His moral condition for "love" included the immutability of repentance. Or, unless one does not repent, they are either a non-believer, or one that is in the wrong and needs to be loved in either definition.kayky wrote:Thank you, Jax. Jesus taught only one standard for morality: love.Jax Agnesson wrote:
Being an atheist, I have no claim, and no right, to say what is or isn't 'Christian'. But looking at it from the outside, ISTM that nobody else, not even a Christian, has any right to make such a claim either.
Kayky is a Christian.
99% is a Christian.
Spong is a Christian.
So is Pope Francis.
I'm asking for some clarity here.
Every religion must have some way of agreeing what is universally (within the faith) recognised as sin and what is not.
Jews, Sunni Muslims, Roman Catholics, Unitarian Christians, and everyone in between, has access to the same set of ancient Scriptures, plus some more recent declarations, interpretations, prophesies, philosophical commentaries, and folk stories. It's not like Jewish, Muslim and Christian scholars have never read or debated each other's stuff.
So how 99% (for example) can with such apparent certainty declare Kayky wrong about God's will in a matter that is not universally agreeed within the faith is a genuine puzzle to me. How is it possible to know whether Jesus really said x, or what exactly He would have meant if He did say it?
PS: To interject, with no warrant whatsoever, my own impression here; from my vague and receding memories of what I once thought Christianity was all about, Kayky's compassion seems a lot more in keeping than 99%'s bigotry. But what the bleep do I know?
Love does not mean condoning sin and sinners.
Unless you have a Jesus NOT of thr Gospels that is. I guess a hippy guru Jesus could be seen as doing things quite more licentious than the real Jesus.