Christian BS

[awesome31312]

Those who say "Oh, it's not 'real' Christianity", need to look up what the "No true Scotsman fallacy" is

Not applicable. Almost every Christian adheres to (... or rather, is supposed to) an explicit ruleset created in the New Testament along with some additional axioms carried over from the Old Testament. Each denomination has specific interpretations (by man) providing a strict ruleset, but obviously, there can be only one truth with regards to God's and Christ's intentions, and most denominations declare their ruleset follows that intent. For example, some denominations have rules where phrasing that last sentence as "God's and Christ's" would be blasphemy, and there would be no room for interpretation because their men have interpreted the intent of God's and Christ's intent in that way. -But most denominations have liberalized over the years, some even becoming secular/"non-denominational," conceding morality in exchange for a larger member base accepting a vague, flexible - useless - ruleset.

As I was raised, a Catholic wouldn't be considered a true Christian because of their repeat violations both explicitly in their laws and implicitly by actions done in the name of Christ (rather, the Pope and, in older times, government controlling the pope). They've scrubbed Christ's words for their own ends and functioned as an authoritarian, militant government with some ridiculous claim that they have the authority to kill people before living through their natural life and possessing all opportunities to accept their obligations as was intended by God. They're considered idolaters who insist on putting decadent false prophets before Christ, and are necessarily disconnected from the message of Christ. I mean -- forget Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Confucians, and Buddhists, because these Catholics are running around like wolves in sheep's clothing who all need to be explicitly excommunicated - at least everyone else has a different ruleset. -but I was raised Baptist (really, Anabaptist) with a strong iconoclast sentiment pounded into us where a church owning property is itself a sinful act. It's not "no true Christian," it's "here're the rules you've institutionalized violation of, thus becoming a puppet of the devil." There wasn't some exhaustive text on what kind of ideas and rules you had to accept to be a Scot, but there are exhaustive texts on what you need to accept to be a Christian.

Incidentally, I haven't fully shaken Baptism from my own code. I found myself mildly offended when a great-aunt-in-law "baptized" my daughter when she was an infant (she didn't realize she was seen), not because my daughter was being involuntarily associated with stupid Christian rituals with absolutely zero effect, but because it made a statement to God that she accepted Christ and His ruleset without her being able to declare it herself. It's like a government forcing someone to be a citizen because they were born in a certain location. -Like, she can't even speak and you violated her sacred obligation as a creation of God (which, by God, only she has liberty to reject or accept) -- the very idea that a Catholic implies they have God-given authority over my daughter's soul offended me, as well as being offended on God's behalf since I was raised to be very sure this was an explicit rule violation. I know it's dumb as Hell, but it initially struck me as a rule violation which'd piss God off, because now if she wants to make a commitment to adhere to Christianity, she has to reject the Catholic soul-fascism at her real baptism, which means I have to talk to her about why her great aunt is an unwitting agent of Satan.

Part of that "rule-set" is to kill your son if he is caught listening to hip hop

Most Bible Old Testament law was for Israel/Jews only.

Love for God above all things, and love for your fellow human being as yourself is for everyone.

The rules for non-Israel/non-Jews are:
1. abstain from food polluted by idols;
2. abstain from sexual immorality;
3. abstain from eating the meat of strangled animals;
4. abstain from eating blood.

Your choice is one of the 2 positions above... be a Jew or don't be one.

If you don't follow loving God above all things, and your fellow human being as yourself, you are lost. If you die without changing, you will be lost permanently. If you accept being a Jew, follow all the Jewish laws. If you don't want to be a Jew, then follow the 4 that are listed.

Everyone is required to love God above all things, and to love fellow human beings as himself/herself.

All this stuff about how God is requiring ridiculous stuff from everyone, is itself ridiculous. Follow what I have written here, and you will be just fine. The only other thing for eternal life is to believe in Jesus, that He will raise you from the dead to life.

Get off all this nonsensical bickering about how bad Jewish laws were for the Jews. If you are not a Jew, they don't apply to you, no matter what the churches say. Remember, church leaders go into training. And a lot of the training is in what the Jews believed. So, they can't help it when they tell you to do like Jews even though you are not Jews.

Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


Are you saying the OT is obsolete? Does that mean incest is okay by God's command, since you know, the NT does not prohibit that anywhere?

Incest is not love, even though it might seem very loving depending on the partners.  

The place in the Acts of the Apostles that listed the 4 rules for Gentile converts to Christianity also says wording to the effect of, "for the law is preached every sabbath in all the synagogs."

That doesn't answer my question

[BADecker]

Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Who did Jesus speak these words to? Wasn't it the Jews?

Are you saying the OT is obsolete? Does that mean incest is okay by God's command, since you know, the NT does not prohibit that anywhere?

I have never said the OT is obsolete. That's the trouble with people. They want to satisfy their own lusts, and so they read all kinds of things into what their teachers say. Now watch this. Somebody is going to say something like, "What's this BADecker trying to say, now? That he's our teacher?"

[BADecker]

Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


Are you saying the OT is obsolete? Does that mean incest is okay by God's command, since you know, the NT does not prohibit that anywhere?

Incest is not love, even though it might seem very loving depending on the partners.  

The place in the Acts of the Apostles that listed the 4 rules for Gentile converts to Christianity also says wording to the effect of, "for the law is preached every sabbath in all the synagogs."

That doesn't answer my question

I would have thought that someone who is so much into riddle-like mathematical equation suggestions, would easily have seen the answer in that.

[awesome31312]

Do you think homosexuals should be stoned?

[BADecker]

Why wreck good stones? 

[awesome31312]

Why wreck good stones? 

That's a good Christian. Jesus would be proud, if he existed that is.

[the joint]

Why wreck good stones? 

Self-preservation.  One less rock hurled at them means one more to hurl at you.

[awesome31312]

the only kind of stoning gay people receive in Uruguay is the good kind

[BADecker]

Now that we are on the gay thing, homosexuality has no beneficial function in nature.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with good, loving friendships. Multitudes of people of the same sex are best of friends. They often love each other so deeply that they would die for their friends of the same sex. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is a good thing.

Sexual activity has ONE reason for existing... propagation of the species. Homosexuality does NOT do this... propagate the species. Everything that is good that is found in homosexuality, can be found in people that are best of friends.

Be good friends. Be best of friends. Drop the homosexual part, because it is essentially unnatural. In its bad parts, it can ruin people's lives.

[the joint]

Now that we are on the gay thing, homosexuality has no beneficial function in nature.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with good, loving friendships. Multitudes of people of the same sex are best of friends. They often love each other so deeply that they would die for their friends of the same sex. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is a good thing.

Sexual activity has ONE reason for existing... propagation of the species. Homosexuality does NOT do this... propagate the species. Everything that is good that is found in homosexuality, can be found in people that are best of friends.

Be good friends. Be best of friends. Drop the homosexual part, because it is essentially unnatural. In its bad parts, it can ruin people's lives.

No, it doesn't, and you're an awful human being.  Your "ONE reason" is an unsound assumption.  Following your train of thought, sex of any kind is "unnatural" and "bad," and thus any time any two people have sex, regardless of whether they are hetero- or homosexual, it is always bad and unnatural if it does not result in a child.  

You must be an incredibly stupid person (I have no qualms about calling you names at this point because you're an embarrassment to me) to not realize that consenting sex between two individuals of any sexual orientation can be a symbolic act of love, and in such a case it deserves our utmost respect.  

You ought to be ashamed for saying this with a smile on your face and acting as though you shouldn't also be looking down your nose at, for example, your own parents, who undoubtedly didn't *only* have sex as many times as they had children.  It's also obvious by this conversation that your birth can ruin people's lives, so I'd argue what your parents did was pretty bad if you are the result.  God's children -- Born to Hate.

[BADecker]

Now that we are on the gay thing, homosexuality has no beneficial function in nature.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with good, loving friendships. Multitudes of people of the same sex are best of friends. They often love each other so deeply that they would die for their friends of the same sex. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is a good thing.

Sexual activity has ONE reason for existing... propagation of the species. Homosexuality does NOT do this... propagate the species. Everything that is good that is found in homosexuality, can be found in people that are best of friends.

Be good friends. Be best of friends. Drop the homosexual part, because it is essentially unnatural. In its bad parts, it can ruin people's lives.

No, it doesn't, and you're an awful human being.  Your "ONE reason" is an unsound assumption.  Following your train of thought, sex of any kind is "unnatural" and "bad," and thus any time any two people have sex, regardless of whether they are hetero- or homosexual, it is always bad and unnatural if it does not result in a child.  

You must be an incredibly stupid person (I have no qualms about calling you names at this point because you're an embarrassment to me) to not realize that consenting sex between two individuals of any sexual orientation can be a symbolic act of love, and in such a case it deserves our utmost respect.  

You ought to be ashamed for saying this with a smile on your face and acting as though you shouldn't also be looking down your nose at, for example, your own parents, who undoubtedly didn't *only* have sex as many times as they had children.  It's also obvious by this conversation that your birth can ruin people's lives, so I'd argue what your parents did was pretty bad if you are the result.  God's children -- Born to Hate.

You poor child. Were you abused by someone of the opposite sex in your life? Besides, I wasn't smiling. That was a Smiley on my post.

If that's the track you want to take, you're the one taking it, not me. There are many tracks off my train of thought. However, consider. Homosexuality doesn't produce offspring. Only heterosexuality does. All the rest of the stuff (except some of the health advantages that are found in heterosexuality only) can be found in deep friendship, even if it seems to be going in the direction of "sex," but doesn't quite get there.

Homosexuality is unnatural. Even the few heterosexual animals that partake of homosexuality show that they are flawed psychologically. Now, there isn't anything wrong with having flaws. Flaws are inherent in all of us as things stand. The thing that makes flaws into perversion is when people LIKE their flaws rather than trying to find ways out of them.

The comforting friendship between sexual partners of the opposite sex, when a child is not produced, are there to strengthen the relationship. The stronger relationship will beneficially affect future children, present children, adult children whose parents become more strongly bonded. But there isn't ever going to be any child produced by homosexual relations. So, why not simply be good friends, and avoid the perversion of being gay?

[the joint]

You poor child. Were you abused by someone of the opposite sex in your life? Besides, I wasn't smiling. That was a Smiley on my post.

Actually...

...irrelevant.

If that's the track you want to take, you're the one taking it, not me. There are many tracks off my train of thought. However, consider. Homosexuality doesn't produce offspring. Only heterosexuality does. All the rest of the stuff (except some of the health advantages that are found in heterosexuality only) can be found in deep friendship, even if it seems to be going in the direction of "sex," but doesn't quite get there.

So what if it produces offspring?  There's nothing logical about saying that having offspring is automatically good.  For the sake of your image, I wouldn't be arrogant while asserting a non-sequitur.  

Homosexuality is unnatural. Even the few heterosexual animals that partake of homosexuality show that they are flawed psychologically. Now, there isn't anything wrong with having flaws. Flaws are inherent in all of us as things stand. The thing that makes flaws into perversion is when people LIKE their flaws rather than trying to find ways out of them.

Which is it?  Unnatural or natural?  You recognized that animals have displayed homosexual tendencies (*hilarious* that you call them heterosexual and talk about their psychology, as if you interviewed them for Cosmopolitan or something).  

If that wasn't enough, you then try to equate "unnatural" to "flawed."  Um, no, you can't do that.

I'll give you another shot to demonstrate that what you said makes sense (hint: it doesn't).  Construct a deductive argument in the form of a series of premises that prove your conclusion(s), "Therefore, homosexuality is unnatural and bad."  If you can't, then I'll assume you have no idea what you're talking about (I'm being facetious, here; I already know you won't be able to, but I want you to see that you can't for yourself).

The comforting friendship between sexual partners of the opposite sex, when a child is not produced, are there to strengthen the relationship. The stronger relationship will beneficially affect future children, present children, adult children whose parents become more strongly bonded. But there isn't ever going to be any child produced by homosexual relations. So, why not simply be good friends, and avoid the perversion of being gay?

This is so full of stupid I am actively hoping bad things happen to you right now. You're a danger to humanity and you should be removed from this society, and if it were in my power to do so, I would.

[Lethn]

Why are you still arguing with him? lol it's obvious he's a psychopath.

[the joint]

Why are you still arguing with him? lol it's obvious he's a psychopath.

I get a kick out of debating against people I think are (edit: being) stupid.  It's the narcissist in me.

[Lethn]

I do too, but it's not worth it if they're not even intelligent enough to comprehend what you're saying.

[the joint]

I do too, but it's not worth it if they're not even intelligent enough to comprehend what you're saying.

That's the unknown variable that makes it all the worthwhile.  I guess that for a good number of 'his type,' they *are* intelligent enough, but will never let you admit it, and it's only when they put down the keyboard and are left alone to their thoughts do they admit to themselves, even if only tangentially, "Oh wait...what I said was pretty dumb.  Better make sure I don't say it that way again!"

[BADecker]

You poor child. Were you abused by someone of the opposite sex in your life? Besides, I wasn't smiling. That was a Smiley on my post.

Actually...

...but irrelevant.

If that's the track you want to take, you're the one taking it, not me. There are many tracks off my train of thought. However, consider. Homosexuality doesn't produce offspring. Only heterosexuality does. All the rest of the stuff (except some of the health advantages that are found in heterosexuality only) can be found in deep friendship, even if it seems to be going in the direction of "sex," but doesn't quite get there.

So what if it produces offspring?  There's nothing logical about saying that having offspring is automatically good.  For the sake of your image, I wouldn't be arrogant while asserting a non-sequitur. 

Homosexuality is unnatural. Even the few heterosexual animals that partake of homosexuality show that they are flawed psychologically. Now, there isn't anything wrong with having flaws. Flaws are inherent in all of us as things stand. The thing that makes flaws into perversion is when people LIKE their flaws rather than trying to find ways out of them.

Which is it?  Unnatural or natural?  You recognized that animals have displayed homosexual tendencies (*hilarious* that you call them heterosexual and talk about their psychology, as if you interviewed them for Cosmopolitan or something). 

If that wasn't enough, you then try to equate "unnatural" to "flawed."  Um, no, you can't do that.

I'll give you another shot to demonstrate that what you said makes sense (hint: it doesn't).  Construct a deductive argument in the form of a series of premises that prove your conclusion(s), "Therefore, homosexuality is unnatural and bad."  If you can't, then I'll assume you have no idea what you're talking about (I'm being facetious, here; I already know you won't be able to, but I want you to see that you can't for yourself).

The comforting friendship between sexual partners of the opposite sex, when a child is not produced, are there to strengthen the relationship. The stronger relationship will beneficially affect future children, present children, adult children whose parents become more strongly bonded. But there isn't ever going to be any child produced by homosexual relations. So, why not simply be good friends, and avoid the perversion of being gay?

This is so full of stupid I am actively hoping bad things happen to you right now. You're a danger to humanity and you should be removed from this society, and if it were in my power to do so, I would.

The point is, we can have enjoyment and pleasure in many ways. But the only natural biological way to make children is through sex. And the only way sex works is when the partners are of the opposite sex. That's what sex is designed for - having kids.

Want to have pleasure or enjoyment? Do it the many ways that exist outside of perverting the method that has been place there to have children.

[Lethn]

Ah, the old 'kid' attack pretending he's more of an adult by trying to belittle the people he's arguing with after being defeated by logic and reason.

[the joint]

You poor child. Were you abused by someone of the opposite sex in your life? Besides, I wasn't smiling. That was a Smiley on my post.

Actually...

...but irrelevant.

If that's the track you want to take, you're the one taking it, not me. There are many tracks off my train of thought. However, consider. Homosexuality doesn't produce offspring. Only heterosexuality does. All the rest of the stuff (except some of the health advantages that are found in heterosexuality only) can be found in deep friendship, even if it seems to be going in the direction of "sex," but doesn't quite get there.

So what if it produces offspring?  There's nothing logical about saying that having offspring is automatically good.  For the sake of your image, I wouldn't be arrogant while asserting a non-sequitur.  

Homosexuality is unnatural. Even the few heterosexual animals that partake of homosexuality show that they are flawed psychologically. Now, there isn't anything wrong with having flaws. Flaws are inherent in all of us as things stand. The thing that makes flaws into perversion is when people LIKE their flaws rather than trying to find ways out of them.

Which is it?  Unnatural or natural?  You recognized that animals have displayed homosexual tendencies (*hilarious* that you call them heterosexual and talk about their psychology, as if you interviewed them for Cosmopolitan or something).  

If that wasn't enough, you then try to equate "unnatural" to "flawed."  Um, no, you can't do that.

I'll give you another shot to demonstrate that what you said makes sense (hint: it doesn't).  Construct a deductive argument in the form of a series of premises that prove your conclusion(s), "Therefore, homosexuality is unnatural and bad."  If you can't, then I'll assume you have no idea what you're talking about (I'm being facetious, here; I already know you won't be able to, but I want you to see that you can't for yourself).

The comforting friendship between sexual partners of the opposite sex, when a child is not produced, are there to strengthen the relationship. The stronger relationship will beneficially affect future children, present children, adult children whose parents become more strongly bonded. But there isn't ever going to be any child produced by homosexual relations. So, why not simply be good friends, and avoid the perversion of being gay?

This is so full of stupid I am actively hoping bad things happen to you right now. You're a danger to humanity and you should be removed from this society, and if it were in my power to do so, I would.

The point is, we can have enjoyment and pleasure in many ways. But the only natural biological way to make children is through sex. And the only way sex works is when the partners are of the opposite sex. That's what sex is designed for - having kids.

Want to have pleasure or enjoyment? Do it the many ways that exist outside of perverting the method that has been place there to have children.

Phrase it as a deductive argument, smarty-pants.  You are asserting premises and conclusion(s), so you have all the ingredients you need to construct a good, deductive argument.

So show me!  This is your opportunity to organize your points in a way that is Universally recognizable, according to the very same rules of logic and reason that your creator endowed you with.

Go ahead. Make my day

Edit:

Here, I'll get you started.

Premise 1:  (Insert here)
Premise 2:  (Insert here)
Premises 3, 4, 5, etc., or however many you need: (Insert here)
Therefore:  Homosexuality is unnatural and bad.

All you need to do choose your premises and fill them in!    Shouldn't take you long.

[BADecker]

Ah, the old 'kid' attack pretending he's more of an adult by trying to belittle the people he's arguing with after being defeated by logic and reason.

Come on, Lethn. Help me build those people up who have already belittled themselves by expressing their favor for something so naturally perverted as homosexuality. The only way is to show them the light.