But that would be, like, different. Who wants that?
Ba-Bomb is a fucking moron. Prove it here.
- Thread starter Serious Mozzarella
- Start date
But that would be, like, different. Who wants that?
I'm with you on this Shock. I'm an Atheist, (If I had to put a name into it) but unlike most others, I don't go "you believe in god? Hurr Durr you're stupid" Everyone has a right to believe in what ever they want to, who am I to judge?
Nate DaMac
Fuck erbody but me
Judging people based on their religion is stupid. I just go by skin color.
I thought that was NorCal's thing?
Don't be stupid.
I guess a post isn't a joke unless you add an emote at the end of it.
Serious Mozzarella
Special Victims Unit
That's all gravy and stuff, except for the fact that atheism doesn't have a set list of principles. Atheists are a mass of different people with different ideas. Atheism itself isn't even relevant to the rest of your life. Stalin is just as irrelevant to me as God is.
Christianity, on the other hand, has a core list of rules to follow. I'm not attacking Ba-Bomb's personal beliefs. I actually am attacking his fundamental belief system, as well as his inability to comprehend the religious texts he's trying to use in his argument.
Johnny Scumm
InZayn In The Membrane
They're both *****.
Tommy "Two-Times" Mozzarella;3713174 said:
Of which hating homosexuals and acting like a tool are not included. The most obvious and overriding theme of Christianity is forgiveness and understanding, something that Ba-Bomb isn't doing. I'm not saying he isn't a Christian, I'm saying his views are incompatible with the vast majority of Christians.
Well, fine. But to call his 13th century world view "Christianity" is wrong. I sat in a church every day for 7 years, I've never been preached to that homosexuality was wrong.
Precisely my point. Are you arrogant enough to suggest that most Christians don't understand the Bible?
I'm not sure if you are even one of the people saying these sorts of things. Attack Ba-Bomb for his totally backwards views, by all means, but don't assume that his position is the default Christian one, because it isn't.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
Tommy "Two-Times" Mozzarella;3713174 said:
For many Christian denominations the established position is clearly that homosexuals are less than equal. You can discriminate against someone without hating them.
Are you really going to deny that in practice many, if not most, Christians are close-minded in spite of that overriding theme?
Serious Mozzarella
Special Victims Unit
Why wouldn't the vast majority of Christians believe something that's printed in black-and-white in the Bible. Shattered said it best -- you can think of someone's entire lifestyle and identity as an abomination without hating them. That's what I mean when I say I was attacking Christianity.
We can argue Bible interpretation all day long, but I'm sure many people will agree that there are blatant anti-homosexual overtones throughout the Old Testament. Which absolutely has not been rendered obsolete by the New Testament, despite popular belief. I'm not going to speak for the churches who teach a different interpretation of the Bible than how I interpret it (like those that preach homosexuality is okay).
I would be absolutely cool with the Christian/Catholic church thinking of homosexuality itself as the sin, but being accepting of homosexuals in the community, and not using their status as a church to lobby against homosexual rights on a federal level. But that doesn't happen and you know it.
Look, I'm not one to go on Christian-bashing crusades. I don't hate Christians, or even Christianity itself. Catholicism is one of the most interesting and beautiful religions in the world (aesthetically, anyway, i.e. churches and stuff). But I'm just pointing out the fact that the scriptures are there, regardless of what the common Christian chooses to believe.
You can understand the Bible from back to front like an internet Harry Potter fan, but if you're going to deny that anti-homosexual overtones exist, then you're simply deluding yourself from seeing any negativity in your religion, and there's no reason to have this argument in the first place.
This all being said, I wouldn't have even started this thread if someone more intelligent took Ba-Bomb's place in that debate. This thread exists because he's an asshole.
George Steele's Barber
Advertise Here $9.95/month
I refuse to take this possibility in to question.
I've always said anyone who doesn't believe exactly like me is close minded.
Nick Black
The Heel God
Personally, I think Ba-Bomb is a gay, angry, Christian. <---Ultimate Irony? YES.
Perhaps it's just a culture thing. The vast majority of Christians in this country are fairly progressive people who believe in the message of Christ and do not have major prejudices. The fact nobody from Europe is disagreeing with me would suggest to me that perhaps that's where our differences lie. I know a lot of deeply religious people, and none of them view homosexuality as being wrongful behaviour.
Tommy "Two-Times" Mozzarella;3713672 said:
Again, to re-iterate, perhaps it's American Fundamentalist Christians you have the problem with. Even staunch Roman Catholics wouldn't harbour views as backwards as Ba-Bombs. Also, if somebody believes the Bible is to be interpreted completely literally, they are also idiots. No book ever written is meant to be interpreted at face value alone, except maybe the phone book, so why anyone would think the Bible would be any different is beyond me.
Well, people in America as a whole are ***** for the most part.
Finish my order, dick-nose. No pickles.
Tiger Chaos Theory
You ain't drawin' shit!
Glad you could sway his opinion in the other direction crock.
That dick-nose thing sounds interesting though.
Serious Mozzarella
Special Victims Unit
I guess I just have a hard time buying the fact that, "homosexuality is an abomination" is supposed to be symbolic, or that the Bible is cool with homosexuality.
Tommy "Two-Times" Mozzarella;3718112 said:
These are things in the old testament, where it also suggests that eating shrimp is an abomination. Again, the majority of it is no longer taken literally by anyone. St Augustine, who lived about 1500 years ago realised this when he wrote in support of Astrology.
I've never understood this entire argument about the New Testament versus Old Testament. Some people say that Jesus and the New Testament overrides anything in the Old Testament, some people say that both the New Testament and the Old Testament are still valid but the Old Testament has to be interpreted non-literally, and further still, some say the Old Testament is literally what happened.
It's not like there's some small segment of the population that differ with the consensus, there seems to be a legitimate strife over which of those is correct. As far as I know, no where in the New Testament does Jesus say that the Old Testament is obsolete, and in fact, there's a pile of quotes from the Bible to suggest that Jesus felt the opposite way:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."
“You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[c] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[d] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
“...the scripture cannot be broken.”
I can't find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says, 'Old Testament no longer applies'. There is tremendous hypocrisy in what is taken literally, and what is not. If you like a part of the Old Testament, that's literal, but all the crazy stories, that's an interpretation, where's the consistency? There's some spots where Jesus seems to suggest it is valid and can't be changed, and then there's spots where Jesus is saying that something isn't applicable - wtf.
It's not like there's some small segment of the population that differ with the consensus, there seems to be a legitimate strife over which of those is correct. As far as I know, no where in the New Testament does Jesus say that the Old Testament is obsolete, and in fact, there's a pile of quotes from the Bible to suggest that Jesus felt the opposite way:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."
“You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[c] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[d] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
“...the scripture cannot be broken.”
I can't find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says, 'Old Testament no longer applies'. There is tremendous hypocrisy in what is taken literally, and what is not. If you like a part of the Old Testament, that's literal, but all the crazy stories, that's an interpretation, where's the consistency? There's some spots where Jesus seems to suggest it is valid and can't be changed, and then there's spots where Jesus is saying that something isn't applicable - wtf.