Great, now you can leave the thread as kindly as you entered. There is no point asking a question if you have no commitment to answer a follow-up question.

I understand these exchanges can be tedious, but I think this far I've put in alot more effort than you did to be in a position of "migranes".

Cheers

Personally, I like how Christ narrowed it down to:

Matthew 19:1 -

"17-21 [...] but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me."

The basics, if actually adhered to, would make for wonderful disciples. The last part kind of prevents wealthy business men and politicians (the same ones initially discussed) from actually being Christians ironically.

I tought you knew I posted that picture because of you...

King David, who is in heaven, was a King, and as such not only ruled a nation, but was very wealthy.

Jesus wasn't condemning wealth in that challenge to the rich young ruler. Rather, he was testing his meekness, giving (generosity) and readiness to sacrifice all things for the sake of the gospel. How do we know that?

Well, did you know that Paul made tents to earn a living? He was a tradesman.

Jesus was a carpenter and lived in a home up until his ministry began, Nicodemus was a wealthy man, and so was Joseph of Arimathea (a disciple of Christ, the one who offered the tomb to bury Jesus). Cornelius was a centurion, and had a household.

Jesus does not condemn wealth and posession, he was simply challenging the man in his attachment to earthly posessions. Had the man passed the test, who know what Christ would have told him. "Go in peace, and give to the poor, but return to your house and be blessed", I don't know. Not all disciples were itinerants that much I know.

Remember, Jesus didn't say it was impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, but only that it was very difficult, as difficult as for a Camel to enter the eye of a needle (the narrow doorway into cities that required travelers to remove baggage attached to the camels to pass through).

I really don't care, honestly. I have enough people to respond to you're just making it harder.

I wish I could humor you, but I'm really not in the mood. Sorry :(

Let me help you. Bumbles was on the record as supporting gay marriage back in the '90s, conveniently changed his stance on the issue just in time to hit the national scene, and has now somehow "evolved" back to his original stance, all because he's an unprincipled shithead. Now, politicians are generally insincere twats, so I'm not surprised by that in the least. But the way everyone rides this particular guy's dick irks the hell out of me, the way the media fawned over him for "another historic moment" when it's their job to call him on this bullshit fucking infuriates me, and the way a lot of gays were falling all over themselves because he deigned to condone their lifestyle just made me very sad. No one should need that sort of validation, and especially not from a politician.

I don't agree with Dan Cathy, but the fact that he stands by his beliefs means that I can at least respect him. And the fact that his opponents are employing such totalitarian tactics makes me even find him a bit sympathetic.

I was thinking:  Fallout 4: Chick Fil Gay undead homophobe addition.  (Cause, just about, the only homophobes left are weird ancient undead ones.) 

The reason being against marriage equality is call being homophobic is because they is no legal or moral means to deny a same sex couple legal marriage rights.   It would be no different than saying women shouldn't have a right to vote cause it says they must always submit to a man in the Bible.  Yes, someone's interpretation of a religious book might give them an opinion, without a legitimate reason like natural law (such as murder is bad), you can't take away Civil Rights.

The Bible says having a slave is perfectly legitimate, but it is not, if you believe in equal civil rights.

It says nothing of the sort. it teaches evryone is equal

Don't you know that Philemon's slave Onesimus was a christian convert? Christianity never abolished slavery, since slavery does not mean unequal as a human being. You are not measured by God by your civil status.

Nevertheless, food for thought: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Philemon

Christianity is neither for or against slavery, but it certainly favors freedom according to the book of Philemon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery#Early_Christianity_2

• First, while Paul told slaves to obey their masters, he made no general defense of slavery, anymore than he made a general defense of the pagan government of Rome, which Christians were also instructed to obey despite its injustices (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). He seems simply to have regarded slavery as an intractable part of the social order, an order that he may well have thought would pass away shortly (1 Cor. 7:29-31).

• Second, Paul told masters to treat their slaves justly and kindly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), implying that slaves are not mere property for masters to do with as they please.

• Third, Paul implied that the brotherhood shared by Christians is ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery. In the case of the runaway slave Onesimus, Paul wrote to Philemon, the slave’s master, instructing him to receive Onesimus back “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother” (Philem. 6). With respect to salvation in Christ, Paul insisted that “there is neither slave nor free ... you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28).

• Fourth, the Christian principles of charity (“love your neighbor as yourself) and the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you”) espoused by the New Testament writers are ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery, even if, because of its deeply established role as a social institution, this point was not clearly understood by all at the time.

• Fifth, while the Christian Empire didn’t immediately outlaw slavery, some Church fathers (such as Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom) strongly denounced it. But then, the state has often failed to enact a just social order in accordance with Church teachings.

• Sixth, some early Christians liberated their slaves, while some churches redeemed slaves using the congregation’s common means. Other Christians even sacrificially sold themselves into slavery to emancipate others.

• Seventh, even where slavery was not altogether repudiated, slaves and free men had equal access to the sacraments, and many clerics were from slave backgrounds, including two popes (Pius I and Callistus). This implies a fundamental equality incompatible with slavery.

• Eighth, the Church ameliorated the harsher aspects of slavery in the Empire, even trying to protect slaves by law, until slavery all but disappeared in the West. It was, of course, to re-emerge during the Renaissance, as Europeans encountered Muslim slave traders and the indigenous peoples of the Americas.