>lets not selectively read the bible

Hold on. Where did I say there wasn't a ranking? I said that wasn't the point, then spoke specifically to ranking and how people apply it to their lives versus how they apply it to others.

>and also... human beings are not jesus christ

Agreed. I'm not exactly all forgiving myself.

>shit even god (ok, o.t god) is not jesus x
>i dont know if that god changed in the new testament- because
>we now have christs teachings
>but that god definitely ranked sin
>and hell hath no fury
>
>(as a former catholic wont go into the whole trinity thing.)
>
>but even in the n.t. there is ranking in sin.
>(and its not just paul saying this - i mention paul becuase
>one can put his ministry into question).
>even those disciples
>
>mortal sin
>venial sin
>
>etc.
>
>and why are we talking religion in a post about personal
>choice and preference?

Because we're posting in the context of a board that often pushes against the likes of homosexuality on the basis of Christianity, but then wants exclusions and mitigations when that principle can be used against it.

>
>i mean, its eye-opening to know that some people here would
>have relationships with ex- peodophiles and ex-rapists

So, where's the line? Would you do business with them? Allow them access to public services? If we can have an appropriate prison sentence as a pre-requisite, what's the dividing line for what kind of personal contact is appropriate with someone who has done something heinous, if we're going to completely ignore the possibility of rehabilitation. Shit, why not just kill them then?

Once you go down this personal judgement road of what's eye-opening in regards to letting a criminal who has served their time to carry on a normal life afterwards, where do the judgment championships end? It all becomes very interesting to me in the context of Christianity (particularly on an American board).

If a person can't be rehabilitated or ever trusted again, what's the purpose of letting them back into society ever? What is then the purpose of letting them have three hots and a cot on that taxpayer's dime for the rest of their life?

There's a slope to these things that can end up in some troubling places.

>
>that choice does not necessarily have to come from people
>aspiring to be jesus
>