"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." - Romans 1:26-27
Romans is written by Paul as a letter to the people of Rome. The time frame is a little unclear though. Paul says that he has longed to visit Rome, but has been unable to "until now". Does this mean he's about to go to Rome (right after his trial)? Or that he's already in Rome? If it's the latter there's not much reason for him to be writing a letter.
The first thing Paul talks about after his introduction is God's wrath against the world. He first talks about atheists (godless people). These atheists, claims Paul, are suppressing God's message, because God has so obviously made himself clear. He says this: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse". Somehow I think believers in Thor and Zeus would debate you on how clear the Judeo-Christian God reveals himself.
Because of this godlessness, God "gave them over" to all sorts of sexual desires. Does this mean to say that sexual impurity is some sort of punishment for sin? The sexual impurity that Paul mentions is homosexuality. This is the first time that female homosexuals are mentioned.
Paul goes on to mention all sorts of other wickedness including greed, gossip, strife, deceit, disobeying parents, and being senseless. Paul says that all of these things are deserving of death. This would also imply that all these sins are about as bad as the homosexuality.
However, at the beginning of chapter 2, Paul says that nobody can pass judgement on anyone else, because we are all guilty of at least one of these aforementioned wickednesses. Paul says that the very things you condemn other people for are the things you do. Why do the people who use Romans to condemn gays then ignore this paragraph about not judging people?
Paul then goes on a rant about circumcision. And how someone who is circumcised, yet breaks the law, is like someone who isn't circumcised. However, he says that if you're not circumcised, yet follow the law, can still be righteous. Then what's the point of cutting of part of your penis? It seems to make absolutely no difference.
This all leads up to the end of chapter three where Paul says that we all sin, and that our only way to redemption is through Jesus. Finally, we receive this revelation. It seems that up to this point, Jesus has been more about bringing the Holy Spirit/wisdom to humanity than actually atoning for our sins.
A vicar from London says that Christianity needs some "street talk":
Rev Michael Land is encouraging worshippers to get 'streetwise' by swearing.
Offering up some encouragement he sermonised about a recent road rage incident where he told a motorist to ‘**** off ’ while wearing his dog collar.
The 67-year-old even claimed that Jesus regularly liked to swear and urged church-goers not to ‘place him on a pedestal’.
Where exactly does Jesus cuss up a storm in the bible? I think telling a fellow motorist to "fuck off" is rather contrary to the "love your enemy" concept. Jesus also said that hate coming out of your mouth would imply hate in your heart, and you're not supposed to hate anyone.
I would agree with him if he were merely saying that Christians should be allowed to use those words. I don't think there's anything about the word "fuck" that makes it inherently bad. It's all about the context in which the Reverend used the word.
He said: ‘The church needs to modernise and that means keeping up with the trends in language. People view Jesus through tinted spectacles and place him on a pedestal.
‘The reality is that he was poor, lacked any real education and did not fraternise with Pharisees or scholars. People today would probably be quite shocked at the language he used.’
Who's side is this guy on? The bible says that Jesus did fraternize with Pharisees and scholars. The bible says that Jesus was thoroughly educated on the Old Testament laws. Has this guy read the bible? Of course, everyone can choose for themselves whether the bible is absolutely true or not, but it seems like at least Reverends need to tow the party line.
The vicar also has a less than traditionally Christian view about doorstep begging, adding: ‘Whilst working in London I would often have people knocking on my door and asking for money. ‘I would never give in and usually shut the door on them. Just because I am a vicar I am not a soft touch.’
He wouldn't give to a poor person that came to his door? One of Jesus's biggest messages (if not the biggest) was to give all your money away. How could he have missed the mark this much?
In the name of experiment, I guess I should at least try this "street talk" thing (in the name of bringing myself closer to God, of course). So here it is: Dear Reverend Land, you're a fucking idiot. Yeah, that just made me sound like a douchebag.
(via Mail Online)