What Would YOU Do If . . .?

[David Brider]

I've asked this before on these forums quite a while ago but never seemed to get and answer- why the obsession with the fanfic? Paul wrote Corinthians, not Jesus. Jesus associated and ate with everyone. Jesus was a pretty hoopy frood but Paul comes across as a control freak, writing pages and pages of 'What Jesus really meant to say was...'

I'm not sure what I like better about this post - the description of Paul's letters as "fanfic" (because seriously, that puts the NT in a totally new light) or the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference ("Jesus was a pretty hoopy frood..." - I want the T-shirt! Now!)...

Love your God. Love your neighbour. That's it.

...although on balance it's probably that bit. 'Cos...just yeah.

David.

 

[wanderingone]

If they could get a job, I guess I would if they insisted on living in sin. If they are irresponsible enough to not follow the rules of the house they are living in, even when told of the consequences, then it is their problem.

Being able to work 20 hours a week is not being able to get a job and support oneself, and while there are some incredibly skillful adolescents out there who can handle independence most kids on the street are extraordinarily vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.

Putting your child out is not adult behavior, I just don't comprehend how one can believe it teaches a child anything about responsible behavior to dump them. There's no justification for abandoning your child.

 

[.Sabre.]

Being able to work 20 hours a week is not being able to get a job and support oneself, and while there are some incredibly skillful adolescents out there who can handle independence most kids on the street are extraordinarily vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.

Putting your child out is not adult behavior, I just don't comprehend how one can believe it teaches a child anything about responsible behavior to dump them. There's no justification for abandoning your child.

Quoting this because I so totally agree.

 

[Beanieboy]

I And choosing Buddhism because it's loose, does that mean because it's comfortable? Being a Christian isn't always easy, but the struggle makes it worth that much more.

I have to disagree with you.
I have a good friend that was a former Catholic. He told me that when he was Catholic, he simply confessed his sin, did some penance, and it was all good. Most of it was focused on action, less so that on thought. A thought not acted upon was even rewarded.

Buddhism teaches the opposite. You actions are a result of your words. Your words are a result of your thoughts. If you hate some, you say that you hate them, and then do bad things to them. If you simply hate them, and say so, but hold back from acting on it, you are still full of hatred. If you hate them, but don't speak it, you still have hate in your heart.

So, Buddhism teaches on to explore their deepest feelings, thoughts, beliefs, and challenge them. If you hate someone, you are to meditate on that person. One imagines that they are shrouded by clouds of dark smoke. You inhale that smoke away from them and into yourself, and breathe out light, and joy, and love, and warmth. In other words, you return curse with blessing. You focus your thoughts on loving that person.

My ex Catholic friend said that living a Zen Buddhist life was far more challenging, because it focused on one's thoughts, the source of the actions and words. You weren't to just hold back, but to change and challenge your very thoughts.

That is far harder.
Try it sometime.
You will see what I mean.

One can be Christian, go to church in their BMW, show off their designer clothes, and think themselves in line with their religion. As one pastor strangely put: God doesn't hate wealth. He wants that we have life, and have it abundantly..."

And yet, Christ talks about the seed that falls in the throrns, choked out by materialism. He warns of the difficulty of the wealthy man (who loves his wealth) in entering the kingdom.

Buddhism teaches become detached to materials, being happy with or without.
So does Christ, but it's easier to mask and ignore these days.

 

[hsmommyofmany]

You said when it conflicts with your view (opinion) of reality that you assume the Bible is wrong. I assume that I am wrong and it [the bible] is right.

i just have to say an amen to that

 

[OphidiaPhile]

i just have to say an amen to that

So you believe the bible over scientific research, that is extremely illogical.

 

[roflcopter101]

i just have to say an amen to that

Does that mean you think slavery is OK?

 

[Caitlin.ann]

How anyone could kick out or disown their child for something they are born with (or because of the way "god" made them) is beyond me.

 

[Archer93]

I have to disagree with you.
I have a good friend that was a former Catholic. He told me that when he was Catholic, he simply confessed his sin, did some penance, and it was all good. Most of it was focused on action, less so that on thought. A thought not acted upon was even rewarded.

Buddhism teaches the opposite. You actions are a result of your words. Your words are a result of your thoughts. If you hate some, you say that you hate them, and then do bad things to them. If you simply hate them, and say so, but hold back from acting on it, you are still full of hatred. If you hate them, but don't speak it, you still have hate in your heart.

So, Buddhism teaches on to explore their deepest feelings, thoughts, beliefs, and challenge them. If you hate someone, you are to meditate on that person. One imagines that they are shrouded by clouds of dark smoke. You inhale that smoke away from them and into yourself, and breathe out light, and joy, and love, and warmth. In other words, you return curse with blessing. You focus your thoughts on loving that person.

My ex Catholic friend said that living a Zen Buddhist life was far more challenging, because it focused on one's thoughts, the source of the actions and words. You weren't to just hold back, but to change and challenge your very thoughts.

That is far harder.
Try it sometime.
You will see what I mean.

Yes. This.
I am a pagan and a Thelemite, and I have been accused (I don't view it as an accusation but those who did so did) of being Christian in my tendancy to let go of anger at people and to keep on loving them instead.
But I have always felt that to hold on to anger hurts myself, as well as burning all bridges to reconcilation.
My approach of keeping on loving has served me well so far. And yes, also I have put myself in the other's shoes and realised why they were angry at me. How else can I hope to make recompense for what I have done to hurt them?
I changed my anger and hurt into understanding.
From that point comes the hope of healing.

 

[Wyzaard]

Hmmm... I guess angellica got tired of telling us all about how she would abandon her kids if they were less than biblically purse...

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

I slogged through the first 10 or 11 pages of this thread and just couldn't keep reading.

I cannot conceive of any circumstance that would cause me to disown my child. I cannot conceive of any circumstance, barring violence or abuse of another household member, that would cause me to remove my child from my home.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

I slogged through the first 10 or 11 pages of this thread and just couldn't keep reading.

I cannot conceive of any circumstance that would cause me to disown my child. I cannot conceive of any circumstance, barring violence or abuse of another household member, that would cause me to remove my child from my home.

+100

 

[KCKID]

I slogged through the first 10 or 11 pages of this thread and just couldn't keep reading.

I cannot conceive of any circumstance that would cause me to disown my child. I cannot conceive of any circumstance, barring violence or abuse of another household member, that would cause me to remove my child from my home.

But that someone would do so simply because they are under the influence of an ancient manuscript is mind boggling.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

So you believe the bible over scientific research, that is extremely illogical.

Does science lend support for debauchery, vice and perversion to be celebrated?

Does science replace morality, or redefine it somehow?

I would say that "science" supports the sound reasoning inherent in Apostolic/Gospel morality.

Take same-gender attempts at mating behavior. Totally unsound actions based on science and Biblical reality.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

But that someone would do so simply because they are under the influence of an ancient manuscript is mind boggling.

As opposed to say the DSM IV, a book written by men also?

 

[Gishin]

To me, the "gay lifestyle" is being gay and thinking that it is not sinful, regardless of whether there is sex involved.

Wow, I live the gay lifestyle, and I'm not even gay!

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Hmmm... I guess angellica got tired of telling us all about how she would abandon her kids if they were less than biblically purse...

She should have stuck around and seen how appropriate the story of Noah and Lot are.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Originally Posted by angellica To me, the "gay lifestyle" is being gay and thinking that it is not sinful, regardless of whether there is sex involved.

Wow, I live the gay lifestyle, and I'm not even gay!

It's nice to see an honest position stated from one of you guys. Now angellica has another peer in that department.

 

[Gishin]

I should have put sarcasm tags in the somewhere.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I should have put sarcasm tags in the somewhere.

Not all of the Sodomites were gay. One place in theology where the liberals seem to make a good point. Then you fast forward to Boston or San Francisco 2009, and you see why.