New religion

[Keovar]

The "it's not a religion, it's a relationship" or "it's not a religion, it's a philosophy", or even "the cross isn't a religious symbol, it's a secular one" stuff is an attempt to tunnel under the wall of state & church separation... but it only lasts until their religious tax-exemption status is questioned.

It's a religion, and until there's evidence proportional to its claims, I don't buy it.

[memimemi]

"35 For I am come 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.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37 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." (Matthew 10:35-37, King James Bible)



"51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Luke 12:51-53, ibid)

New relationships, indeed.  Bring these quotes up, next time any would-be thumper wants to preach about 'family values.'

[Keolino]

"35 For I am come 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.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37 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." (Matthew 10:35-37, King James Bible)



"51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Luke 12:51-53, ibid)

New relationships, indeed.  Bring these quotes up, next time any would-be thumper wants to preach about 'family values.'

Another one who thinks that quoting that book will prove anything...

[memimemi]

"35 For I am come 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.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37 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." (Matthew 10:35-37, King James Bible)



"51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Luke 12:51-53, ibid)

New relationships, indeed.  Bring these quotes up, next time any would-be thumper wants to preach about 'family values.'

Another one who thinks that quoting that book will prove anything...

What is it about the New Testament that isn't relevant to this discussion?  What was I trying to 'prove?'

What is it about the Religion sub-board that leads people to think they can read my mind?

[Keolino]

What is it about the Religion sub-board that leads people to think they can read my mind?

Why do you attack everybody...? That "think they can read my mind"  is my personal thing... Oh wait, majofa did the same thing But really, you are easier to read than that book we are talking about...

^^And to prove it, you are very upset that I even think that I can read you like a book.

Oh and by the way, I didn't say that you want to "prove" something, I said that "you think it can prove something", so basically I said that "you think that that book has enough value to prove something" otherwise you wouldn't have brought up quotes from it to negate the starting post about "relationships".

[memimemi]

What is it about the Religion sub-board that leads people to think they can read my mind?

Why do you attack everybody...? That "think they can read my mind"  is my personal thing... Oh wait, majofa did the same thing But really, you are easier to read than that book we are talking about...

^^And to prove it, you are very upset that I even think that I can read you like a book.

Oh and by the way, I didn't say that you want to "prove" something, I said that "you think it can prove something", so basically I said that "you think that that book has enough value to prove something" otherwise you wouldn't have brought up quotes from it to negate the starting post about "relationships".

I attacked nobody.  If you're uncomfortable with what the Gospels have to say about Jesus and human relationships, that's your problem, not mine.

It doesn't make a difference whether you claim to know what I want or what I think; both ideas would require a much more intimate knowledge of me than you could possibly glean from a single forum post, in which only two sentances were my own writing.

I'm not the one who thinks the Gospels prove anything; if I were, I'd have mentioned proof, dont you think?  I gave an honest response to the OP; nothing more, nothing less.

[Keolino]

I attacked nobody.  If you're uncomfortable with what the Gospels have to say about Jesus and human relationships, that's your problem, not mine.

--> another attack. And you are reading my thoughts right now as well, don't you. Anyway, you aren't exactly right. I am uncomfortable with people who are thinking that ancient texts have value just because they are old and "holy". I am not uncomfortable with the texts itself.

It doesn't make a difference whether you claim to know what I want or what I think; both ideas would require a much more intimate knowledge of me than you could possibly glean from a single forum post, in which only two sentances were my own writing.

--> You should know that a first glance about what people think doesn't require much...

I'm not the one who thinks the Gospels prove anything; if I were, I'd have mentioned proof, dont you think?  I gave an honest response to the OP; nothing more, nothing less.

I think we are both talking without the other one listening