Verified:

Heston Game profile

Member
4766

Jun 22nd 2016, 20:25:57

In other news. Democrats are reduced to camping on the house floor to bring attention to gun confiscation . Looking like a bunch of commi occupy flufftard protesters. https://www.yahoo.com/?p=dnr&m=sp
Fail
https://youtu.be/GJYs3myW2mE
❤️️Nothing but❤️️💯❤️️❤️️🌺🌸🌹❤️❤️💯

Heston Game profile

Member
4766

Jun 22nd 2016, 20:28:43

Bunch of mother fluffing retards.
❤️️Nothing but❤️️💯❤️️❤️️🌺🌸🌹❤️❤️💯

Lord Tarnava Game profile

Member
936

Jun 22nd 2016, 20:48:52

My biggest issue with christ's teachings may be the denunciation of achievement, wealth, accomplishment

Here are two quotes which articulate my thoughts better than I can myself

The acquisition of money, sensual pleasure and esteem is a hindrance(to happiness) only as long as they are sought on their own account, and not as a means to other things. If they are sought as a means, they will then be under some restrictions, and far from being hindrances, they will do much to further the end in which they are sought.

Baruch Spinoza

They have taken a lease of virtue absolutely for themselves, have these weaklings and wretched invalids, there is no doubt of it; "We alone are the good, the righteous", so do they speak, "We alone are the men of good will." They stalk about in our midst as living reproaches, as warning to us-as though health, fitness, strength, pride, the sensation of power, were really vicious things in themselves, for which one would would have some day to do penance, bitter penance. Oh, how they themselves are ready in their hearts to exact penance, how they thirst after being hangmen!...At that time, doubtless, when they succeed in pushing their own misery, in fact, all misery, into the consciousness of the happy; so that the latter begin one day to be ashamed of their happiness, and perchance say to themselves when they meet "it is a shame to be happy, there is too much misery"... But there could not possibly be a greater and more fatal misunderstanding than that of the happy, the fit, the strong in body and soul, beginning in this way to doubt their right to happiness. Away with this "perverse world"! Away with this shameful soddenness of sentiment! Preventing the sick making the healthy sick, this ought to be our supreme object in the world.

Parsed together two Nietzsche quotes

damondusk Game profile

Member
453

Jun 23rd 2016, 2:14:35

Originally posted by Lord Tarnava:
The New Testament is virtually void of dangerous texts.

As for your FF analogy, I would use a better one:

A police force using archaic laws to harass citizens, knowing full well they'll be over turned in court, but to achieve the result of shame and guilt.

First off the New Testament clearly prohibits divorce, and alludes to 1 man 1 woman, which I disagree with for many reasons.


Here is a verse from the NT citing Jesus, where he lists fornication as an evil attribute:

(Jesus) said, "It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person." (NRSV, Mark 7:20-23)


Humans are sexual beings, shaming our sexuality causes repression, anger, leads to hate. It is abhorrent.

Jesus also taught that the poor should have no concern over worldly comforts or riches as they will receive reward in heaven(he actually didn't at all, original texts are very vague and I am much less against, no sky daddy in paradise, but we are talking with what is understood as christs teachings not what they actually were). This type of magical thought also causes division, an us vs them tribalism that has lead to many of the atrocities committed in his name. It is harmful to the human psychology, and believing in this sort of nonsense also works against scientific advancements

I believe 'turning the other cheek' and absolute forgiveness for anyone is very short sighted and goes against what we know about neurobiology. Chemical imbalances are real, we need to be wary of predators in our midst, and a subset of the population can never be rehabilitated(although the majority can)

I also reject equality. People and cultures aren't equal, and do not deserve equal reward or respect. Evolution favors the strong and intelligent, and that goes for evolution of culture, technology and science also.


Jesus cited "fornication" as evil....that's what you came up with from the text? And that we ought to love and forgive and not worship the pursuit of finances? What a sick way of thinking! You've opened my eyes!
Here's my new creed:
*Fug everyone who ever wronged me! I'll never let them live it down. And why stop there? Since we're interested in sticking with natural responses to natural biochemical stimulation, I ought to do what animal instinct tells me and pummel people who piss me off. And this applies to human sexuality - since it's a problem to sell the idea of sexual restrain, why do we even ask permission? I mean, in nature males don't ASK females - they simply take it. That's a chemically produced urge that exists per evolution in the interest of the species' continued existence. Why not apply it to us? Where is the line? Can I have sex with men? Women? Kids? Animals? By force? What business is it of yours, right? Who are you to shame my sexuality? Or is it ok to prescribe sexual restraint? Let me guess - the restraint that you think is appropriate only.....surprise!!!
*All hail the dollar!!! I'll kick a baby in the face for a buck because that's what's important - money! After all, greed and the maniacal pursuit of wealth don't cause war and violence and strife (har har har) - according to the brilliant philosopher, Lord Tarnava, it's NOT chasing wealth that somehow equates to "atrocities committed in his name." I'd love some help figuring that one out; I've heard of other religiously motivated beliefs being cited as the motive behind violent acts, but I have yet to hear/read about the shooter/bomber/?? who said, "I'm doing this because I don't believe in chasing material wealth." WTF are you even talking about there? Go sell that crap to the countless orders of 'monks' who have lived for thousands of years in peace all the while eschewing the pursuit of wealth. I'll bet Gandhi was a real bar brawler.

But seriously, absolute forgiveness isn't taught anywhere in scripture at all. Better read a little deeper. I suspect you lied outright when claiming to have read through the bible (multiple passes over the NT) as your biblical knowledge is sketchy at best. Most of what we're getting from you is worn out, textbook rhetoric that has been regurgitated for decades and tends to cite all of these really authoritative statements about history and texts before the texts - you know, the REAL teachings of Christ and REAL unmolested scripture you allude to - that only you and your enlightened ilk seem to be privy to. Much like all that really authoritative stuff the internet shows me on the inside job on 9/11 and the fake moon landing and the DaVinci code.......I'd love to see these sources of yours and know how they're vetted.

On the accuracy and validity of the text that you claim is so changed - do you know how we vet written works in terms of accuracy? Manuscripts. We look at the presently existent manuscripts, the length of time passed between each and the accuracy of translation or recording from one to the next. Lucretius' work "De rerum natura" currently exists only as a single manuscript and the next copy/translation that occurred 1100 years later. We accept it as accurate and it is one of the most celebrated philosophical works of all time. 2 copies over 1000 years...... Written works of Casesar - about 10 copies over roughly 1,000 years. Plato - fewer than 10 copies over more than 1,000 years! The list goes on and on. We accept the validity of these works and they have had their own incredible impacts on the world and the people in it. If we apply the same standard of verification to the accuracy of the copies (not the accuracy of the original, we're dealing with the tired claim of the work being changed over and over), again, if we apply the same measure, than it is purely UNSCIENTIFIC to claim that the New Testament translations are anything less than certifiably accurate in their preservation. To date, there are over 5,500 New Testament manuscripts in existence and the greatest span of time between original and next copy is........about 100 years. Try and wrap your brain around this. Plato boasts fewer than 10 copies with over a millennium between original and copy while the NT carries 5,500 with only 100 year span. It's funny how the rules have to change in order to reconcile that tired claim to the scientifically accepted method of text vetting. Have any wisdom to offer on that?

***Again, anyone jumping in at this point, I'm not debating the accuracy of the text in general. I'm debating the claim that the text has been changed over and over, the validity of the current text when compared to the papyri.**

Edited By: damondusk on Jun 23rd 2016, 2:19:50. Reason: typoes

Lord Tarnava Game profile

Member
936

Jun 23rd 2016, 2:31:07

How do you read that text differently?

Good job going black and white, shows your level of critical and analytical capacity.

Compassion, love and forgiveness are positive traits. As are aspiration, desire to achieve, sexual confidence,

Jesus's teachings lack balance. Adherents(true adherents) are very one dimensional and if all were like that, society wouldn't be progressing.

Lord Tarnava Game profile

Member
936

Jun 23rd 2016, 2:36:42

Also, I'm talking about original accounts before the NT was written. Also many of the books which were omitted from the NT.

The first written account of Jesus was roughly 60 ad but I'm sure you knew that.

Also I'm sure you knew the Catholic Church attempted to purge all philosophy that wasn't Christianity, and what we have left only survived in the libraries of Egypt. Entire works of Epicurus, Socrates... Gone. Just scraps remaining.

damondusk Game profile

Member
453

Jun 24th 2016, 13:17:10

Originally posted by Lord Tarnava:
Also, I'm talking about original accounts before the NT was written. Also many of the books which were omitted from the NT.

The first written account of Jesus was roughly 60 ad but I'm sure you knew that.

Also I'm sure you knew the Catholic Church attempted to purge all philosophy that wasn't Christianity, and what we have left only survived in the libraries of Egypt. Entire works of Epicurus, Socrates... Gone. Just scraps remaining.


Again, you're tossing a bunch of specious 'facts' out there that fall short of the burden of evidence. 60 AD? Evidence please. Accounts from before the NT was written? Who's accounts and if not the written accounts, how did you get them? Word of mouth? Your arguments are comparable in vagueness and ambiguity to TV psychics. Toss really general statements out there that could kind of maybe sound plausible and would be hard to refute on a moment's notice, yet don't have any citation or reference of substance.....and you've go the nerve to take a stab at my analytical capacity? Super lol

Here's some brain food for you - during the time of Jesus, to write the oral "law" would have been a major violation under the rule of the Orthodox Pharisees. The disciples would not likely have written 'books' as we understand them (nor would most of them have had the capacity to do so), but rather they would have kept codices (like your modern notebook) with notes of key events or statements. These would have been the accounts that later were collected into the gospels. First written accounts of Jesus' life were being written as he lived.

A hypothesis should be laid out with some supporting observations and/or logical suppositions. These supporting observations don't prove but at least offer some support for my theory of how the gospels were stitched together and when the first written accounts were written. I don't simply throw one liners out there and expect that everyone recognize my historical capacity as superior. I'd like some support for your claims along this discussion. These claims, to be specific: the first written account was about 60AD, Christians purged the world of the classics, the Bible teaches absolute forgiveness or teaches against aspiration and desire to achieve or sexual confidence. There's more but we'll get poop on our feet if we wade through too much....

citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation citation

damondusk Game profile

Member
453

Jun 24th 2016, 13:28:46

Originally posted by Lord Tarnava:
Good job going black and white.

It's called reading the text for what it says, not applying your own tint to the lens or 'reading between the lines.' It's not up to you to decide the writer's intent for them.

Originally posted by Lord Tarnava:
Compassion, love and forgiveness are positive traits. As are aspiration, desire to achieve, sexual confidence

In Genesis, one of the very fist instructions ever relayed to mankind was to "be fruitful and multiply, go forth and fill the Earth and subdue it" which, by my book, seems like a hell of an aspiration to achievement. Not sure what you're reading but again, I'm somewhat certain that you are running a mile with one inch instructions not to be enslaved by the love of wealth and worldly possession, which is not the same as lacking aspiration. As for sexual confidence, I don't need to have sex outside of my marriage or reorient myself sexually to feel sexually confident. One has nothing to do with the other and you're mincing words here is more than a little dishonest. If you want to claim that the Bible denounces homosexuality or extra- / pre- marital sexuality, then say that, but quit with all of the overblown, specious crap.

Originally posted by Lord Tarnava:
Jesus's teachings lack balance. Adherents(true adherents) are very one dimensional

This is my favorite. Let me use the distributive property of bigoted statements to bring that into focus. All "true adherents" to Jesus' teachings will inherently and invariably be assholes, while anyone claiming to be Christian but treating people right is not the real deal? WOW!!!! Here's your hood, Grand Dragon. Heil Fuhrer Tarnava.

Lord Tarnava Game profile

Member
936

Jun 24th 2016, 14:07:48

As for burning of texts, this is the best I am willing to find right now(away on business, writing this as I'm doing my 'morning ritual')

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/..._Theophilus_of_Alexandria

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/..._in_the_late_Roman_Empire

Policies by the Roman Catholics and the Coptic Orthodox's around the same time to loot, vandalize and burn all pagan temples. Christian mobs taking it upon themselves to do likewise. Epicurus and Socrates were atheists- their works were targeted specifically

As for texts

This talks about how it wasn't until the 5th century that church leaders 'decided which gospels were true'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...i/New_Testament_apocrypha


As for date of first writings, it even talks about it on this page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

And here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Feel free to peruse the citations on the gospels that have not been included to read about what they suggested, and how it greatly differs from what was canonized

Lord Tarnava Game profile

Member
936

Jun 24th 2016, 14:19:48

Originally posted by damondusk:
Originally posted by Lord Tarnava:
Good job going black and white.

It's called reading the text for what it says, not applying your own tint to the lens or 'reading between the lines.' It's not up to you to decide the writer's intent for them.

Originally posted by Lord Tarnava:
Compassion, love and forgiveness are positive traits. As are aspiration, desire to achieve, sexual confidence

In Genesis, one of the very fist instructions ever relayed to mankind was to "be fruitful and multiply, go forth and fill the Earth and subdue it" which, by my book, seems like a hell of an aspiration to achievement. Not sure what you're reading but again, I'm somewhat certain that you are running a mile with one inch instructions not to be enslaved by the love of wealth and worldly possession, which is not the same as lacking aspiration. As for sexual confidence, I don't need to have sex outside of my marriage or reorient myself sexually to feel sexually confident. One has nothing to do with the other and you're mincing words here is more than a little dishonest. If you want to claim that the Bible denounces homosexuality or extra- / pre- marital sexuality, then say that, but quit with all of the overblown, specious crap.

Originally posted by Lord Tarnava:
Jesus's teachings lack balance. Adherents(true adherents) are very one dimensional

This is my favorite. Let me use the distributive property of bigoted statements to bring that into focus. All "true adherents" to Jesus' teachings will inherently and invariably be assholes, while anyone claiming to be Christian but treating people right is not the real deal? WOW!!!! Here's your hood, Grand Dragon. Heil Fuhrer Tarnava.


You don't have an argument so you need to pervert the meaning of mine. Good job, what you claim I said is not close to what I said

damondusk Game profile

Member
453

Jun 24th 2016, 14:33:08

First off, thanks for the lazy wikipedia references. A resource that was built by whoever wanted to contribute, whatever they believe to be true and can get enough people to agree with them. Wikipedia isn't a reference, it's a popularity contest (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/...Wikipedia:Vetting_process ). But let's stay on a level playing field and answer from wikipedia =)

Originally posted by Lord Tarnava:
As for burning of texts, this is the best I am willing to find right now(away on business, writing this as I'm doing my 'morning ritual')

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/..._Theophilus_of_Alexandria

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/..._in_the_late_Roman_Empire


Sweet! If wikipedia is the authority, than you admit you misrepresented the facts in order to persuade an audience of things you know not to be true? Whatever do I mean? According to your resource, the Library in question was destroyed several times over and the instance you cite would have been the latter of those times. Then of course there's the question of whether it happened that way at all under Theophilus -
"The famous burning of the Library of Alexandria, including the incalculable loss of ancient works, has become a symbol of the irretrievable loss of public knowledge. Although there is a mythology of "the burning of the Library at Alexandria", the library may have suffered several fires or acts of destruction of varying degrees over many years. Ancient and modern sources identify several possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria.[24]

During Caesar's Civil War, Julius Caesar was besieged at Alexandria in 48 BC. Many ancient sources describe Caesar setting fire to his own ships[25][26] and state that this fire spread to the library, destroying it.[27]

[W]hen the enemy endeavored to cut off his communication by sea, he was forced to divert that danger by setting fire to his own ships, which, after burning the docks, thence spread on and destroyed the great library.

— Plutarch, Life of Caesar[28]
Bolstering this claim, in the 4th century both the pagan historian Ammianus[29] and the Christian historian Orosius[30] wrote that the Bibliotheca Alexandrina had been destroyed by Caesar's fire. However, Florus and Lucan claim that the flames Caesar set burned only the fleet and some "houses near the sea".

The library seems to have continued in existence to some degree until its contents were largely lost during the taking of the city by the Emperor Aurelian (AD 270–275), who was suppressing a revolt by Queen Zenobia of Palmyra.[31] During the course of the fighting, the areas of the city in which the main library was located were damaged.[15] Some sources claim that the smaller library located at the Serapeum survived,[32] though Ammianus Marcellinus wrote of the library in the Serapeum temple as a thing of the past, destroyed when Caesar sacked Alexandria.[33]


5th century scroll which illustrates the destruction of the Serapeum by Theophilus
Paganism was made illegal by an edict of the Emperor Theodosius I in AD 391. The temples of Alexandria were closed by Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria in AD 391.[32] The historian Socrates of Constantinople describes that all pagan temples in Alexandria were destroyed, including the Serapeum.[34] Since the Serapeum had at one time housed a part of the Great Library, some scholars believe that the remains of the Library of Alexandria were destroyed at this time.[32][35] However, it is not known how many, if any, books were contained in it at the time of destruction, and contemporary scholars do not mention the library directly.[36][37]

In AD 642, Alexandria was captured by the Muslim army of Amr ibn al `Aas. Several later Arabic sources describe the library's destruction by the order of Caliph Omar.[38][39] Bar-Hebraeus, writing in the 13th century, quotes Omar as saying to Yaḥyā al-Naḥwī: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."[40] Later scholars are skeptical of these stories, given the range of time that had passed before they were written down and the political motivations of the various writers.[41][42][43][44][45]"

-Excerpted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

Edited By: damondusk on Jun 24th 2016, 14:42:13

Lord Tarnava Game profile

Member
936

Jun 24th 2016, 14:45:15

So you take the smaller example of the two and use it to try to cut down the entire argument? That's dishonest at best

The wide scale anti pagan laws of the Roman Catholic empire are far more significant but of course you ignored them

Lord Tarnava Game profile

Member
936

Jun 24th 2016, 14:45:50

For someone claiming to follow the teachings of Jesus you seem to have a lot of anger in your heart

damondusk Game profile

Member
453

Jun 24th 2016, 14:59:10

Originally posted by Lord Tarnava:
Jesus's teachings lack balance. Adherents(true adherents) are very one dimensional
Originally posted by damondusk:
This is my favorite. Let me use the distributive property of bigoted statements to bring that into focus. All "true adherents" to Jesus' teachings will inherently and invariably be assholes, while anyone claiming to be Christian but treating people right is not the real deal? WOW!!!! Here's your hood, Grand Dragon. Heil Fuhrer Tarnava.


You don't have an argument so you need to pervert the meaning of mine. Good job, what you claim I said is not close to what I said


Are you a) shamelessly dishonest b) backpedaling or c) all of the above?
You can't at least stand behind your statements? You stated in your own words that true adherents to the teachings of Jesus are very one dimensional. Aside from the fact that that's a blanket generalization (indians wear feathers, black guys are great at basketball, pit bulls bite, Ford cars all suck, etc), enlighten us as to what "very one dimensional" means. Given the context of everything you've said up to this point, it is entirely reasonable to interpret your statement as meaning 'true adherents to the teachings of Christ reject/shame gays, non-believers, women, whatever' ie are assholes. Do you dispute that this rejection/exclusion/shame is NOT the one dimensional thinking/behavior you referred to? Or do you dispute that this type of thinking and behaving is not assholeish? I think you're flailing. Don't do that; you'll drown faster.

damondusk Game profile

Member
453

Jun 24th 2016, 15:05:08

Originally posted by Lord Tarnava:
For someone claiming to follow the teachings of Jesus you seem to have a lot of anger in your heart

First of all - cite that claim.
Secondly, I have all kinds of anger in my heart. I'm angry when pseudo-intellectuals cloak hatred and bigotry in scientific pursuit. I'm angry when pompous assholes set their selves on ivory thrones from which to gaze disdainfully down on the unenlightened masses. I'm angry when the fear and unrest of unanswered questions of the purpose of our existence and afterlife inspire people like you to marginalize those who don't think like you do. Lots of things make me angry - the abuse of people and animals by other people, the waste and greed occurring in a world full of hungry people, profit driven wars, and I could go on and on. Every one of those is a good reason to feel some anger. Do you imagine that anger is inherently bad or that I would think so? Or possibly that Christians think so? At any rate, wrong on all counts.

damondusk Game profile

Member
453

Jun 24th 2016, 15:15:54

Originally posted by Lord Tarnava:
So you take the smaller example of the two and use it to try to cut down the entire argument? That's dishonest at best

The wide scale anti pagan laws of the Roman Catholic empire are far more significant but of course you ignored them

Whether there was a law or not wasn't the question/issue. You accused Christendom of purging the world of competing ideas, which is partially true at best. The existence of such laws means about as much as the fact that in US most states, anal and/or oral sex still falls under the legal definitions of sodomy; had anyone inspecting your bedroom, making blow job arrests lately? Neither has anyone else.

Also, how would the destruction of the Library of Alexandria be a small example? You sure didn't mind championing it.....

And of course the real problem with almost everything you do cite is that you clearly equate Catholicism with all Christianity. This is just plain stupid since the Catholic church has killed literally MILLIONS of protestant Christians throughout it's existence. Every time a Christian hater comes along with their personal version of Mein Kampf, it's non-stop references to crimes of the Catholic church that they present as evidence by which to condemn all Christians. This is EXACTLY the same as citing the fiery, violent rhetoric of the worst Imams out there as evidence that all Muslims are killers.

Lord Tarnava Game profile

Member
936

Jun 24th 2016, 15:23:06

Again you purposefully distort what I say to try to create a point

'Smaller' not small. The Roman Catholic Empire was larger.

Also, all zorps are zaps, but that doesn't mean all zaps are zorps.

At the time of these laws and actions Protestants didn't exist. Catholics and Coptic orthodox followers did and were by a landslides the majority of the Christian population

Lord Tarnava Game profile

Member
936

Jun 24th 2016, 15:28:10

Originally posted by damondusk:
Originally posted by Lord Tarnava:
Jesus's teachings lack balance. Adherents(true adherents) are very one dimensional
Originally posted by damondusk:
This is my favorite. Let me use the distributive property of bigoted statements to bring that into focus. All "true adherents" to Jesus' teachings will inherently and invariably be assholes, while anyone claiming to be Christian but treating people right is not the real deal? WOW!!!! Here's your hood, Grand Dragon. Heil Fuhrer Tarnava.


You don't have an argument so you need to pervert the meaning of mine. Good job, what you claim I said is not close to what I said


Are you a) shamelessly dishonest b) backpedaling or c) all of the above?
You can't at least stand behind your statements? You stated in your own words that true adherents to the teachings of Jesus are very one dimensional. Aside from the fact that that's a blanket generalization (indians wear feathers, black guys are great at basketball, pit bulls bite, Ford cars all suck, etc), enlighten us as to what "very one dimensional" means. Given the context of everything you've said up to this point, it is entirely reasonable to interpret your statement as meaning 'true adherents to the teachings of Christ reject/shame gays, non-believers, women, whatever' ie are assholes. Do you dispute that this rejection/exclusion/shame is NOT the one dimensional thinking/behavior you referred to? Or do you dispute that this type of thinking and behaving is not assholeish? I think you're flailing. Don't do that; you'll drown faster.


You can't have it both ways. I said true adherents, following christs teachings, lack balance and are one dimensional humans. I stand behind this.

You stated that those citing the Old Testament are not true Christians. Who are you to draw the line? If it's all or nothing, with no context or interpretation allowed, true Christians are those who follow the NT to a 'T' and I stand by the statement they would lack balance.

If interpretation is allowed, they can draw from the OT and ignore parts of the NT, as they see fit, and abhorrent beliefs and actions are born

damondusk Game profile

Member
453

Jun 24th 2016, 15:43:12

What on Earth are you talking about?!?!?!?! The first Christians were the original followers of Jesus Christ and the crowds he spoke to. The Pauline church (Catholic) in it's organized form came later. The power of the papacy, the incredible power required for many of the Catholic atrocities to have been carried out, came even later than that. 'Protestant' as a movement didn't exist at the time of "these laws and actions" but 'Protestant Christianity' as a concept (rejection of papal supremacy) is original Christianity as no 'man' was equatable to God until the papacy claimed to be so.

damondusk Game profile

Member
453

Jun 24th 2016, 16:03:32

Originally posted by Lord Tarnava:

You can't have it both ways. I said true adherents, following christs teachings, lack balance and are one dimensional humans. I stand behind this.

You stated that those citing the Old Testament are not true Christians. Who are you to draw the line? If it's all or nothing, with no context or interpretation allowed, true Christians are those who follow the NT to a 'T' and I stand by the statement they would lack balance.

If interpretation is allowed, they can draw from the OT and ignore parts of the NT, as they see fit, and abhorrent beliefs and actions are born

Objection, Your Honor! Asked and answered! I've been over all of this before, but here we go again. Also, for the record, I never said that people citing the OT weren't true Christians. What I said exactly was: "I would challenge according to scripture and by definition, no one you described is following the teachings of Jesus Christ as they are described in the Bible." AND "Any person quoting Levitical Law to condemn or shame someone for being gay or having a tattoo or whatever is not, by definition, a Christian as they simply are not following the teachings of Christ." The devil is in the details and there is a hell of a difference between what I said and what you suggested I said. Moving on....

Who am I to draw the line? No one and I do not draw it. According to the scripture, Jesus drew the line when he cried out from the cross, "It is finished!" marking the fulfillment of the law as he said he would happen in 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.")

There is no battle of OT vs NT. The work of Jesus Christ on the cross would have fulfilled the requirement of blood under Mosaic Law PERMANENTLY. That is the whole basis of the gospel - the linchpin, if you will. It is not that a modern Christian rejects the validity of the Old Testament, it is that he/she applies the context that you keep saying is left out. That context is that adherence to Mosaic Law was made obsolete by the offering at the cross. Here is a good way to understand it - you go the Chevy dealer and sign on a new Camaro. Your covenant with the lender mandates that you will make certain payments at certain intervals, that the lender retains liened owndership of the vehicle, that you will carry certain insurance, all kinds of rules and details. When you make your final payment, those rules and rituals are no longer obligatory. The contract is not abolished, it is fulfilled. It is finished.

"If interpretation is allowed, they can draw from the OT and ignore parts of the NT, as they see fit, and abhorrent beliefs and actions are born"
^^^This? OK....so what? I can choose to cherry pick from any ideology - that doesn't make the idea itself a bad one. That PERSONAL choice doesn't condemn the text, it condemns the PERSON choosing. If a person breaks a law or ignores the spirit of the law, does that invalidate the law or make it a bad idea? People choosing to cloak their hatred in Mosaic Law are really your closest brethren, likened to you cloaking your hatred in intellectualism. Perhaps your fixation on that demographic is telling of an internal struggle with self loathing? Read "Horton Hears a Who" by the good Dr. Seuss and discover that a person is person, no matter how small. This will help, I promise =)

Cerberus Game profile

Member
EE Patron
3849

Jun 25th 2016, 5:17:53

BUUUUUURRRRRRNNNNNNN!!!!!!!

LT, you've been bested, and I mean easily bested here. LOL

I know, I'm taking Schadenfreude with this, but I'm going to repent later when the satisfaction wears down. LOL
I don't need anger management, people need to stop pissing me off!

MauricXe Game profile

Member
576

Jun 25th 2016, 15:40:33

Originally posted by Cerberus:
What a bunch of tools these people are.

When it happens to state employees at a picnic, it's not terrorism, but when it happens to gays in Orlando it is, right?

What a load of fluff.

Stop trying to redefine everything through that pinko glass, boys.


Drop yer fluffs and grab yer socks, and cowboy the fluff up, America.


If Obama didn't call it terrorism you would say:

"Another Islamic attack and Obama wont call it what it is"

Heston Game profile

Member
4766

Jun 25th 2016, 18:11:40

Obama is lieing when his mouth is purple. He represents us as well as bill cosby would represent rape victims.
❤️️Nothing but❤️️💯❤️️❤️️🌺🌸🌹❤️❤️💯

Cerberus Game profile

Member
EE Patron
3849

Jun 25th 2016, 23:08:21

He still lies out both sides of his face Morice. LOL
I don't need anger management, people need to stop pissing me off!

Cerberus Game profile

Member
EE Patron
3849

Jun 27th 2016, 19:35:22

Originally posted by Lord Tarnava:
So you take the smaller example of the two and use it to try to cut down the entire argument? That's dishonest at best

The wide scale anti pagan laws of the Roman Catholic empire are far more significant but of course you ignored them


Amazingly enough, the answer to this argument is right in the statement.

Anti-Pagan laws by who? Go ahead, you can say it. The Roman Catholic Empire, or Holy Roman Empire perhaps, which dominated the middle ages, hence forth to forever be known as the "Dark Ages". Surely you remember that time in European history, right? Didn't sleep that day in class, cool. :)

The Catholics lost their way quite some time ago. Just look at the recent things that Pope Satan, ooops, Pope Francis has been saying recently, and you get a true picture of what the "Roman Catholic Church" is all about, and it has very little to do with your soul.

I could run down the list of things that make that Church a tyrannical regime. If you believed that the only way to get to Heaven was the word of your local priest, and bishop and pope and such, you'd be a good citizen and pay your tithes, and the local barons, lords and ladies, nobility in general obtained their noble status because some priest, bishop, or especially the Pope, ordained them so, thus they were "ordained" by God to lead their peoples. The cost of the ordaining was allegiance to, propagation of, and active support of the use of torture, terror, and imprisonment, coupled with the loss of your very soul for any dissent. This went on for a long time, resulted in the Crusades due to massive and long term Islamic invasions, slaving runs, mercantile raiding etc on the Mediterranean and into the Iberian Peninsula, etc. Then, this fellow Martin Luther, posted his theses on the doors of Cologne Cathedral. And the "reformation" was under way.

Pope Francis recently claimed that there was no personal relationship with Jesus at all without going through the Church. This is an out and out lie, and anyone who has spent even 10 minutes looking at what Jesus said in the Bible would know this. But, the masses are deceived because the vast majority of practicing Catholics, really only go to church on the "high" holidays, such as Christmas, Easter, etc. Sometimes on Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, but by and large, they do not actually read the Word of God for themselves, they rely on their local priest to do it for them, which is NOT what it says to do in the document itself.

Just admit that you hate Jesus because of what he represents, and be done with it already.
I don't need anger management, people need to stop pissing me off!