Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to WHEN DOES MAN'S LAWS OVERRIDE GOD'S LAWS?
Universal law of cause and effect (what goes around comes around)
See my blog on what God wants from man...
Each man has his own morality and sense of what is wrong or right. God's primary law for man, is cause and effect. You do this, you get that.
Jesus did not come to judge but to explain the way to salvation. He came to teach the way to the people (Rabbi). He was anointed with spiritual power to heal people and perform miracles (Messiah, or anointed one)
His main purpose was to provide simplification and unity to the commandments (the law) However Jesus only espoused 2 laws. Love God with all you've got (seek and you will find) and Love thy neighbour (what goes around comes around)
If you love something it responds positively and you benefit. If you hate something it responds negatively and you lose out. This epitomises Karma.
Morality is in the mind of man. Remember in the beginning we were all supposed to be naked. Our spirits and souls arrive and leave the body naked. We have developed clothes to provide warmth, but they hide our sexuality, which is God given.
As long as we violate the free will of others, having sex with them is not wrong. If it was so bad, then why do we spend our lives enjoying it so much.
posted by
Soterios
on February 3, 2007 at 1:46 AM
| link to this | reply
kooka_lives - I have as yet to see a person who wants to insist that the
bible is innerrent; reconcile the problem of selecting only what suits them.
Every person on this planet that belongs to a religion that uses an ancient holy book is doing exactly the same thing. Utilizing only selected and specific passages from the holy book as some form of important and heavily weighted reference guideline. Quite often as a means of strengthening or upholding the individual's perspective on specific issues, while they ignore anything within it that does not suit them. In the case that you reference from my post, both verses used were on the same bloody page in the bible for chrissakes! As a species we have collectively agreed that slavery is unconscionable and cannot be condoned. Where it is not an issue comparable to our society's coming to understand differing sexual preferences, should not the author of verses clearly condoning slavery (Leviticus) lose just a bit of credibility? Half of the verses accredited to this biblical persona have been trashed as redundant, meaningless and unworkable in a modern world.....what about the other half? A better question being; who chooses which of God's supposed inerrant words are now errant?
posted by
gomedome
on February 2, 2007 at 8:29 PM
| link to this | reply