detail later - gotta lay in some firewood.

Later.

I tired to set up some fair parameters for this discussion and "yep," the first thing PS does is slam a graphic from further up thread. And then we get a lot of personal opinion from PS without deferring directly to scriptures.

No discussion from PS as to the scripture in mind, to the setting and the context of the scripture or even to the actual meaning of the Greek words. You cannot propose to argue a point of view, supposedly from Christ's words without discussing them at that level.

Instead I get more Pope Francis, Ben Franklin and opinion, but not one quote from scripture.

Why can't you make believe you just finished reading the four gospels, you discovered something new, like Jesus was a socialist, or you saw him as a conservative and you want to present your "revelation" to you friends fresh from your readings?

Can you do it without referring to graphics (funny or otherwise)? Can you do it without deferring to other opinion writers? Can you do it from scripture alone? Obviously not.

Then we cannot really discuss if Jesus taught a progressive or conservative theology that rely on his words alone.

I'm out of this discussion.

Plus the fact that in the past when I have, some devious folk have clipped and pasted something I said, took it out of context and sent it to my editor trying to get me fired from the newspaper.

These is one of the reasons I rarely comment here anymore.

Those reason above are more than enough for me to bow out again. I'll stick to where I get paid for inspiring discussion.

Bye.

Reverend Revelant wrote: I tired to set up some fair parameters for this discussion and "yep," the first thing PS does is slam a graphic from further up thread. And then we get a lot of personal opinion from PS without deferring directly to scriptures.

No discussion from PS as to the scripture in mind, to the setting and the context of the scripture or even to the actual meaning of the Greek words. You cannot propose to argue a point of view, supposedly from Christ's words without discussing them at that level.

Instead I get more Pope Francis, Ben Franklin and opinion, but not one quote from scripture.

Why can't you make believe you just finished reading the four gospels, you discovered something new, like Jesus was a socialist, or you saw him as a conservation and you want to present your "revelation" to you friends fresh from your readings?

Can you do it without referring to graphics (funny or otherwise)? Can you do it without deferring to other opinion writers? Can you do it from scripture alone? Obviously not.

Then we cannot really discuss if Jesus taught a progressive or conservative theology that rely on his words alone.

I'm out of this discussion.

Plus the fact that in the past when I have, some devious folk have clipped and pasted something I said, took it out of context and sent it to my editor trying to get me fired from the newspaper.

These is one of the reasons I rarely comment here anymore.

Those reason above are more than enough for me to bow out again. I'll stick to where I get paid for inspiring discussion.

Bye.

Z, I want to see a "really, tired" since I got one for a mistype.

Reverend Revelant wrote: I tired to set up some fair parameters for this discussion and "yep," the first thing PS does is slam a graphic from further up thread. And then we get a lot of personal opinion from PS without deferring directly to scriptures.

No discussion from PS as to the scripture in mind, to the setting and the context of the scripture or even to the actual meaning of the Greek words. You cannot propose to argue a point of view, supposedly from Christ's words without discussing them at that level.

Instead I get more Pope Francis, Ben Franklin and opinion, but not one quote from scripture.

Why can't you make believe you just finished reading the four gospels, you discovered something new, like Jesus was a socialist, or you saw him as a conservative and you want to present your "revelation" to you friends fresh from your readings?

Can you do it without referring to graphics (funny or otherwise)? Can you do it without deferring to other opinion writers? Can you do it from scripture alone? Obviously not.

Then we cannot really discuss if Jesus taught a progressive or conservative theology that rely on his words alone.

I'm out of this discussion.

Plus the fact that in the past when I have, some devious folk have clipped and pasted something I said, took it out of context and sent it to my editor trying to get me fired from the newspaper.

These is one of the reasons I rarely comment here anymore.

Those reason above are more than enough for me to bow out again. I'll stick to where I get paid for inspiring discussion.

Bye.

Personally, I'd like to see you stick around. Hope you reconsider and continue to add to the discussion.

In that vein, one of the things that's been a question of mine ever since a very young age was how do we know, I mean really "know" what the true words of Christ are? My understanding is that his "activism" lasted for around 3 years. Unless I'm missing something, there's a dearth of information on his life in between when he went with his parents to Jerusalem and was found by his parents three days later in the temple having a discussion with the teachers there and about a couple decades later when he became the activist so many in Christianity are "familiar with" today.

There's many passages in the Bible that attribute things to Jesus that beg the question did Jesus write these things down or were the things he said "remembered" by the apostles and mortal men later on?

To me, accepting some of the contents of the Bible as literal factual words of Jesus is kind of suspect in a very general way. Again, if I'm missing something, I'm ready to listen.

PrintSmith wrote: Apart from the obvious, that Jesus wasn't American, the balance of it is pure malarkey. Jesus wasn't anti-death penalty, far from it. Instead, he recognized that God gave to the State the authority to use it as a punishment. Remember what he said to Pilate during His Passion? He told Pilate that Pilate would not have power over Him, the power to put Him to death, unless that power had been bestowed upon Pilate, representing the State of Rome, by His Father? Nor was he anti-wealth, remember Joseph of Arimathea, the one who gave up his own tomb to lay the body of Jesus in? Nor was he anti-public prayer. Sermon on the Mount ring a bell? Did Jesus encourage, or discourage, prostitutes and crooks in their current occupations while he was "hanging out" with them? He wasn't just chillin' with them Z, he was there to encourage them to alter their evil ways.

No, I'm being kind by using ignorant to describe that meme, ignorant only scratches the surface.

Taking your post one issue at a time:

1. Was Jesus anti-death penalty? I'd have to say probably. He actually was involved in a death penalty case and said to those assembled, "let whoever is without sin cast the first stone". Leads me to believe he would not support the death penalty if he were alive today.

2. Did God give to the state the authority to use the death penalty as punishment? I'd have to counter with whether or not Jesus actually said anything at all as to whether the state had the authority to use the death penalty. Though it doesn't mean such a statement doesn't exist, I'm not aware of such "teaching" of Christ. After all, isn't that what we're talking about in this thread - what Jesus did NOT say about things? If he would have said anything, I'm assuming he'd probably say something against the death penalty.

3. Was Jesus anti-wealth? On this one, I'd have to say I believe Jesus wasn't against having things. What he did, though, was warn others about becoming too materialistic in their endeavors. From what I've read, Jesus was trying to tell others God created us to love people and use things, but a materialist loves things and uses people - not an enviable trait by any stretch.

4. Was Jesus anti-public prayer? I'd have to say the Sermon on the Mount is quite different from the context of public prayer we're talking about here. On this one, I believe Jesus was warning about people being hypocritical when praying in public. Mathew 6:5 goes into more detail on this.

5. The prostitute and crooks thing - well, my understanding is he welcomed them to come follow him. If that was encouraging them to alter their "evil ways", then I'm ok with that because he was inviting them to hang out by virtue of following him.

Now, as far as the rest of the meme being malarkey is concerned, if one Googles "was Jesus a radical", the results are telling.

Was Jesus non-violent? I'd posit that pretty much goes without saying. (Edited to add). Upon further research, I found this:

www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2014/...n-violent_jesus.html

Interesting read whether one wants to agree with it or not since, according to the article, Jesus never said one word about non-violence:

Jesus was not an advocate of nonviolence. Nope, he never said a word about it. In fact, we have him on record behaving violently -- in all four gospels! While he often avoided violence, this does not mean he taught an ethic of non-violence.

To me, this is just one of those situations where an open mind (hopefully my own, for sure) will accept that Jesus, on Earth, was human. As such, he was more than likely also prone to some human qualities, some of which were talked about in this article. So, PS, this one, I'll give to you, not as being "malarkey", but, rather, as being less than correct.

Was Jesus a revolutionary? Again, just Googling that question results in some pretty telling links.

Was Jesus anti-gay, pro or anti abortion or birth control, or any of the rest of the statement by John Fugelsang is concerned, once again it goes to the fact he never said anything at all about those things according to what I've seen. Torture, tax cuts for the wealthy, fees for health care - nada, zip, zilch unless I'm missing something here.

He was also, in fact, not white, but, rather, a Middle Eastern Jew who likely had darker skin, longish and unkempt hair, and homeless (unless the Bible missed something along those lines). He also hung out with Mary Magdalene, and, well, the only thing I can offer on this issue is this link:

www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/cat.../mary-magdalene.html

Even therein, there is a modicum of mystery surrounding whether or not Mary Magdalene was what some would portray her as being.

ScienceChic wrote: I would absolutely love a topic on that as my study of religion is woefully not in-depth and I would appreciate an opportunity to learn more. I took one religious study course in college and was fascinated with the history, the people involved, and how it has impacted society. We all come from different backgrounds and differing beliefs and this seems a great opportunity to learn from one another!

I have one request: if it's a topic on religion itself, as opposed to how religion pertains to politics, can it be started in our Spiritual Cabin forum please? Thank you!

Great discussion here everyone, thank you so very much for that!

I think YOU should consider starting a thread on religion! Yep! That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

ZHawke wrote: Taking your post one issue at a time:

And I'll respond to them one by one.

ZHawke wrote: 1. Was Jesus anti-death penalty? I'd have to say probably. He actually was involved in a death penalty case and said to those assembled, "let whoever is without sin cast the first stone". Leads me to believe he would not support the death penalty if he were alive today.

But did he say, as you are implying, that he was anti-death penalty, that there should be no death penalty? If you remember your scripture, John, Chapter 8, you will remember that the Pharisees brought the woman to Jesus in order to trap him into saying what you are alleging is the case, that the death penalty was wrong, which he did not say. The inference then is that is should be reserved, seldom used, instead of in every instance where it might be used. The last words Jesus spoke to her were to forgive her her sin (neither do I condemn you), as only God can do, and then to tell her to go and leave her life of sin behind her. This speaks to God's willingness to forgive us of our sins and of His love for us.

ZHawke wrote: 2. Did God give to the state the authority to use the death penalty as punishment? I'd have to counter with whether or not Jesus actually said anything at all as to whether the state had the authority to use the death penalty. Though it doesn't mean such a statement doesn't exist, I'm not aware of such "teaching" of Christ. After all, isn't that what we're talking about in this thread - what Jesus did NOT say about things? If he would have said anything, I'm assuming he'd probably say something against the death penalty.

And you would assume wrongly. In both the instance of the adulterer, when He himself was standing before Pilate, and, quite frankly, when He was being taunted to come down off the Cross, Jesus had an opportunity to refute the death penalty and chose not to do so. The Law, handed to the Jews by God, contained as a punishment a death sentence. As a practical matter, then and now, it was very rarely imposed in every instance which the law allows it to be used, entirely consistent with the manner in which Jesus handled the incident with the adulterer.

ZHawke wrote: 3. Was Jesus anti-wealth? On this one, I'd have to say I believe Jesus wasn't against having things. What he did, though, was warn others about becoming too materialistic in their endeavors. From what I've read, Jesus was trying to tell others God created us to love people and use things, but a materialist loves things and uses people - not an enviable trait by any stretch.

And here I agree with you 100%. However, and this is an important concept, God allows the person to choose their own path, he doesn't compel one to travel the path He would chose for you. The rich man who came asking him how he might obtain eternal life, Mark, Chapter 10. Jesus told the man what he must do to cure the one thing he lacked, but he did not compel him to do it. The choice was the man's to make and live with. When the central government decides who will get your money, and how much of your money they require to redistribute it to people of their choosing, that basic right of free choice, one of the natural rights endowed upon us by our Creator, as this passage shows, is taken from you using the force of government.

ZHawke wrote: 4. Was Jesus anti-public prayer? I'd have to say the Sermon on the Mount is quite different from the context of public prayer we're talking about here. On this one, I believe Jesus was warning about people being hypocritical when praying in public. Mathew 6:5 goes into more detail on this.

So the context in which this happens is one where Jesus is condemning hypocritical prayer in public, not prayer in public. Prayer which is designed to bring attention to the one praying rather than designed to glorify their Creator. So here again, nothing in the scriptures is, as your earlier meme alleged, anti-all-public prayer, with the resulting inference that your religion should be checked at your front door or at the door of your place of worship and not brought out into the general society.

ZHawke wrote: 5. The prostitute and crooks thing - well, my understanding is he welcomed them to come follow him. If that was encouraging them to alter their "evil ways", then I'm ok with that because he was inviting them to hang out by virtue of following him.

He welcomed them to be with him as long as they left their evil ways behind them. Important part of the equation Z. With the adulterer talked of earlier, Jesus spared her life, but He didn't say go and return to the man you were having an affair with, He said to go and leave her life of sin behind her.

ZHawke wrote: Now, as far as the rest of the meme being malarkey is concerned, if one Googles "was Jesus a radical", the results are telling.

Radical as in proceeding from a root, certainly, but I don't think that is the context in which you are using the term. Radical as in extreme, the context I believe you intend, I would strenuously disagree with.

ZHawke wrote: Was Jesus non-violent?
<snip>
To me, this is just one of those situations where an open mind (hopefully my own, for sure) will accept that Jesus, on Earth, was human. As such, he was more than likely also prone to some human qualities, some of which were talked about in this article. So, PS, this one, I'll give to you, not as being "malarkey", but, rather, as being less than correct.

There is such a thing as righteous anger Z, and from my POV that describes the actions of Jesus when he cleansed the temple area, not human failings.

ZHawke wrote: Was Jesus a revolutionary? Again, just Googling that question results in some pretty telling links.

I suppose that may be true if one is willing to redefine the word revolutionary to effect the simile.

ZHawke wrote: Was Jesus anti-gay, pro or anti abortion or birth control, or any of the rest of the statement by John Fugelsang is concerned, once again it goes to the fact he never said anything at all about those things according to what I've seen. Torture, tax cuts for the wealthy, fees for health care - nada, zip, zilch unless I'm missing something here.

To the best of my knowledge Z, the issue is not now, nor has it ever been, about being homosexual, the issue has instead been homosexual acts. Sexual immorality, whether between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, are impure acts and offensive to God. In Matthew 19 Jesus specifically references only one relationship sanctioned by God, the one between a man and a woman, where a man will leave his father and mother to be united with his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. He even goes onto talk about a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. Now, there are an awful lot of Christians who want to ignore that passage as well in pursuit of their sexual desires, but we are supposed to be the masters of our desires, not slaves to them, and refrain ourselves from participation in them. Back to Matthew 5 where Jesus states that He is not there to abolish the law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them.

And you really don't want to get into the Christian aspect of the intentional destruction of a child in the womb Z, you really, really, don't want to go there. I can dismantle that one using science alone and without resorting to Christian teachings. But I will give you one anyway. Genesis 25, where scripture refers to the unborn children, Jacob and Esau, jostling within Rebekah's womb. Children Z, not fetuses, children. In the eye of God, if not the law of man, the destruction of human life in the womb is murder because the life within the womb is a child of God, just as the mother is. There is a reason we call a pregnant woman "heavy with child". If you want another one, Luke 1, where Mary visits Elizabeth and Elizabeth's baby (John the Baptist) leaps in her womb upon hearing Mary's greeting. That's a reference in both the Old and New Testaments to a child in the womb.

Nowhere in any teaching in the Bible will you find reference to anyone being entitled to that which belongs to another. A person's skills are something that belongs to them and you have no entitlement, no right of seizure, to those skills without compensation Z. Whether it is a plumber or a doctor, you have no right to their services simply because you exist. That said, Matthew 25 instructs us to feed the poor, clothe the naked, welcome the strangers, tend to the sick and visit the imprisoned. Now whether or not you can get credit for doing that simply by remitting taxes to the central government is a horse of a different color as far as I am concerned. Salvation is an individual accomplishment, not a collective one. There is no such thing as collective salvation Z, it doesn't exist, and Liberation Theology has been specifically disavowed by the Holy See under Saint Pope John Paul II.

Reverend Revelant wrote: I tired to set up some fair parameters for this discussion and "yep," the first thing PS does is slam a graphic from further up thread. And then we get a lot of personal opinion from PS without deferring directly to scriptures.

Referring to the Passion isn't a reference to Scriptures? Sermon on the Mount isn't a reference to Scriptures? Joseph of Arimathea appears nowhere in Scriptures?

Sounds like you're upset that the people playing in the sandbox aren't following your rules Rev.

Part of the reason I don't cite chapter and verse is so that others can investigate, if they are so inclined, and read for themselves that which is referred to. Reading only one or two of the verses encourages that which I rail against on a regular basis - parsing text for the purpose of removing it from the context in which it was offered and substituting in its place context you wish for others to assign to it.

You are certainly more than welcome to add in the actual Greek words used to either refute or strengthen the points I make, but I desired to conduct this more along the lines of a conversation, not a theological lecture. That, and my Greek really isn't that good, I do much better with Latin, and my own journey through the Scriptures has been conducted in my native language, not Greek. I'm not a biblical scholar, I never attended seminary, I'm just a regular everyday Catholic who once upon a time found myself, as most do, questioning the religion I was brought up in and decided that I needed more information than I had if I was going to continue to call myself a Catholic, or a Christian for that matter.

I had some long discussions with my great-uncle Gregory, whom most referred to as Monsignor Smith or Father Gregory, while he was retired and residing with the Little Sisters of the Poor, with a priest from my childhood, Right Reverend Joseph M. O'Malley, whom everyone called Father O'Malley, as well as views outside of the Catholic Church, including secular views, regarding both Old and New Testament. That knowledge served to strengthen some beliefs and alter others. Believe it or not, I was once a supporter of a woman's right to destroy the life she carried within her and held other views which the current Pontiff refers to as "Alternativist", which is part of why I understand the misguided arguments offered up by others as well as I do in many instances.

Saw this and was wondering if anyone knows whether it is true or not:

Whether it makes a difference if it is, in fact, true I suppose will be open to discussion.

PrintSmith wrote: But did he say, as you are implying, that he was anti-death penalty, that there should be no death penalty? If you remember your scripture, John, Chapter 8, you will remember that the Pharisees brought the woman to Jesus in order to trap him into saying what you are alleging is the case, that the death penalty was wrong, which he did not say. The inference then is that is should be reserved, seldom used, instead of in every instance where it might be used. The last words Jesus spoke to her were to forgive her her sin (neither do I condemn you), as only God can do, and then to tell her to go and leave her life of sin behind her. This speaks to God's willingness to forgive us of our sins and of His love for us.

Did he say he was pro-death penalty? Inferences aside, Jesus said neither. To me, that means he would be more inclined to be anti than pro.

PrintSmith wrote: And you would assume wrongly. In both the instance of the adulterer, when He himself was standing before Pilate, and, quite frankly, when He was being taunted to come down off the Cross, Jesus had an opportunity to refute the death penalty and chose not to do so. The Law, handed to the Jews by God, contained as a punishment a death sentence. As a practical matter, then and now, it was very rarely imposed in every instance which the law allows it to be used, entirely consistent with the manner in which Jesus handled the incident with the adulterer.

Why would I "assume wrongly"? Because Jesus did not "refute" the death penalty does not therefore mean he supported it, either. When you say "the law, handed to the Jews by God, contained as a punishment a death sentence", if one were to look at all the laws, especially in the Old Testament, that required death if "broken", one might also begin to wonder just what kind of benevolent and just God we are talking about. Also, when you come right down to it, your statement about refutation of the death penalty while being taunted to come down off the cross is pretty ridiculous on its face when you think about it. Here's our Lord and Savior with a crown of thorns digging into his skull, spikes driven through his hands and feet, a stab wound through his ribs from a spear, more than likely having a very difficult time breathing (a well documented side effect of being crucified), and you really expect anyone to believe he would choose at that particular moment in time to "refute the death penalty", to shout down to his tormentors "ya'll shouldn't be doing this cuz it's just wrong, I tell ya"? Sorry for being a bit on the sarcastic side of things here, but do you realize how ludicrous what you are saying actually sounds?

PrintSmith wrote: And here I agree with you 100%. However, and this is an important concept, God allows the person to choose their own path, he doesn't compel one to travel the path He would chose for you. The rich man who came asking him how he might obtain eternal life, Mark, Chapter 10. Jesus told the man what he must do to cure the one thing he lacked, but he did not compel him to do it. The choice was the man's to make and live with. When the central government decides who will get your money, and how much of your money they require to redistribute it to people of their choosing, that basic right of free choice, one of the natural rights endowed upon us by our Creator, as this passage shows, is taken from you using the force of government.

Define "force". We aren't talking about being "forced" to do anything here, or even being "compelled" to do anything. Rather, we are talking about the issue of "materialism" and its effects on how we treat others. If, by your reference to the "central government", you are referring to taxation, there are some who would argue that taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. Whether those taxes are too high, too low, or just right is in the eye of the beholder. Even Jesus said "render unto Caesar", didn't he?

PrintSmith wrote: So the context in which this happens is one where Jesus is condemning hypocritical prayer in public, not prayer in public. Prayer which is designed to bring attention to the one praying rather than designed to glorify their Creator. So here again, nothing in the scriptures is, as your earlier meme alleged, anti-all-public prayer, with the resulting inference that your religion should be checked at your front door or at the door of your place of worship and not brought out into the general society.

You were the one who used the Sermon on the Mount as an example of public prayer. I believe that example is not representative of our discussion. You also substituted the words "anti-all-public-prayer". That's your inference and interpretation. I think we both know that isn't what was intended here.

PrintSmith wrote: He welcomed them to be with him as long as they left their evil ways behind them. Important part of the equation Z. With the adulterer talked of earlier, Jesus spared her life, but He didn't say go and return to the man you were having an affair with, He said to go and leave her life of sin behind her.

Again, I'm ok with what Jesus said and did here because he, in essence, was inviting them to hang with him by virtue of them following him. If you want to put your spin on it, by all means do.

PrintSmith wrote: Radical as in proceeding from a root, certainly, but I don't think that is the context in which you are using the term. Radical as in extreme, the context I believe you intend, I would strenuously disagree with.

Why?

PrintSmith wrote: There is such a thing as righteous anger Z, and from my POV that describes the actions of Jesus when he cleansed the temple area, not human failings.

I simply cannot accept that. Righteous anger is something we all have a tendency to feel when we've been wronged, or someone we know has been wronged. It's a very basic human feeling. Jesus was on Earth in human form. If you can cite where in the Bible that Jesus wasn't subject to human feelings I'll change my position on this. I'm just not aware of him denying his human characteristics anywhere in the Bible. One can infer from some of the things he said (I am the Son of God, for example) that this would constitute denial. But I'm not buying that.

PrintSmith wrote: I suppose that may be true if one is willing to redefine the word revolutionary to effect the simile.

Try Googling it.

PrintSmith wrote: To the best of my knowledge Z, the issue is not now, nor has it ever been, about being homosexual, the issue has instead been homosexual acts. Sexual immorality, whether between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, are impure acts and offensive to God. In Matthew 19 Jesus specifically references only one relationship sanctioned by God, the one between a man and a woman, where a man will leave his father and mother to be united with his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. He even goes onto talk about a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. Now, there are an awful lot of Christians who want to ignore that passage as well in pursuit of their sexual desires, but we are supposed to be the masters of our desires, not slaves to them, and refrain ourselves from participation in them. Back to Matthew 5 where Jesus states that He is not there to abolish the law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them.

Sorry, P, but I just don't see this the way you do. By your statement, one could infer you have no problem with someone being a homosexual, but you do have a problem with homosexual sexuality?

Truth is, if we aren't talking about being homosexual, then what, specifically are we talking about? In a "biblical" sense, how were homosexuals treated by the general population in Old Testament times? How about during Jesus lifetime? Is it any different today? I believe it may, in fact, be different today than back then. Why do we see so much hatred toward homosexuals today? Is it because of their being homosexuals or because of their homosexual behavior? Why are some in religious communities calling for the execution and extermination of homosexuals? I'd say that goes beyond, way beyond a condemnation of marriage equality for LGBT folks. And, as far as the reference to Matthew 19 goes, I don't see this chapter of the Bible the way you appear to see it. That God created man and woman doesn't mean that is the only relationship "sanctioned" by God. In fact, I didn't see the word "sanctioned" anywhere in this passage of the Bible.

PrintSmith wrote: And you really don't want to get into the Christian aspect of the intentional destruction of a child in the womb Z, you really, really, don't want to go there. I can dismantle that one using science alone and without resorting to Christian teachings. But I will give you one anyway. Genesis 25, where scripture refers to the unborn children, Jacob and Esau, jostling within Rebekah's womb. Children Z, not fetuses, children. In the eye of God, if not the law of man, the destruction of human life in the womb is murder because the life within the womb is a child of God, just as the mother is. There is a reason we call a pregnant woman "heavy with child". If you want another one, Luke 1, where Mary visits Elizabeth and Elizabeth's baby (John the Baptist) leaps in her womb upon hearing Mary's greeting. That's a reference in both the Old and New Testaments to a child in the womb.

Oh, thank you, P, for giving me an admonition not to challenge you. We aren't even talking about what "counts" as a human life in this discussion. We are, however, talking about whether or not Jesus said anything specifically for or against abortion. To my knowledge, he did not. Show me where he did specifically talk about being anti-abortion, and I'll retract.

PrintSmith wrote: Nowhere in any teaching in the Bible will you find reference to anyone being entitled to that which belongs to another. A person's skills are something that belongs to them and you have no entitlement, no right of seizure, to those skills without compensation Z. Whether it is a plumber or a doctor, you have no right to their services simply because you exist. That said, Matthew 25 instructs us to feed the poor, clothe the naked, welcome the strangers, tend to the sick and visit the imprisoned. Now whether or not you can get credit for doing that simply by remitting taxes to the central government is a horse of a different color as far as I am concerned. Salvation is an individual accomplishment, not a collective one. There is no such thing as collective salvation Z, it doesn't exist, and Liberation Theology has been specifically disavowed by the Holy See under Saint Pope John Paul II.

And, therefore, because a Catholic Pope and the Holy See declared it so means it is so? Perhaps for you. Not necessarily for me.

I really don't know where you come up with some of the stuff you do sometimes, P. I don't remember ever saying anyone is entitled to that which belongs to another. Your perception of a "welfare state" and mine do not mesh one iota.

Also, the example you give of getting "credit" simply by remitting taxes to the central government is so far removed from this discussion, it hardly merits a response. But I'll give one anyway (as you are also prone to do on occasion). "Salvation" is a many dimensional thing, P with several different meanings. In a religious context, I believe I understand where you're coming from regarding "collective salvation". In a more practical application, however, salvation goes beyond deliverance from sin and its consequences, and can, in fact, be applied in a more "collective" sense.