Landlord of California church whose pastor celebrated Orlando massacre will not renew church's leas

a reply to: research100

It happens lol, I just wanted to read the actual article.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: TrueBrit
Sorry, idea's have meaning, and there are a plethora of bad idea's contained within the bible.

No bad ideas in the bible. Bad interpretations of what the book says.

The scriptures were never intended to be read by the lay public.

Originally, only "Priests" had access to the scriptures. Priests have to be trained, take vows to live a strict lifestyle that enables them to see and understand the correct meaning in the verses, etc..

The scriptures were even deliberately written in a language that only a few highly educated could read and understand, like LATIN, to keep the public out.

Even before the scriptures were written, God had appointed certain family lines to deal with the knowledge on his behalf, to be go-between Himself and his peoples.

However, today, every Tom, Dick, and Harry, can read the book, in their favorite language, and although not understand the words, because they are not living the right type of life to see truth, they "interpret" according to their own will.

A Pastor is not a Priest. So, the only thing that comes out of a Pastor's mouth that anybody should pay attention to, is the verses he "reads" from the scriptures themselves. Pastors have no qualifications to interpret those words. They are just the "Megaphones" for the good news. Of course, I know, many Pastor's are "entertaining". But, never forget, that is what they do, entertain!

a reply to: TechniXcality

The aggregate is what counts here.

If you look inside the Bible, and count the number of times Christ speaks of loving ones fellow human beings, and then count the amount of times he instructs us to hate, kill, and teabag the corpses of our enemies, you will arrive at the same conclusion I have about his message. That being that the fellow was not a bad or intolerant man, either by today's standards, or those of the period he lived in.

You can believe, or not that he was the son of God, but you cannot deny that the fellow was decent. Screw the OT for a moment, just concentrate on the word of Christ himself.

a reply to: TrueBrit

This is what I have told many people. Because I do not believe he was the Son of God any more than we all are, but his message is always a beautiful one from empathy, sympathy, and just overall doing right by others.

Looks like the old guy from the Westboro Baptist Church was reincarnated into another old guy from a different baptist church.

a reply to: TechniXcality

Someone check the temperature over there in hell, not a word in here that I don't disagree with!

a reply to: AMPTAH

I take issue with your assertion that Christ intended for priests to stand between himself and his followers. In fact he specifically said that "none come to the Father, but through me".

If he had meant "through me and a legion of morally defunct kiddy fiddlers, usurpers, backstabbers, propagandists and politicians such as those in the Vatican" then I am sure that is what he would have said.

a reply to: research100

He'll be in hell with the broads who didn't vote for Hillary, per Madeline Albright.

Withdrawn.

This pastor is an embarrassment to himself, his family, his church and his species.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
There are consequences to free speech

A very simple and powerful message to ponder and in a nutshell, it is the cornerstone of social etiquette, respect and tolerance.

EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion, everyone also needs to be acutely aware that their opinion carries weight - to the point that the consequences of ones opinion can range from accolades through to death.

Something to keep in mind when you feel it is necessary to express yourself in public and/or among friends, family and strangers alike.

a reply to: AMPTAH

how convenient, only an authority of "God" can bestow the wisdom of the word, sounds very catholic of you, and quite disgusting, but is that so? is there scriptural support for this?

Romans 1:16 Rom. 1:16, For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Mark 16:15-16

15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Matthew 28:18-20

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Acts 1:8 ESV

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

I could go on and on, but the scripture makes it abundantly evident that anyone reading the scripture and who is a believer is qualified to spread the word and that they are disciples of Christ.

moving on now lets ask ourselves just in this context, is this a disgusting idea?

Romans 1:26-27) 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

The only answer is yes this is and it's a bigoted idea, "due penalty" for being homosexual? WHAT! anyway, believe what you all want, once again I grew up in a christian fundy home and I could do this all day long, so, yes my point stands the bible is filled with terrible idea's, and luckily there are enough redeeming qualities that Christianity can exist in a water downed state.

a reply to: TechniXcality

so theres no bible stuff against homosex? whats all the fuss then?

i thought the bible was explicitly against it, if its as ambiguous as other things it teaches, then its that preacher's own agenda i suppose.

a reply to: TechniXcality

Seriously.

Put the Old Testament aside, and read the word of Christ, not just a passage or two, but all of them. One after another. Only his words. Not those spoken by other characters in the text, JUST His.

Write them down, and count up which are loving and compassionate words, and which are full of fire and brimstone.

a reply to: Greggers

Interestingly that guy(Phelps) was excommunicated, supposedly because he had a change of heart.

a reply to: TrueBrit

no doubt Jesus was a pacifist, which is one of the most redeeming qualities of the bible, and Paul was a psychopath and the old testament was insanity, and revelation is equally crazy.

However, Jesus stands in staunch contrast to the prophet Muhammad, while Jesus's message preached tolerance and forgiveness, Muhammad spread war and destruction so this is why I do not look at the doctrines and idea's of religion on an equal moral plane thus obscuring each idea's moral weight. Instead, I judge them all through the flames of discernment, and dole out criticism where it is due, instead of hiding being the politically correct narrative that suggests religion is inherently moral.

I fundamentally disagree with that notion- religion is like any idea that attempts to answer the hard questions (ie. why am I here, what is my purpose, ect) and is subject to the same logical faults our own minds have when attempting to answer these questions, even worse religion notoriously engages in "us and them" thinking which is the basis of conflict and war. So yes, I will weigh these idea's, and some are better than others, though as an overall religion is a control mechanism and not beneficial to man kind.

a reply to: odzeandennz

It's not a matter of ambiguity.

It's a matter of selective reading. Christ said not to judge others, to love people, to look after the sick, the needy, the weak, the poor. He consorted with all manner of people previously considered pariah in their time, broke bread with them, a big deal in that age. He was a rebel. His statements in the Bible can be boiled down to :

love one another, don't be a bag of asses to one another, and leave the judgement to God.

There is, of course, far more to it than that. But twisting the word of Christ to suit an agenda is a time honoured tradition of all organised Christian institutions, which is why I choose to worship in my own way, and in my own company. It's a damned sight safer than trusting a clergyman of any denomination to speak for Jesus, when their own prejudices tend to muscle in more often than not.

Reduces the noise in the signal, if you catch my drift, doing it for oneself.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Agree'd, the only entity that tried to control the info/message was the church..knowledge is power.

That man is just awful, the sad fact is hes only goin to use this to try to prove that Christians are being persecuted.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Paul is not old testament, bad idea's exist throughout the bible.

a reply to: TechniXcality

Lol!

Paul is the psychopath, but Peter is the one who chopped a dudes ear off!

What? In any event, I think it must be said that if this pastor is a Christian, he simply read the book wrong, and that's all I can say on the matter.