Poll of the Day > Roy Moore said Jewish People are going to HELL..as well as ALL NON-CHRISTIANS!!!

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
streamofthesky 12/11/17 7:38:24 PM #51:	BlackScythe0 posted... Moore is to Christianity what ISIS is to Islam. I agree, but for a different reason than you. BlackScythe0 posted... This has nothing to do with Christians vs not Christians. This is simply about the morals, or in the case of Moore the lack of. Trump won 3/4 of evangelical and "very religious" voters despite being everything they should be against. Roy Moore will probably perform even better with that group, it's his core constituency. At what point do you call a spade a spade? It's easy to say a few morally bankrupt politicians aren't "true Christians." Are all these millions of Christians who repeatedly vote for, endorse, and rally for them also examples of "No True Scotsman" to you? <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:892034452] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote>Moore is to Christianity what ISIS is to Islam.</quote> I agree, but for a different reason than you. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote>This has nothing to do with Christians vs not Christians. This is simply about the morals, or in the case of Moore the lack of.</quote> Trump won 3/4 of evangelical and "very religious" voters despite being everything they should be against. Roy Moore will probably perform even better with that group, it's his core constituency. At what point do you call a spade a spade? It's easy to say a few morally bankrupt politicians aren't "true Christians." Are all these millions of Christians who repeatedly vote for, endorse, and rally for them also examples of "No True Scotsman" to you?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Maniac 12/11/17 8:23:17 PM #52:	BlackScythe0 posted... Both make poor interpretations of their religion to justify evil. It's clearly not meant to equate their impact on the world. If you choose to get angry because you want to see me trying to compare other things have fun! Once again, it's not an accurate comparison. I'm not going to explain why because I don't feel like losing 3 karma or getting suspended just to make a point that likely won't convince you anyway. I'm not mad that you made an inaccurate comparison, I'm just letting you know that you did so. --- "Remember kid, there's heroes and there's legends. Heroes get remembered, but legends never die. Follow your heart kid, and you'll never go wrong." <cite>Zero_Maniac posted [p:892037348] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote> Both make poor interpretations of their religion to justify evil. It's clearly not meant to equate their impact on the world. If you choose to get angry because you want to see me trying to compare other things have fun!</quote> Once again, it's not an accurate comparison. I'm not going to explain why because I don't feel like losing 3 karma or getting suspended just to make a point that likely won't convince you anyway. I'm not mad that you made an inaccurate comparison, I'm just letting you know that you did so.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 12/11/17 8:33:38 PM #53:	Zero_Maniac posted... BlackScythe0 posted... Both make poor interpretations of their religion to justify evil. It's clearly not meant to equate their impact on the world. If you choose to get angry because you want to see me trying to compare other things have fun! Once again, it's not an accurate comparison. I'm not going to explain why because I don't feel like losing 3 karma or getting suspended just to make a point that likely won't convince you anyway. I'm not mad that you made an inaccurate comparison, I'm just letting you know that you did so. You've merely decided you want to see your own thing. I stated my point. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:892037998] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote> Both make poor interpretations of their religion to justify evil. It's clearly not meant to equate their impact on the world. If you choose to get angry because you want to see me trying to compare other things have fun!</quote> Once again, it's not an accurate comparison. I'm not going to explain why because I don't feel like losing 3 karma or getting suspended just to make a point that likely won't convince you anyway. I'm not mad that you made an inaccurate comparison, I'm just letting you know that you did so.</quote> You've merely decided you want to see your own thing. I stated my point.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin 12/11/17 8:57:36 PM #54:	Don't say the ISIS thing, I'm already getting annoyed with the news about it lately... that IS has been defeated... All I can think of is an Onion article saying something like "An Islamic State defeats Islamic State in the name of Islamic State, Islamic State had this to say..." --- "Salt cures Everything!" My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos <cite>Lokarin posted [p:892039621] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote>Don't say the ISIS thing, I'm already getting annoyed with the news about it lately... that IS has been defeated... All I can think of is an Onion article saying something like "An Islamic State defeats Islamic State in the name of Islamic State, Islamic State had this to say..."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 12/11/17 8:57:47 PM #55:	adjl posted... Sociology is not a more arbitrary basis than biology. Living in a society with those norms is pretty unavoidable when we're talking about a society with those norms. Go to a different country, where people tend to start living on their own during high school? Yeah, the expectations of maturity would differ. But we're not looking at a different country. I hope you realize that your entire argument is fundamentally flawed. It's based around societal expectations which can literally be changed with the drop of a hat. If congress got together tomorrow and decided to up the increase or decrease the length of high school, your argument goes out the window and that's why it's wholly arbitrary. More importantly, maturation and responsibilities don't start at the end of high school. Most kids get jobs earlier on and vast majority of high school students have sex before they're done with high school. The argument, "Oh, they don't understand what sex is!", when they're already having it is weak at best. adjl posted... It's the difference between not needing to have your own money to survive and needing to. That's a pretty big deal, in terms of the need to make responsible life decisions. Student loans and continued support from parents tend to mean the transition is relatively gradual, but it's still a very big difference. Somebody who completed that transition over a decade prior actively seeking out a romantic partner who hasn't started it yet is definitely no bueno. And what age is that cutoff, exactly? Because there IS no guideline for it. If the argument is financial responsibility and independence, then you'd be setting AoC at closer to 25 for college students (particularly because kids are taking 5 years to finish their bachelors and then moving back in with their parents). Likewise, that's an even more arbitrary standard. It's like decreeing everybody must own a green hat before they can get a driver's license or tell you how many jellybeans are in the jar before they can vote. adjl posted... One could pretty easily argue that financial independence is the most important form of maturity here. When you get one person who's financially established picking up someone who isn't, there's always room to question whether the allure of financial support is playing a role in the latter person agreeing to the relationship. When the latter person is a minor, and the better-off person can offer them freedom from the looming threat of needing to support themselves? There's definitely a power imbalance there, and it's power imbalances that are the basis for the concept statutory rape. That, and while different forms of maturity certainly exist, they're not entirely independent of each other, barring some considerable mental health concerns. Acting as though they typically are is pretty absurd. By the logic, the rich shouldn't be allowed to date the poor. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:892039637] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Sociology is not a more arbitrary basis than biology. Living in a society with those norms is pretty unavoidable when we're talking about a society with those norms. Go to a different country, where people tend to start living on their own during high school? Yeah, the expectations of maturity would differ. But we're not looking at a different country. </quote> I hope you realize that your entire argument is fundamentally flawed. It's based around societal expectations which can literally be changed with the drop of a hat. If congress got together tomorrow and decided to up the increase or decrease the length of high school, your argument goes out the window and that's why it's wholly arbitrary. More importantly, maturation and responsibilities don't start at the end of high school. Most kids get jobs earlier on and vast majority of high school students have sex before they're done with high school. The argument, "Oh, they don't understand what sex is!", when they're already having it is weak at best. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>It's the difference between not needing to have your own money to survive and needing to. That's a pretty big deal, in terms of the need to make responsible life decisions. Student loans and continued support from parents tend to mean the transition is relatively gradual, but it's still a very big difference. Somebody who completed that transition over a decade prior actively seeking out a romantic partner who hasn't started it yet is definitely no bueno.</quote> And what age is that cutoff, exactly? Because there IS no guideline for it. If the argument is financial responsibility and independence, then you'd be setting AoC at closer to 25 for college students (particularly because kids are taking 5 years to finish their bachelors and then moving back in with their parents). Likewise, that's an even more arbitrary standard. It's like decreeing everybody must own a green hat before they can get a driver's license or tell you how many jellybeans are in the jar before they can vote. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>One could pretty easily argue that financial independence is the most important form of maturity here. When you get one person who's financially established picking up someone who isn't, there's always room to question whether the allure of financial support is playing a role in the latter person agreeing to the relationship. When the latter person is a minor, and the better-off person can offer them freedom from the looming threat of needing to support themselves? There's definitely a power imbalance there, and it's power imbalances that are the basis for the concept statutory rape. That, and while different forms of maturity certainly exist, they're not entirely independent of each other, barring some considerable mental health concerns. Acting as though they typically are is pretty absurd.</quote> By the logic, the rich shouldn't be allowed to date the poor.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 12/11/17 9:13:53 PM #56:	adjl posted... The standard, readily-understood definition is the vernacular one. That's what "vernacular" means. "Ephebophile" is not in the vernacular. It's a term used almost exclusively by people who are trying to downplay how creepy it is to pick up romantic partners in a high school by using pedantry to distract from the core issue, typically either because they are themselves inclined toward such behaviours, or because they can't handle the cognitive dissonance associated with somebody they like being a creepy wanker. The understood one pertains to actual children. The wrongly-used version is purposely done to confuse people into thinking that they're talking about a guy molesting 5 y/os because people are universally going to be upset over that as opposed to a guy who tried to sleep with a teen. You know this and that's why you use it. Likewise, it's why people are claiming that Moore raped teens instead of assaulted them because rape is more likely to provoke outrage despite the fact that's not what he's being accused of at all. It's propaganda, pure and simple. More importantly, it's a selectively-used, politically motivated propaganda. adjl posted... Saying? No. How you're acting? Absolutely. That was "What a creep." This is "guys, don't be so hard on him. He's not THAT much of a creep." Not at all. Again, this was 40 years ago. I only commented on the behavior which I called cringy (not creepy, which is YOUR spin). Even if you chose to read it as an indictment of his character at the time, it's like saying you're disgusting because you were wetting a diaper 30 years ago. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:892040682] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>The standard, readily-understood definition is the vernacular one. That's what "vernacular" means. "Ephebophile" is not in the vernacular. It's a term used almost exclusively by people who are trying to downplay how creepy it is to pick up romantic partners in a high school by using pedantry to distract from the core issue, typically either because they are themselves inclined toward such behaviours, or because they can't handle the cognitive dissonance associated with somebody they like being a creepy wanker.</quote> The understood one pertains to actual children. The wrongly-used version is purposely done to confuse people into thinking that they're talking about a guy molesting 5 y/os because people are universally going to be upset over that as opposed to a guy who tried to sleep with a teen. You know this and that's why you use it. Likewise, it's why people are claiming that Moore raped teens instead of assaulted them because rape is more likely to provoke outrage despite the fact that's not what he's being accused of at all. It's propaganda, pure and simple. More importantly, it's a selectively-used, politically motivated propaganda. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Saying? No. How you're acting? Absolutely. That was "What a creep." This is "guys, don't be so hard on him. He's not THAT much of a creep."</quote> Not at all. Again, this was 40 years ago. I only commented on the behavior which I called cringy (not creepy, which is YOUR spin). Even if you chose to read it as an indictment of his character at the time, it's like saying you're disgusting because you were wetting a diaper 30 years ago.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RomanGhost 12/11/17 9:21:19 PM #57:	Guy seems like a complete fucking asshole. --- GhostCenturion, in the internet flesh. <cite>RomanGhost posted [p:892041177] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote>Guy seems like a complete fucking asshole.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
mcj882000 12/11/17 10:09:19 PM #58:	Ephebophilia: All the general creepiness of being attracted to underage people, without the general social shame paedophilia brings! Seriously though, if semantics is your best argument, as far as I'm concerned *you don't have one.* <cite>mcj882000 posted [p:892044139] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote>Ephebophilia: All the general creepiness of being attracted to underage people, without the general social shame paedophilia brings! Seriously though, if semantics is your best argument, as far as I'm concerned you don't have one.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Maniac 12/11/17 10:18:12 PM #59:	mcj882000 posted... Ephebophilia: All the general creepiness of being attracted to underage people, without the general social shame paedophilia brings! Uh, no. It's being attracted to people who have hit puberty but are still underage. It's not considered a mental illness, but there are ethical issues associated with it. And it very obviously does bring general social shame, as you yourself have proven. --- "Remember kid, there's heroes and there's legends. Heroes get remembered, but legends never die. Follow your heart kid, and you'll never go wrong." <cite>Zero_Maniac posted [p:892044716] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>mcj882000 posted...</cite> <quote>Ephebophilia: All the general creepiness of being attracted to underage people, without the general social shame paedophilia brings!</quote> Uh, no. It's being attracted to people who have hit puberty but are still underage. It's not considered a mental illness, but there are ethical issues associated with it. And it very obviously does bring general social shame, as you yourself have proven.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin 12/11/17 10:20:51 PM #60:	the tl;dr version is pedo is under 13, ephebo is over 13 under 17ish --- "Salt cures Everything!" My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos <cite>Lokarin posted [p:892044883] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote>the tl;dr version is pedo is under 13, ephebo is over 13 under 17ish</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 12/11/17 10:27:55 PM #61:	GastroFan posted... The only difference between a 'Christian' and a non-Christian is that a Christian has accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. It doesn't suddenly absolve them of the consequences of their actions, no matter how odious or repugnant; that's what a lot of people, Roy Moore included, don't understand. A person can become a Christian in the last second before their death; so Moore's tirade is a hindrance to those Christians that are out there spreading the good news of Jesus' death and resurrection. It's not a matter of becoming Christian in the last second, it's having their sins forgiven at the last second. Zero_Maniac posted... GastroFan posted... A person can become a Christian in the last second before their death This isn't advisable. Mostly because -- and keeping in mind that this you need a deathbed confession and absolution not just a conversion -- you aren't guaranteed to die in a way that a priest can forgive your sins. BlackScythe0 posted... Zero_Maniac posted... BlackScythe0 posted... Moore is to Christianity what ISIS is to Islam. Not an accurate analogy at all, but I'd probably get modded for explaining why. Both make poor interpretations of their religion to justify evil. No. Just no. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:892045337] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>GastroFan posted...</cite> <quote>The only difference between a 'Christian' and a non-Christian is that a Christian has accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. It doesn't suddenly absolve them of the consequences of their actions, no matter how odious or repugnant; that's what a lot of people, Roy Moore included, don't understand. A person can become a Christian in the last second before their death; so Moore's tirade is a hindrance to those Christians that are out there spreading the good news of Jesus' death and resurrection.</quote> It's not a matter of becoming Christian in the last second, it's having their sins forgiven at the last second. <cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote><cite>GastroFan posted...</cite> <quote>A person can become a Christian in the last second before their death</quote> This isn't advisable.</quote> Mostly because -- and keeping in mind that this you need a deathbed confession and absolution not just a conversion -- you aren't guaranteed to die in a way that a priest can forgive your sins. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote><cite>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote>Moore is to Christianity what ISIS is to Islam.</quote> Not an accurate analogy at all, but I'd probably get modded for explaining why.</quote> Both make poor interpretations of their religion to justify evil.</quote> No. Just no.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 12/11/17 10:29:35 PM #62:	mcj882000 posted... Ephebophilia: All the general creepiness of being attracted to underage people, without the general social shame paedophilia brings! Seriously though, if semantics is your best argument, as far as I'm concerned *you don't have one.* By that logic, you could call anybody anything regardless of meaning and just argue, "Well, it's semantics!" despite the fact it doesn't work. Using a completely wrong word is not a "semantic argument" and defending that wrong usage is a stupid argument. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:892045444] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>mcj882000 posted...</cite> <quote>Ephebophilia: All the general creepiness of being attracted to underage people, without the general social shame paedophilia brings! Seriously though, if semantics is your best argument, as far as I'm concerned you don't have one.</quote> By that logic, you could call anybody anything regardless of meaning and just argue, "Well, it's semantics!" despite the fact it doesn't work. Using a completely wrong word is not a "semantic argument" and defending that wrong usage is a stupid argument.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Maniac 12/11/17 10:41:05 PM #63:	Zeus posted... Mostly because -- and keeping in mind that this you need a deathbed confession and absolution not just a conversion -- you aren't guaranteed to die in a way that a priest can forgive your sins. Well, I'm assuming that when we're talking about absolution and priests we're talking about Catholicism. In Catholicism, waiting until your death to convert on purpose so you can lead whatever lifestyle you like is very much frowned upon. Confession and absolution on your deathbed (or at any point while you're well) is very much encouraged, though. Either way, the people who decide that Christianity is something to be adopted in old age will regret their decision. --- "Remember kid, there's heroes and there's legends. Heroes get remembered, but legends never die. Follow your heart kid, and you'll never go wrong." <cite>Zero_Maniac posted [p:892046130] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Mostly because -- and keeping in mind that this you need a deathbed confession and absolution not just a conversion -- you aren't guaranteed to die in a way that a priest can forgive your sins.</quote> Well, I'm assuming that when we're talking about absolution and priests we're talking about Catholicism. In Catholicism, waiting until your death to convert on purpose so you can lead whatever lifestyle you like is very much frowned upon. Confession and absolution on your deathbed (or at any point while you're well) is very much encouraged, though. Either way, the people who decide that Christianity is something to be adopted in old age will regret their decision.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin 12/11/17 10:42:16 PM #64:	Well, except Baptists who are the free-riders of Christianity... they're auto-forgiven for everything 'cuz they had a bath once --- "Salt cures Everything!" My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos <cite>Lokarin posted [p:892046199] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote>Well, except Baptists who are the free-riders of Christianity... they're auto-forgiven for everything 'cuz they had a bath once</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Maniac 12/11/17 11:01:13 PM #65:	Lokarin posted... Well, except Baptists who are the free-riders of Christianity... they're auto-forgiven for everything 'cuz they had a bath once I find it hard to call Protestants real Christians. Most denominations tend to really dumb down everything about the Faith. The way I see it, the real Christians are the Catholics and Orthodoxy. Of course, I'm biased. --- "Remember kid, there's heroes and there's legends. Heroes get remembered, but legends never die. Follow your heart kid, and you'll never go wrong." <cite>Zero_Maniac posted [p:892047308] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lokarin posted...</cite> <quote>Well, except Baptists who are the free-riders of Christianity... they're auto-forgiven for everything 'cuz they had a bath once</quote> I find it hard to call Protestants real Christians. Most denominations tend to really dumb down everything about the Faith. The way I see it, the real Christians are the Catholics and Orthodoxy. Of course, I'm biased.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 12/12/17 3:14:59 PM #66:	Zero_Maniac posted... I find it hard to call Protestants real Christians. Most denominations tend to really dumb down everything about the Faith. The way I see it, the real Christians are the Catholics and Orthodoxy. Of course, I'm biased. All denominations are Christians by definition. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355 <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:892085136] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote> I find it hard to call Protestants real Christians. Most denominations tend to really dumb down everything about the Faith. The way I see it, the real Christians are the Catholics and Orthodoxy. Of course, I'm biased.</quote> All denominations are Christians by definition.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Maniac 12/12/17 4:03:16 PM #67:	Revelation34 posted... Zero_Maniac posted... I find it hard to call Protestants real Christians. Most denominations tend to really dumb down everything about the Faith. The way I see it, the real Christians are the Catholics and Orthodoxy. Of course, I'm biased. All denominations are Christians by definition. By an inadequate secular definition, sure. Look, if I call myself a Christian but then refuse to acknowledge parts of the Bible, can I still call myself a Christian? What if I refuse to acknowledge the Bible altogether? At some point, you can't truthfully call yourself a Christian. I know where I and the Catholic Church draw the line. Where do you? --- "Remember kid, there's heroes and there's legends. Heroes get remembered, but legends never die. Follow your heart kid, and you'll never go wrong." <cite>Zero_Maniac posted [p:892088173] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote> I find it hard to call Protestants real Christians. Most denominations tend to really dumb down everything about the Faith. The way I see it, the real Christians are the Catholics and Orthodoxy. Of course, I'm biased.</quote> All denominations are Christians by definition.</quote> By an inadequate secular definition, sure. Look, if I call myself a Christian but then refuse to acknowledge parts of the Bible, can I still call myself a Christian? What if I refuse to acknowledge the Bible altogether? At some point, you can't truthfully call yourself a Christian. I know where I and the Catholic Church draw the line. Where do you?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 12/12/17 5:21:54 PM #68:	Zero_Maniac posted... Revelation34 posted... Zero_Maniac posted... I find it hard to call Protestants real Christians. Most denominations tend to really dumb down everything about the Faith. The way I see it, the real Christians are the Catholics and Orthodoxy. Of course, I'm biased. All denominations are Christians by definition. By an inadequate secular definition, sure. Look, if I call myself a Christian but then refuse to acknowledge parts of the Bible, can I still call myself a Christian? What if I refuse to acknowledge the Bible altogether? At some point, you can't truthfully call yourself a Christian. I know where I and the Catholic Church draw the line. Where do you? You mean like Pesco-Christianity? --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:892093313] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote> I find it hard to call Protestants real Christians. Most denominations tend to really dumb down everything about the Faith. The way I see it, the real Christians are the Catholics and Orthodoxy. Of course, I'm biased.</quote> All denominations are Christians by definition.</quote> By an inadequate secular definition, sure. Look, if I call myself a Christian but then refuse to acknowledge parts of the Bible, can I still call myself a Christian? What if I refuse to acknowledge the Bible altogether? At some point, you can't truthfully call yourself a Christian. I know where I and the Catholic Church draw the line. Where do you?</quote> You mean like Pesco-Christianity?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Maniac 12/12/17 5:35:29 PM #69:	Zeus posted... You mean like Pesco-Christianity? I don't know. I've never heard or read of that denomination, and a quick search doesn't bring up anything on them either. --- "Remember kid, there's heroes and there's legends. Heroes get remembered, but legends never die. Follow your heart kid, and you'll never go wrong." <cite>Zero_Maniac posted [p:892094174] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>You mean like Pesco-Christianity?</quote> I don't know. I've never heard or read of that denomination, and a quick search doesn't bring up anything on them either.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 12/12/17 11:37:03 PM #70:	Zero_Maniac posted... By an inadequate secular definition, sure. Look, if I call myself a Christian but then refuse to acknowledge parts of the Bible, can I still call myself a Christian? What if I refuse to acknowledge the Bible altogether? At some point, you can't truthfully call yourself a Christian. I know where I and the Catholic Church draw the line. Where do you? Then literally nobody who claims to be Christian is Christian. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355 <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:892116597] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote> By an inadequate secular definition, sure. Look, if I call myself a Christian but then refuse to acknowledge parts of the Bible, can I still call myself a Christian? What if I refuse to acknowledge the Bible altogether? At some point, you can't truthfully call yourself a Christian. I know where I and the Catholic Church draw the line. Where do you?</quote> Then literally nobody who claims to be Christian is Christian.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 12/13/17 3:36:12 AM #71:	Zero_Maniac posted... Zeus posted... You mean like Pesco-Christianity? I don't know. I've never heard or read of that denomination, and a quick search doesn't bring up anything on them either. You know, like pesco-vegetarians -- ie, vegetarians who still eat fish. It was a joke =x --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:892125733] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>You mean like Pesco-Christianity?</quote> I don't know. I've never heard or read of that denomination, and a quick search doesn't bring up anything on them either.</quote> You know, like pesco-vegetarians -- ie, vegetarians who still eat fish. It was a joke =x</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Maniac 12/13/17 10:41:33 AM #72:	Revelation34 posted... Zero_Maniac posted... By an inadequate secular definition, sure. Look, if I call myself a Christian but then refuse to acknowledge parts of the Bible, can I still call myself a Christian? What if I refuse to acknowledge the Bible altogether? At some point, you can't truthfully call yourself a Christian. I know where I and the Catholic Church draw the line. Where do you? Then literally nobody who claims to be Christian is Christian. False. The ones who acknowledge and follow the teachings of the entire Bible, and follow the guidance of the Church that Jesus gave us are Christians. You can play with relativity if you like, but that doesn't make you smart or wise. --- "Remember kid, there's heroes and there's legends. Heroes get remembered, but legends never die. Follow your heart kid, and you'll never go wrong." <cite>Zero_Maniac posted [p:892137466] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote> By an inadequate secular definition, sure. Look, if I call myself a Christian but then refuse to acknowledge parts of the Bible, can I still call myself a Christian? What if I refuse to acknowledge the Bible altogether? At some point, you can't truthfully call yourself a Christian. I know where I and the Catholic Church draw the line. Where do you?</quote> Then literally nobody who claims to be Christian is Christian.</quote> False. The ones who acknowledge and follow the teachings of the entire Bible, and follow the guidance of the Church that Jesus gave us are Christians. You can play with relativity if you like, but that doesn't make you smart or wise.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 12/13/17 11:12:51 AM #73:	Zero_Maniac posted... Revelation34 posted... Zero_Maniac posted... I find it hard to call Protestants real Christians. Most denominations tend to really dumb down everything about the Faith. The way I see it, the real Christians are the Catholics and Orthodoxy. Of course, I'm biased. All denominations are Christians by definition. By an inadequate secular definition, sure. Look, if I call myself a Christian but then refuse to acknowledge parts of the Bible, can I still call myself a Christian? What if I refuse to acknowledge the Bible altogether? At some point, you can't truthfully call yourself a Christian. I know where I and the Catholic Church draw the line. Where do you? The problem with the bible is that it's 2000+ years old. Anything that's that old is going to be out of touch with the realities of modern society, because today's society is very, very different from that of the ancient Middle East. That means it has to be interpreted through a modern lens, and some of that interpretation is going to end up concluding that parts of it are irrelevant, or would even be harmful to follow now. It's important to keep in mind the distinction between what's actually irrelevant/harmful and what's just hard to follow (most of the points Jesus made were meant to be difficult or contrary to how people would like to think), but I don't think disregarding bits after proper consideration should disqualify somebody from saying they're following Jesus. Basically, it's a matter of emphasizing the spirit of the bible over the letter of it. Catholicism's insistence on following the letter at the expense of ignoring what Jesus was actually suggesting to improve the world was one of the bases for the Reformation, and later for Vatican II. Theological study exists because it's not practical to interpret ancient religious texts literally, so people need to consider and discuss what they mean and how to apply them to everyday life. For the record, I do think there are a whole lot of people who call themselves Christians but ignore Christ's central teachings, and they definitely shouldn't be considered Christians. Opposing charity, for example, is flagrantly at odds with Christianity. Saying that somebody isn't Christian because they interpret relatively minor parts of the bible differently from you, though, is definitely not right. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:892139070] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote> I find it hard to call Protestants real Christians. Most denominations tend to really dumb down everything about the Faith. The way I see it, the real Christians are the Catholics and Orthodoxy. Of course, I'm biased.</quote> All denominations are Christians by definition.</quote> By an inadequate secular definition, sure. Look, if I call myself a Christian but then refuse to acknowledge parts of the Bible, can I still call myself a Christian? What if I refuse to acknowledge the Bible altogether? At some point, you can't truthfully call yourself a Christian. I know where I and the Catholic Church draw the line. Where do you?</quote> The problem with the bible is that it's 2000+ years old. Anything that's that old is going to be out of touch with the realities of modern society, because today's society is very, very different from that of the ancient Middle East. That means it has to be interpreted through a modern lens, and some of that interpretation is going to end up concluding that parts of it are irrelevant, or would even be harmful to follow now. It's important to keep in mind the distinction between what's actually irrelevant/harmful and what's just hard to follow (most of the points Jesus made were meant to be difficult or contrary to how people would like to think), but I don't think disregarding bits after proper consideration should disqualify somebody from saying they're following Jesus. Basically, it's a matter of emphasizing the spirit of the bible over the letter of it. Catholicism's insistence on following the letter at the expense of ignoring what Jesus was actually suggesting to improve the world was one of the bases for the Reformation, and later for Vatican II. Theological study exists because it's not practical to interpret ancient religious texts literally, so people need to consider and discuss what they mean and how to apply them to everyday life. For the record, I do think there are a whole lot of people who call themselves Christians but ignore Christ's central teachings, and they definitely shouldn't be considered Christians. Opposing charity, for example, is flagrantly at odds with Christianity. Saying that somebody isn't Christian because they interpret relatively minor parts of the bible differently from you, though, is definitely not right.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Maniac 12/13/17 11:22:32 AM #74:	adjl posted... The problem with the bible is that it's 2000+ years old That's not a problem. adjl posted... Anything that's that old is going to be out of touch with the realities of modern society, Not necessarily. I'm guessing you're a progressive who thinks that society has actually evolved throughout history, though. You think ideas like feminism and socialism are new? They're not. They weren't given those names in the past, but they have definitely been tried prior to the modern era. Guess what? They didn't work. adjl posted... today's society is very, very different from that of the ancient Middle East In terms of norms and values, sure. People still act the same though. Same temptations, same belief of superiority over past civilizations and cultures. adjl posted... That means it has to be interpreted through a modern lens, No it doesn't. This idea lends itself to moral relativity, which is a blight on western civilization right now. adjl posted... some of that interpretation is going to end up concluding that parts of it are irrelevant, or would even be harmful to follow now Nope. You're speaking from a place of ignorance. adjl posted... I don't think disregarding bits after proper consideration should disqualify somebody from saying they're following Jesus. Well I do, because picking and choosing from the Bible what you want to believe isn't Christianity. adjl posted... Basically, it's a matter of emphasizing the spirit of the bible over the letter of it. And who are you to decide what the spirit of the Bible is? --- "Remember kid, there's heroes and there's legends. Heroes get remembered, but legends never die. Follow your heart kid, and you'll never go wrong." <cite>Zero_Maniac posted [p:892139523] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>The problem with the bible is that it's 2000+ years old</quote> That's not a problem. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote> Anything that's that old is going to be out of touch with the realities of modern society,</quote> Not necessarily. I'm guessing you're a progressive who thinks that society has actually evolved throughout history, though. You think ideas like feminism and socialism are new? They're not. They weren't given those names in the past, but they have definitely been tried prior to the modern era. Guess what? They didn't work. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>today's society is very, very different from that of the ancient Middle East</quote> In terms of norms and values, sure. People still act the same though. Same temptations, same belief of superiority over past civilizations and cultures. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>That means it has to be interpreted through a modern lens,</quote> No it doesn't. This idea lends itself to moral relativity, which is a blight on western civilization right now. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>some of that interpretation is going to end up concluding that parts of it are irrelevant, or would even be harmful to follow now</quote> Nope. You're speaking from a place of ignorance. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>I don't think disregarding bits after proper consideration should disqualify somebody from saying they're following Jesus.</quote> Well I do, because picking and choosing from the Bible what you want to believe isn't Christianity. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote> Basically, it's a matter of emphasizing the spirit of the bible over the letter of it.</quote> And who are you to decide what the spirit of the Bible is?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Maniac 12/13/17 11:22:37 AM #75:	adjl posted... Catholicism's insistence on following the letter at the expense of ignoring what Jesus was actually suggesting to improve the world was one of the bases for the Reformation, and later for Vatican II. Wrong. The widespread corruption in Catholicism is what caused the Reformation, and the Vatican II just changed a lot of the disciplines. It didn't change any doctrine or values of the Church. Catholicism didn't suddenly start preaching against homosexuality and fornication after Vatican II. That's been a thing since its inception. adjl posted... Theological study exists because it's not practical to interpret ancient religious texts literally, so people need to consider and discuss what they mean and how to apply them to everyday life. That's not at all why theology exists. Again, you're speaking from ignorance. --- "Remember kid, there's heroes and there's legends. Heroes get remembered, but legends never die. Follow your heart kid, and you'll never go wrong." <cite>Zero_Maniac posted [p:892139529] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Catholicism's insistence on following the letter at the expense of ignoring what Jesus was actually suggesting to improve the world was one of the bases for the Reformation, and later for Vatican II.</quote> Wrong. The widespread corruption in Catholicism is what caused the Reformation, and the Vatican II just changed a lot of the disciplines. It didn't change any doctrine or values of the Church. Catholicism didn't suddenly start preaching against homosexuality and fornication after Vatican II. That's been a thing since its inception. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Theological study exists because it's not practical to interpret ancient religious texts literally, so people need to consider and discuss what they mean and how to apply them to everyday life. </quote> That's not at all why theology exists. Again, you're speaking from ignorance.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 12/13/17 11:35:51 AM #76:	Zero_Maniac posted... Not necessarily. I'm guessing you're a progressive who thinks that society has actually evolved throughout history, though. Uhh, it very, very obviously has. We live in a very different world now. Heck, even the bible acknowledges this, with the whole New Testament existing to prepare people for a world that has changed since the Old Testament was written. Zero_Maniac posted... Wrong. The widespread corruption in Catholicism is what caused the Reformation, and the Vatican II just changed a lot of the disciplines. It didn't change any doctrine or values of the Church It definitely did. Hence protestant denominations have different doctrines. One of the biggest is the shift away from considering clergy to be proxies of God, hence other denominations don't recognize the Pope. Zero_Maniac posted... That's not at all why theology exists. So people write PhD theses on reading a couple thousand pages and interpreting everything there literally without performing any additional interpretive steps or trying to contextualize it? --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:892140223] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote>Not necessarily. I'm guessing you're a progressive who thinks that society has actually evolved throughout history, though.</quote> Uhh, it very, very obviously has. We live in a very different world now. Heck, even the bible acknowledges this, with the whole New Testament existing to prepare people for a world that has changed since the Old Testament was written. <cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote>Wrong. The widespread corruption in Catholicism is what caused the Reformation, and the Vatican II just changed a lot of the disciplines. It didn't change any doctrine or values of the Church</quote> It definitely did. Hence protestant denominations have different doctrines. One of the biggest is the shift away from considering clergy to be proxies of God, hence other denominations don't recognize the Pope. <cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote>That's not at all why theology exists.</quote> So people write PhD theses on reading a couple thousand pages and interpreting everything there literally without performing any additional interpretive steps or trying to contextualize it?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Maniac 12/13/17 11:51:29 AM #77:	adjl posted... Uhh, it very, very obviously has. We live in a very different world now. Heck, even the bible acknowledges this, with the whole New Testament existing to prepare people for a world that has changed since the Old Testament was written. No it hasn't. We've improved technologically, but that's about it. The Bible does not acknowledge that society has progressed. The New Testament exists to prepare the world for the Second Coming. You're just proving your ignorance with this. adjl posted... It definitely did. Hence protestant denominations have different doctrines. This does not follow. You're saying that the Church cared more about the letter of the law, and that's why the split happened and protestant denominations have different doctrines? What? adjl posted... So people write PhD theses on reading a couple thousand pages and interpreting everything there literally without performing any additional interpretive steps or trying to contextualize it? In secularized theology, sure. You always have some shmucks who think they can interpret the Bible better than anyone else. But that's not real theology. Real theology is about learning not only what the Bible says and means, but also why the Bible says what it does. Theology involves having an actual relationship with God. You won't find a reputable theologian who is an atheist or agnostic. --- "Remember kid, there's heroes and there's legends. Heroes get remembered, but legends never die. Follow your heart kid, and you'll never go wrong." <cite>Zero_Maniac posted [p:892140995] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Uhh, it very, very obviously has. We live in a very different world now. Heck, even the bible acknowledges this, with the whole New Testament existing to prepare people for a world that has changed since the Old Testament was written.</quote> No it hasn't. We've improved technologically, but that's about it. The Bible does not acknowledge that society has progressed. The New Testament exists to prepare the world for the Second Coming. You're just proving your ignorance with this. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote> It definitely did. Hence protestant denominations have different doctrines.</quote> This does not follow. You're saying that the Church cared more about the letter of the law, and that's why the split happened and protestant denominations have different doctrines? What? <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>So people write PhD theses on reading a couple thousand pages and interpreting everything there literally without performing any additional interpretive steps or trying to contextualize it?</quote> In secularized theology, sure. You always have some shmucks who think they can interpret the Bible better than anyone else. But that's not real theology. Real theology is about learning not only what the Bible says and means, but also why the Bible says what it does. Theology involves having an actual relationship with God. You won't find a reputable theologian who is an atheist or agnostic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 12/13/17 11:59:27 AM #78:	Zero_Maniac posted... We've improved technologically, but that's about it. And that makes a world of difference. Medicine in particular has identified numerous examples of "god's wrath" that were actually just some sort of pathogen associated with a behaviour (see: Pork and trichinosis; the rules of Kosher are pretty much just primitive food safety protocols), which can now be treated or prevented. Zero_Maniac posted... Real theology is about learning not only what the Bible says and means, but also why the Bible says what it does. That's what I said the first time, which you disagreed with. Make up your mind. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:892141439] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote>We've improved technologically, but that's about it.</quote> And that makes a world of difference. Medicine in particular has identified numerous examples of "god's wrath" that were actually just some sort of pathogen associated with a behaviour (see: Pork and trichinosis; the rules of Kosher are pretty much just primitive food safety protocols), which can now be treated or prevented. <cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote>Real theology is about learning not only what the Bible says and means, but also why the Bible says what it does. </quote> That's what I said the first time, which you disagreed with. Make up your mind.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Maniac 12/13/17 12:06:10 PM #79:	adjl posted... And that makes a world of difference. Medicine in particular has identified numerous examples of "god's wrath" that were actually just some sort of pathogen associated with a behaviour (see: Pork and trichinosis; the rules of Kosher are pretty much just primitive food safety protocols), which can now be treated or prevented. You're just proving your own ignorance here once again. God's wrath doesn't have to be a spectacular light show, or even something entirely beyond human comprehension. It can be those things, but that doesn't happen often. The reason you hear examples of those times where God's wrath was a huge light show is because of the very fact they don't happen often, not unlike how hearing about plane crashes on the news is more common than hearing about car crashes. adjl posted... That's what I said the first time, which you disagreed with. Make up your mind. No, that's not quite what you said. You mentioned people trying to contextualize it. This implies that you think theologians go around saying that certain passages of the Bible are no longer relevant, and were only relevant in the time period in which they were written. That's not what theologians do. --- "Remember kid, there's heroes and there's legends. Heroes get remembered, but legends never die. Follow your heart kid, and you'll never go wrong." <cite>Zero_Maniac posted [p:892141818] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote> And that makes a world of difference. Medicine in particular has identified numerous examples of "god's wrath" that were actually just some sort of pathogen associated with a behaviour (see: Pork and trichinosis; the rules of Kosher are pretty much just primitive food safety protocols), which can now be treated or prevented.</quote> You're just proving your own ignorance here once again. God's wrath doesn't have to be a spectacular light show, or even something entirely beyond human comprehension. It can be those things, but that doesn't happen often. The reason you hear examples of those times where God's wrath was a huge light show is because of the very fact they don't happen often, not unlike how hearing about plane crashes on the news is more common than hearing about car crashes. <cite>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>That's what I said the first time, which you disagreed with. Make up your mind.</quote> No, that's not quite what you said. You mentioned people trying to contextualize it. This implies that you think theologians go around saying that certain passages of the Bible are no longer relevant, and were only relevant in the time period in which they were written. That's not what theologians do.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 12/14/17 3:08:49 AM #80:	Zero_Maniac posted... False. The ones who acknowledge and follow the teachings of the entire Bible, and follow the guidance of the Church that Jesus gave us are Christians. You can play with relativity if you like, but that doesn't make you smart or wise. Ok find somebody who never wears mixed cloth clothing. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355 <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:892188042] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote> False. The ones who acknowledge and follow the teachings of the entire Bible, and follow the guidance of the Church that Jesus gave us are Christians. You can play with relativity if you like, but that doesn't make you smart or wise.</quote> Ok find somebody who never wears mixed cloth clothing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Maniac 12/14/17 8:36:43 AM #81:	Revelation34 posted... Zero_Maniac posted... False. The ones who acknowledge and follow the teachings of the entire Bible, and follow the guidance of the Church that Jesus gave us are Christians. You can play with relativity if you like, but that doesn't make you smart or wise. Ok find somebody who never wears mixed cloth clothing. Lol. Keep showing your ignorance of the Bible. You're only demonstrating that you're an outsider looking in. You mentioned the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law earlier, and so it's ironic that you're paying more attention to the letter of the law here. There's no point in continuing this, since you seem to think you're already well-versed in the Bible. --- "Remember kid, there's heroes and there's legends. Heroes get remembered, but legends never die. Follow your heart kid, and you'll never go wrong." <cite>Zero_Maniac posted [p:892195099] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote> False. The ones who acknowledge and follow the teachings of the entire Bible, and follow the guidance of the Church that Jesus gave us are Christians. You can play with relativity if you like, but that doesn't make you smart or wise.</quote> Ok find somebody who never wears mixed cloth clothing.</quote> Lol. Keep showing your ignorance of the Bible. You're only demonstrating that you're an outsider looking in. You mentioned the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law earlier, and so it's ironic that you're paying more attention to the letter of the law here. There's no point in continuing this, since you seem to think you're already well-versed in the Bible.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 12/14/17 12:55:10 PM #82:	Zero_Maniac posted... Revelation34 posted... Zero_Maniac posted... False. The ones who acknowledge and follow the teachings of the entire Bible, and follow the guidance of the Church that Jesus gave us are Christians. You can play with relativity if you like, but that doesn't make you smart or wise. Ok find somebody who never wears mixed cloth clothing. Lol. Keep showing your ignorance of the Bible. You're only demonstrating that you're an outsider looking in. You mentioned the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law earlier, and so it's ironic that you're paying more attention to the letter of the law here. There's no point in continuing this, since you seem to think you're already well-versed in the Bible. So you're ignoring the fact that nobody actually 100% follows the bible then. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355 <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:892207420] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote> False. The ones who acknowledge and follow the teachings of the entire Bible, and follow the guidance of the Church that Jesus gave us are Christians. You can play with relativity if you like, but that doesn't make you smart or wise.</quote> Ok find somebody who never wears mixed cloth clothing.</quote> Lol. Keep showing your ignorance of the Bible. You're only demonstrating that you're an outsider looking in. You mentioned the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law earlier, and so it's ironic that you're paying more attention to the letter of the law here. There's no point in continuing this, since you seem to think you're already well-versed in the Bible.</quote> So you're ignoring the fact that nobody actually 100% follows the bible then.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Maniac 12/14/17 1:04:00 PM #83:	Revelation34 posted... Zero_Maniac posted... Revelation34 posted... Zero_Maniac posted... False. The ones who acknowledge and follow the teachings of the entire Bible, and follow the guidance of the Church that Jesus gave us are Christians. You can play with relativity if you like, but that doesn't make you smart or wise. Ok find somebody who never wears mixed cloth clothing. Lol. Keep showing your ignorance of the Bible. You're only demonstrating that you're an outsider looking in. You mentioned the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law earlier, and so it's ironic that you're paying more attention to the letter of the law here. There's no point in continuing this, since you seem to think you're already well-versed in the Bible. So you're ignoring the fact that nobody actually 100% follows the bible then. No, because I can't ignore something that's not a fact or based in reality. I'll concede that very few people follow the Bible 100%, but that doesn't mean it's not feasible. You seem to think it's impossible in today's western society, but it's not. --- "Remember kid, there's heroes and there's legends. Heroes get remembered, but legends never die. Follow your heart kid, and you'll never go wrong." <cite>Zero_Maniac posted [p:892207917] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote> False. The ones who acknowledge and follow the teachings of the entire Bible, and follow the guidance of the Church that Jesus gave us are Christians. You can play with relativity if you like, but that doesn't make you smart or wise.</quote> Ok find somebody who never wears mixed cloth clothing.</quote> Lol. Keep showing your ignorance of the Bible. You're only demonstrating that you're an outsider looking in. You mentioned the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law earlier, and so it's ironic that you're paying more attention to the letter of the law here. There's no point in continuing this, since you seem to think you're already well-versed in the Bible.</quote> So you're ignoring the fact that nobody actually 100% follows the bible then.</quote> No, because I can't ignore something that's not a fact or based in reality. I'll concede that very few people follow the Bible 100%, but that doesn't mean it's not feasible. You seem to think it's impossible in today's western society, but it's not.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gguirao 12/14/17 1:05:24 PM #84:	Good thing that idiot lost. --- Donald J. Trump--proof against government intelligence. <cite>gguirao posted [p:892208008] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote>Good thing that idiot lost.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 12/14/17 1:17:16 PM #85:	Zero_Maniac posted... No, because I can't ignore something that's not a fact or based in reality. I'll concede that very few people follow the Bible 100%, but that doesn't mean it's not feasible. You seem to think it's impossible in today's western society, but it's not. "Look, if I call myself a Christian but then refuse to acknowledge parts of the Bible, can I still call myself a Christian?" --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355 <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:892208700] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote>No, because I can't ignore something that's not a fact or based in reality. I'll concede that very few people follow the Bible 100%, but that doesn't mean it's not feasible. You seem to think it's impossible in today's western society, but it's not.</quote> "Look, if I call myself a Christian but then refuse to acknowledge parts of the Bible, can I still call myself a Christian?"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Maniac 12/14/17 1:32:28 PM #86:	Revelation34 posted... Zero_Maniac posted... No, because I can't ignore something that's not a fact or based in reality. I'll concede that very few people follow the Bible 100%, but that doesn't mean it's not feasible. You seem to think it's impossible in today's western society, but it's not. "Look, if I call myself a Christian but then refuse to acknowledge parts of the Bible, can I still call myself a Christian?" I don't see your point. You're probably thinking you caught me in some sort of inconsistency, but that's not the case. --- "Remember kid, there's heroes and there's legends. Heroes get remembered, but legends never die. Follow your heart kid, and you'll never go wrong." <cite>Zero_Maniac posted [p:892209602] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote>No, because I can't ignore something that's not a fact or based in reality. I'll concede that very few people follow the Bible 100%, but that doesn't mean it's not feasible. You seem to think it's impossible in today's western society, but it's not.</quote> "Look, if I call myself a Christian but then refuse to acknowledge parts of the Bible, can I still call myself a Christian?"</quote> I don't see your point. You're probably thinking you caught me in some sort of inconsistency, but that's not the case.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheCyborgNinja 12/14/17 1:35:23 PM #87:	George Soros is honestly one of the worst human beings alive today with his treachery. But child molesters should not throw stones. --- "message parlor" ? do you mean the post office ? - SlayerX888 <cite>TheCyborgNinja posted [p:892209773] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote>George Soros is honestly one of the worst human beings alive today with his treachery. But child molesters should not throw stones.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 12/14/17 1:46:27 PM #88:	Zero_Maniac posted... I don't see your point. You're probably thinking you caught me in some sort of inconsistency, but that's not the case. You claimed that "The ones who acknowledge and follow the teachings of the entire Bible, Now you're stating that it's ok not to follow the bible entirely. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355 <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:892210427] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote>I don't see your point. You're probably thinking you caught me in some sort of inconsistency, but that's not the case.</quote> You claimed that "The ones who acknowledge and follow the teachings of the entire Bible, Now you're stating that it's ok not to follow the bible entirely.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Maniac 12/14/17 1:49:22 PM #89:	Revelation34 posted... Zero_Maniac posted... I don't see your point. You're probably thinking you caught me in some sort of inconsistency, but that's not the case. You claimed that "The ones who acknowledge and follow the teachings of the entire Bible, Now you're stating that it's ok not to follow the bible entirely. No, I'm just stating that you're ignorant of how to follow the Bible entirely, and therefore of course you wouldn't think that following the Bible entirely is possible. --- "Remember kid, there's heroes and there's legends. Heroes get remembered, but legends never die. Follow your heart kid, and you'll never go wrong." <cite>Zero_Maniac posted [p:892210618] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote>I don't see your point. You're probably thinking you caught me in some sort of inconsistency, but that's not the case.</quote> You claimed that "The ones who acknowledge and follow the teachings of the entire Bible, Now you're stating that it's ok not to follow the bible entirely.</quote> No, I'm just stating that you're ignorant of how to follow the Bible entirely, and therefore of course you wouldn't think that following the Bible entirely is possible.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Revelation34 12/14/17 2:19:05 PM #90:	Zero_Maniac posted... No, I'm just stating that you're ignorant of how to follow the Bible entirely, and therefore of course you wouldn't think that following the Bible entirely is possible. Ignoring something in the bible isn't following it. --- Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355 <cite>Revelation34 posted [p:892212484] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote>No, I'm just stating that you're ignorant of how to follow the Bible entirely, and therefore of course you wouldn't think that following the Bible entirely is possible.</quote> Ignoring something in the bible isn't following it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zero_Maniac 12/14/17 3:29:12 PM #91:	Revelation34 posted... Zero_Maniac posted... No, I'm just stating that you're ignorant of how to follow the Bible entirely, and therefore of course you wouldn't think that following the Bible entirely is possible. Ignoring something in the bible isn't following it. Again, you seem to think your interpretation/the secular interpretation of the Bible is flawless. That's an arrogant and ignorant thing to think. Until you come to accept that maybe you don't know that much about the Bible, you will not be able to learn what it actually says. This debate is going in circles. I see no further benefit to arguing, so I'm just going to leave it. --- "Remember kid, there's heroes and there's legends. Heroes get remembered, but legends never die. Follow your heart kid, and you'll never go wrong." <cite>Zero_Maniac posted [p:892216696] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Revelation34 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zero_Maniac posted...</cite> <quote>No, I'm just stating that you're ignorant of how to follow the Bible entirely, and therefore of course you wouldn't think that following the Bible entirely is possible.</quote> Ignoring something in the bible isn't following it.</quote> Again, you seem to think your interpretation/the secular interpretation of the Bible is flawless. That's an arrogant and ignorant thing to think. Until you come to accept that maybe you don't know that much about the Bible, you will not be able to learn what it actually says. This debate is going in circles. I see no further benefit to arguing, so I'm just going to leave it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 12/14/17 7:17:21 PM #92:	Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) Alabamians didnt want somebody who dated 14-year-old girls." :D <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:892230552] in Roy Moore ... [t:76066883]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI)</cite><quote>Alabamians didnt want somebody who dated 14-year-old girls."</quote> :D</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > Roy Moore said Jewish People are going to HELL..as well as ALL NON-CHRISTIANS!!! (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Roy Moore said Jewish People are going to HELL..as well as ALL NON-CHRISTIANS!!!