Let me just say that it really bugs me when people say “God won’t put more on you than you can handle.” .. Guys, God doesn’t tempt us. He doesn’t lay negative burdens on us, or cause problems to teach us things. That’s not what the Scripture says. I think this may be the one you are looking for.
This is the definition of a bigot.
No. That is the definition of objectivity. Know both sides before you take one. I have both sides. You have one. Anyone who knows both will side with me. I will stand by that statement. You are the religiously blind bigot who refuses to consider opposing evidence.
And you just called people who look at both sides and don’t choose yours blind and foolish. Name-calling doesn’t justify you.
I concur with spectra.
Here is one of the faithful buddies I spoke about. You will concur because you’re just as blind and religious as she is. Spectra and the gang seriously need to stop trolling. I don’t adhere to Christianity. Accept it and walk away. However, continue to impose your supposed truth and I will continue to publicize and humiliate any argument you think you have. It is that simple.
Humiliation must be felt by the person intended to be humiliated for such a word to be applied.
I never told you to be a Christian. You have told me I have no right to be, and that I have no right to beliefs, opinions, arguments, or to make any point from that basis.
Don’t attack my friends. It’s immature, and shows just how desperate you really are. I don’t reblog your followers unless they’re talking directly to me.
Frankly, Decon, I find myself disappointed. All this time, you were focusing your hatred on one person as if he-or-she were the cause of all your suffering and opposition. This strikes me as misguided, foolish and a tad pathological, but that is not the point.
You strike me as an intelligent man who likes to prove that intelligence by attempting to invalidate others, often through long, drawn-out, public arguments. Albeit, Blackbird tends to do this once in a great while, but rarely is the opponent directly insulted…as you have just done to me, and I am now doing to you (this is something I must work on, but for the moment, I’m having too much fun; sorry). I thought you had calmed down after the last time I had commented (rather rudely, I am afraid; again, sorry), but apparently I was wrong. It is now clear your hostility is now directed not only at the person who has been arguing with you the most, but at anyone who shows the slightest disagreement with your fairly hateful and bigoted ideology.
Now then, in terms of illogical fallacies in this conversation alone, I have seen straw-manning, generalization (both hasty and sweeping in one go, good job), and false cause. Keep going; a few more and I’ll be able to complete my bingo card and get that toaster oven I’ve had my eye on.
Here is a good example of the same old accusations. I addressed you because you failed to address me directly. Don’t jump into a debate, take a swing, and run away. If you want to say something, say it directly to the person you mean to address. “I concur.” Why? Does it have anything to do with your faith? Yes. Thus, you fail to agree in any manner that I can respect. You too have not considered the evidence and thus, you have invalidated yourself. Good luck with your toaster.
Thank you for your encouragement and assistance; I’m almost there!
A) I took a stand, not a swing. Taking a swing would be rather difficult considering most swings are cemented into the ground.
Again, someone who has issues with the English language. A swing is a shot — whether a verbal or physical shot. I’m not talking about playgrounds. Don’t be immature.
B) I do believe I did just say something to your face, virtually, at least. And unless my short-term memory is especially spotty, it was a rather elaborate insult.
Pat yourself on the back. You have attempted to insult me. Which one of you hasn’t?
C) I concur because every statement you have made against Blackbird and/or Christians as a group has been caustic, generalized, unreasonable, and generally hateful. Signs of bigotry. Anyone who has suffered bigotry (except yourself, as you claim you have) would recognize the symptoms.
Caustic, as in able to burn. Don’t see how that applies. Generalized: as if all Christians don’t adhere to an exclusive truth, accept Christ or else. Unreasonable: I have not failed to see the points; to the contrary, you, spectra, and a few others have. Appealing to Apologetics is an obvious sign. Hateful: my blog isn’t aimed at a people; it is directed at an ideology, an inanimate supposed truth. Again, I test the veracity of the Christian religion, not the veracity of Christian character or of Christians overall. Bigotry: suffered? Another assumption. Bigotry does not make me suffer. Bigotry is appalling. You only accuse me of it because I say that I’m right. However, I can prove that to you. You say that you’re right. Where is your proof? Apologetics? The Bible? Personal experiences? Sorry, devotees of other religions can give me their scripture, interpretation of the sciences and some miracles to go with that.
D) I can never agree in any way you accept unless I agree with you. I do not. Theology and faith may enter my reasoning in terms of your ideology, but common sense and an understanding of human decency play the larger part of my reasoning in knowing you to be as prejudiced as you claim all of Christianity of being.
Prejudice: I think you should refer to my last point. My blog tests the veracity of the Christian religion and by default, Christians feel persecuted and hated. That was not my intention, but I guess it comes with the territory. Let us lay aside sensitivity.
So far, you have added affirming the consequent to the list. A few more and those sweet, delicious chocolate chip cookies will be in my oven in no time.
See, I could question your condescending and sarcastic character. However, I’m not. My blog isn’t about your character; it is about your belief system.
My goal is not to argue theology with you. I may think you are wrong, but that is not the focus of this…discussion? No, that includes you being reasonable and willing to talk things out calmly. Argument? No, that would mean that this thing will lead somewhere meaningful. This…exchange is solely about poking fun at you. I have not denied that, nor do I plan on doing so in the near future.
A) The swing joke was funny, admit it.
B) Spectra, actually. You may have been called foolish on occasion, but I do not remember any personal attack on your character save for calling you a bigot; albeit that was a statement of fact, not an insult.
C) Not going into theology; it gets very boring and tedious with you. I can see the scoreboard just fine from where I am, and frankly, the points don’t interest me in the least. If you insult a religion, you insult the followers. This stands true for every faith and creed. You seem to be judging me well enough. Did I at least get an 8 for the high dive? Let’s not go into semantics, we’ll be there all day and it’s a rather nasty town. How many times must I say this? I AM NOT GOING TO GET INTO A THEOLOGICAL DEBATE WITH YOU.
D) Sir, you laid aside sensitivity when you got out of bed this morning.
E) Why would you question my sarcastic and condescending manner? Am I hiding it that well? Dad-gum, I’m good! Also: yeah, right.
Let’s see…I think got denying the antecedent in that one, but I might be wrong. Let me consult a friend…nope. Darn, almost got it, too. WAIT! Begging the question, awesome!
Okay, so take your fun poking elsewhere. Thanks. If you have no points, you have no business talking to me. You have invalidated yourself.
I applaud your sportsmanship and willingness to ignore the thorn currently digging into your side. I hope we may talk again someday; that toaster oven is reeeeaaally shiny.
No. We will never have a meaningful discussion that doesn’t shrivel down to assumptions, accusations, and insults. My blog is packed with evidence. If I felt the need to, I can occupy you for a year with the evidences that disprove your religion. That isn’t based on supposed hatred. It is plain fact. Have fun with your imaginary toaster and with your imaginary friend in the sky who promotes pedophilia in Numbers 31:18.
First off: I AM NOT. GOING INTO. A THEOLOGICAL DEBATE. WITH YOU. My time can be better spent than running in circles pursuing a greyhound as he chases an uncatchable rabbit at the races.
Evidence…your blog is indeed packed with it. However, separating the evidence from the copious amounts of ranting is a chore in and of itself and I am far too lazy to put in the effort.
I mockingly applaud you for being the bigger man and ending the argument. I throw in one last jab, however, and you immediately about face and say that. The target you paint on yourself is so large, I could face the opposite direction and fire blindly but still get a bull’s eye.
Please continue; my imaginary toaster oven will make astounding imaginary cookies when it arrives. If you want, I could share a few.
This is the definition of a bigot.
No. That is the definition of objectivity. Know both sides before you take one. I have both sides. You have one. Anyone who knows both will side with me. I will stand by that statement. You are the religiously blind bigot who refuses to consider opposing evidence.
And you just called people who look at both sides and don’t choose yours blind and foolish. Name-calling doesn’t justify you.
I concur with spectra.
Here is one of the faithful buddies I spoke about. You will concur because you’re just as blind and religious as she is. Spectra and the gang seriously need to stop trolling. I don’t adhere to Christianity. Accept it and walk away. However, continue to impose your supposed truth and I will continue to publicize and humiliate any argument you think you have. It is that simple.
Humiliation must be felt by the person intended to be humiliated for such a word to be applied.
I never told you to be a Christian. You have told me I have no right to be, and that I have no right to beliefs, opinions, arguments, or to make any point from that basis.
Don’t attack my friends. It’s immature, and shows just how desperate you really are. I don’t reblog your followers unless they’re talking directly to me.
Frankly, Decon, I find myself disappointed. All this time, you were focusing your hatred on one person as if he-or-she were the cause of all your suffering and opposition. This strikes me as misguided, foolish and a tad pathological, but that is not the point.
You strike me as an intelligent man who likes to prove that intelligence by attempting to invalidate others, often through long, drawn-out, public arguments. Albeit, Blackbird tends to do this once in a great while, but rarely is the opponent directly insulted…as you have just done to me, and I am now doing to you (this is something I must work on, but for the moment, I’m having too much fun; sorry). I thought you had calmed down after the last time I had commented (rather rudely, I am afraid; again, sorry), but apparently I was wrong. It is now clear your hostility is now directed not only at the person who has been arguing with you the most, but at anyone who shows the slightest disagreement with your fairly hateful and bigoted ideology.
Now then, in terms of illogical fallacies in this conversation alone, I have seen straw-manning, generalization (both hasty and sweeping in one go, good job), and false cause. Keep going; a few more and I’ll be able to complete my bingo card and get that toaster oven I’ve had my eye on.
Here is a good example of the same old accusations. I addressed you because you failed to address me directly. Don’t jump into a debate, take a swing, and run away. If you want to say something, say it directly to the person you mean to address. “I concur.” Why? Does it have anything to do with your faith? Yes. Thus, you fail to agree in any manner that I can respect. You too have not considered the evidence and thus, you have invalidated yourself. Good luck with your toaster.
Thank you for your encouragement and assistance; I’m almost there!
A) I took a stand, not a swing. Taking a swing would be rather difficult considering most swings are cemented into the ground.
Again, someone who has issues with the English language. A swing is a shot — whether a verbal or physical shot. I’m not talking about playgrounds. Don’t be immature.
B) I do believe I did just say something to your face, virtually, at least. And unless my short-term memory is especially spotty, it was a rather elaborate insult.
Pat yourself on the back. You have attempted to insult me. Which one of you hasn’t?
C) I concur because every statement you have made against Blackbird and/or Christians as a group has been caustic, generalized, unreasonable, and generally hateful. Signs of bigotry. Anyone who has suffered bigotry (except yourself, as you claim you have) would recognize the symptoms.
Caustic, as in able to burn. Don’t see how that applies. Generalized: as if all Christians don’t adhere to an exclusive truth, accept Christ or else. Unreasonable: I have not failed to see the points; to the contrary, you, spectra, and a few others have. Appealing to Apologetics is an obvious sign. Hateful: my blog isn’t aimed at a people; it is directed at an ideology, an inanimate supposed truth. Again, I test the veracity of the Christian religion, not the veracity of Christian character or of Christians overall. Bigotry: suffered? Another assumption. Bigotry does not make me suffer. Bigotry is appalling. You only accuse me of it because I say that I’m right. However, I can prove that to you. You say that you’re right. Where is your proof? Apologetics? The Bible? Personal experiences? Sorry, devotees of other religions can give me their scripture, interpretation of the sciences and some miracles to go with that.
D) I can never agree in any way you accept unless I agree with you. I do not. Theology and faith may enter my reasoning in terms of your ideology, but common sense and an understanding of human decency play the larger part of my reasoning in knowing you to be as prejudiced as you claim all of Christianity of being.
Prejudice: I think you should refer to my last point. My blog tests the veracity of the Christian religion and by default, Christians feel persecuted and hated. That was not my intention, but I guess it comes with the territory. Let us lay aside sensitivity.
So far, you have added affirming the consequent to the list. A few more and those sweet, delicious chocolate chip cookies will be in my oven in no time.
See, I could question your condescending and sarcastic character. However, I’m not. My blog isn’t about your character; it is about your belief system.
My goal is not to argue theology with you. I may think you are wrong, but that is not the focus of this…discussion? No, that includes you being reasonable and willing to talk things out calmly. Argument? No, that would mean that this thing will lead somewhere meaningful. This…exchange is solely about poking fun at you. I have not denied that, nor do I plan on doing so in the near future.
A) The swing joke was funny, admit it.
B) Spectra, actually. You may have been called foolish on occasion, but I do not remember any personal attack on your character save for calling you a bigot; albeit that was a statement of fact, not an insult.
C) Not going into theology; it gets very boring and tedious with you. I can see the scoreboard just fine from where I am, and frankly, the points don’t interest me in the least. If you insult a religion, you insult the followers. This stands true for every faith and creed. You seem to be judging me well enough. Did I at least get an 8 for the high dive? Let’s not go into semantics, we’ll be there all day and it’s a rather nasty town. How many times must I say this? I AM NOT GOING TO GET INTO A THEOLOGICAL DEBATE WITH YOU.
D) Sir, you laid aside sensitivity when you got out of bed this morning.
E) Why would you question my sarcastic and condescending manner? Am I hiding it that well? Dad-gum, I’m good! Also: yeah, right.
Let’s see…I think got denying the antecedent in that one, but I might be wrong. Let me consult a friend…nope. Darn, almost got it, too. WAIT! Begging the question, awesome!
Okay, so take your fun poking elsewhere. Thanks. If you have no points, you have no business talking to me. You have invalidated yourself.
I applaud your sportsmanship and willingness to ignore the thorn currently digging into your side. I hope we may talk again someday; that toaster oven is reeeeaaally shiny.
This is the definition of a bigot.
No. That is the definition of objectivity. Know both sides before you take one. I have both sides. You have one. Anyone who knows both will side with me. I will stand by that statement. You are the religiously blind bigot who refuses to consider opposing evidence.
And you just called people who look at both sides and don’t choose yours blind and foolish. Name-calling doesn’t justify you.
I concur with spectra.
Here is one of the faithful buddies I spoke about. You will concur because you’re just as blind and religious as she is. Spectra and the gang seriously need to stop trolling. I don’t adhere to Christianity. Accept it and walk away. However, continue to impose your supposed truth and I will continue to publicize and humiliate any argument you think you have. It is that simple.
Humiliation must be felt by the person intended to be humiliated for such a word to be applied.
I never told you to be a Christian. You have told me I have no right to be, and that I have no right to beliefs, opinions, arguments, or to make any point from that basis.
Don’t attack my friends. It’s immature, and shows just how desperate you really are. I don’t reblog your followers unless they’re talking directly to me.
Frankly, Decon, I find myself disappointed. All this time, you were focusing your hatred on one person as if he-or-she were the cause of all your suffering and opposition. This strikes me as misguided, foolish and a tad pathological, but that is not the point.
You strike me as an intelligent man who likes to prove that intelligence by attempting to invalidate others, often through long, drawn-out, public arguments. Albeit, Blackbird tends to do this once in a great while, but rarely is the opponent directly insulted…as you have just done to me, and I am now doing to you (this is something I must work on, but for the moment, I’m having too much fun; sorry). I thought you had calmed down after the last time I had commented (rather rudely, I am afraid; again, sorry), but apparently I was wrong. It is now clear your hostility is now directed not only at the person who has been arguing with you the most, but at anyone who shows the slightest disagreement with your fairly hateful and bigoted ideology.
Now then, in terms of illogical fallacies in this conversation alone, I have seen straw-manning, generalization (both hasty and sweeping in one go, good job), and false cause. Keep going; a few more and I’ll be able to complete my bingo card and get that toaster oven I’ve had my eye on.
Here is a good example of the same old accusations. I addressed you because you failed to address me directly. Don’t jump into a debate, take a swing, and run away. If you want to say something, say it directly to the person you mean to address. “I concur.” Why? Does it have anything to do with your faith? Yes. Thus, you fail to agree in any manner that I can respect. You too have not considered the evidence and thus, you have invalidated yourself. Good luck with your toaster.
Thank you for your encouragement and assistance; I’m almost there!
A) I took a stand, not a swing. Taking a swing would be rather difficult considering most swings are cemented into the ground.
Again, someone who has issues with the English language. A swing is a shot — whether a verbal or physical shot. I’m not talking about playgrounds. Don’t be immature.
B) I do believe I did just say something to your face, virtually, at least. And unless my short-term memory is especially spotty, it was a rather elaborate insult.
Pat yourself on the back. You have attempted to insult me. Which one of you hasn’t?
C) I concur because every statement you have made against Blackbird and/or Christians as a group has been caustic, generalized, unreasonable, and generally hateful. Signs of bigotry. Anyone who has suffered bigotry (except yourself, as you claim you have) would recognize the symptoms.
Caustic, as in able to burn. Don’t see how that applies. Generalized: as if all Christians don’t adhere to an exclusive truth, accept Christ or else. Unreasonable: I have not failed to see the points; to the contrary, you, spectra, and a few others have. Appealing to Apologetics is an obvious sign. Hateful: my blog isn’t aimed at a people; it is directed at an ideology, an inanimate supposed truth. Again, I test the veracity of the Christian religion, not the veracity of Christian character or of Christians overall. Bigotry: suffered? Another assumption. Bigotry does not make me suffer. Bigotry is appalling. You only accuse me of it because I say that I’m right. However, I can prove that to you. You say that you’re right. Where is your proof? Apologetics? The Bible? Personal experiences? Sorry, devotees of other religions can give me their scripture, interpretation of the sciences and some miracles to go with that.
D) I can never agree in any way you accept unless I agree with you. I do not. Theology and faith may enter my reasoning in terms of your ideology, but common sense and an understanding of human decency play the larger part of my reasoning in knowing you to be as prejudiced as you claim all of Christianity of being.
Prejudice: I think you should refer to my last point. My blog tests the veracity of the Christian religion and by default, Christians feel persecuted and hated. That was not my intention, but I guess it comes with the territory. Let us lay aside sensitivity.
So far, you have added affirming the consequent to the list. A few more and those sweet, delicious chocolate chip cookies will be in my oven in no time.
See, I could question your condescending and sarcastic character. However, I’m not. My blog isn’t about your character; it is about your belief system.
My goal is not to argue theology with you. I may think you are wrong, but that is not the focus of this…discussion? No, that includes you being reasonable and willing to talk things out calmly. Argument? No, that would mean that this thing will lead somewhere meaningful. This…exchange is solely about poking fun at you. I have not denied that, nor do I plan on doing so in the near future.
A) The swing joke was funny, admit it.
B) Spectra, actually. You may have been called foolish on occasion, but I do not remember any personal attack on your character save for calling you a bigot; albeit that was a statement of fact, not an insult.
C) Not going into theology; it gets very boring and tedious with you. I can see the scoreboard just fine from where I am, and frankly, the points don’t interest me in the least. If you insult a religion, you insult the followers. This stands true for every faith and creed. You seem to be judging me well enough. Did I at least get an 8 for the high dive? Let’s not go into semantics, we’ll be there all day and it’s a rather nasty town. How many times must I say this? I AM NOT GOING TO GET INTO A THEOLOGICAL DEBATE WITH YOU.
D) Sir, you laid aside sensitivity when you got out of bed this morning.
E) Why would you question my sarcastic and condescending manner? Am I hiding it that well? Dad-gum, I’m good! Also: yeah, right.
Let’s see…I think got denying the antecedent in that one, but I might be wrong. Let me consult a friend…nope. Darn, almost got it, too. WAIT! Begging the question, awesome!
This is the definition of a bigot.
No. That is the definition of objectivity. Know both sides before you take one. I have both sides. You have one. Anyone who knows both will side with me. I will stand by that statement. You are the religiously blind bigot who refuses to consider opposing evidence.
And you just called people who look at both sides and don’t choose yours blind and foolish. Name-calling doesn’t justify you.
I concur with spectra.
Here is one of the faithful buddies I spoke about. You will concur because you’re just as blind and religious as she is. Spectra and the gang seriously need to stop trolling. I don’t adhere to Christianity. Accept it and walk away. However, continue to impose your supposed truth and I will continue to publicize and humiliate any argument you think you have. It is that simple.
Humiliation must be felt by the person intended to be humiliated for such a word to be applied.
I never told you to be a Christian. You have told me I have no right to be, and that I have no right to beliefs, opinions, arguments, or to make any point from that basis.
Don’t attack my friends. It’s immature, and shows just how desperate you really are. I don’t reblog your followers unless they’re talking directly to me.
Frankly, Decon, I find myself disappointed. All this time, you were focusing your hatred on one person as if he-or-she were the cause of all your suffering and opposition. This strikes me as misguided, foolish and a tad pathological, but that is not the point.
You strike me as an intelligent man who likes to prove that intelligence by attempting to invalidate others, often through long, drawn-out, public arguments. Albeit, Blackbird tends to do this once in a great while, but rarely is the opponent directly insulted…as you have just done to me, and I am now doing to you (this is something I must work on, but for the moment, I’m having too much fun; sorry). I thought you had calmed down after the last time I had commented (rather rudely, I am afraid; again, sorry), but apparently I was wrong. It is now clear your hostility is now directed not only at the person who has been arguing with you the most, but at anyone who shows the slightest disagreement with your fairly hateful and bigoted ideology.
Now then, in terms of illogical fallacies in this conversation alone, I have seen straw-manning, generalization (both hasty and sweeping in one go, good job), and false cause. Keep going; a few more and I’ll be able to complete my bingo card and get that toaster oven I’ve had my eye on.
Here is a good example of the same old accusations. I addressed you because you failed to address me directly. Don’t jump into a debate, take a swing, and run away. If you want to say something, say it directly to the person you mean to address. “I concur.” Why? Does it have anything to do with your faith? Yes. Thus, you fail to agree in any manner that I can respect. You too have not considered the evidence and thus, you have invalidated yourself. Good luck with your toaster.
Thank you for your encouragement and assistance; I’m almost there!
A) I took a stand, not a swing. Taking a swing would be rather difficult considering most swings are cemented into the ground.
B) I do believe I did just say something to your face, virtually, at least. And unless my short-term memory is especially spotty, it was a rather elaborate insult.
C) I concur because every statement you have made against Blackbird and/or Christians as a group has been caustic, generalized, unreasonable, and generally hateful. Signs of bigotry. Anyone who has suffered bigotry (except yourself, as you claim you have) would recognize the symptoms.
D) I can never agree in any way you accept unless I agree with you. I do not. Theology and faith may enter my reasoning in terms of your ideology, but common sense and an understanding of human decency play the larger part of my reasoning in knowing you to be as prejudiced as you claim all of Christianity of being.
So far, you have added affirming the consequent to the list. A few more and those sweet, delicious chocolate chip cookies will be in my oven in no time.
This is the definition of a bigot.
No. That is the definition of objectivity. Know both sides before you take one. I have both sides. You have one. Anyone who knows both will side with me. I will stand by that statement. You are the religiously blind bigot who refuses to consider opposing evidence.
And you just called people who look at both sides and don’t choose yours blind and foolish. Name-calling doesn’t justify you.
I concur with spectra.
Here is one of the faithful buddies I spoke about. You will concur because you’re just as blind and religious as she is. Spectra and the gang seriously need to stop trolling. I don’t adhere to Christianity. Accept it and walk away. However, continue to impose your supposed truth and I will continue to publicize and humiliate any argument you think you have. It is that simple.
Humiliation must be felt by the person intended to be humiliated for such a word to be applied.
I never told you to be a Christian. You have told me I have no right to be, and that I have no right to beliefs, opinions, arguments, or to make any point from that basis.
Don’t attack my friends. It’s immature, and shows just how desperate you really are. I don’t reblog your followers unless they’re talking directly to me.
Frankly, Decon, I find myself disappointed. All this time, you were focusing your hatred on one person as if he-or-she were the cause of all your suffering and opposition. This strikes me as misguided, foolish and a tad pathological, but that is not the point.
You strike me as an intelligent man who likes to prove that intelligence by attempting to invalidate others, often through long, drawn-out, public arguments. Albeit, Blackbird tends to do this once in a great while, but rarely is the opponent directly insulted…as you have just done to me, and I am now doing to you (this is something I must work on, but for the moment, I’m having too much fun; sorry). I thought you had calmed down after the last time I had commented (rather rudely, I am afraid; again, sorry), but apparently I was wrong. It is now clear your hostility is now directed not only at the person who has been arguing with you the most, but at anyone who shows the slightest disagreement with your fairly hateful and bigoted ideology.
Now then, in terms of illogical fallacies in this conversation alone, I have seen straw-manning, generalization (both hasty and sweeping in one go, good job), and false cause. Keep going; a few more and I’ll be able to complete my bingo card and get that toaster oven I’ve had my eye on.
(via spectra-fidelis-deactivated2012)
This is the definition of a bigot.
No. That is the definition of objectivity. Know both sides before you take one. I have both sides. You have one. Anyone who knows both will side with me. I will stand by that statement. You are the religiously blind bigot who refuses to consider opposing evidence.
And you just called people who look at both sides and don’t choose yours blind and foolish. Name-calling doesn’t justify you.
I concur with spectra.
‘The Bible has been interpreted to justify such evil practices as, for example, slavery, the slaughter of prisoners of war, the sadistic murders of women believed to be witches, capital punishment for hundreds of offenses, polygamy, and cruelty to animals.
It has been used to encourage belief in the grossest superstition and to discourage the free teaching of scientific truths.”
"Steve Allen (Bible Religion & Morality)
Science has been interpreted to justify such evil practices as demeaning creationist students, firing teachers who believe in Intelligent Design, calling “free belief” under the name of “intolerance” and “narrow-mindedness,” and to encourage the belief that no one can be smart if they believe in God.
(via spectra-fidelis)
(Source: vertabrae, via spectra-fidelis-deactivated2012)
Read the book of Hebrews to get a handle on the difference between Mosaic Law and Christian Law. The Mosaic Law no longer applies to Christians, but is kept as an example to make them appreciate the present system. Abraham was counted as a Righteous man, though there was no Law to follow in this manner, only God’s apparent will.
If you have other questions regarding this, feel free to ask. I’d love to talk.
(Source: forthosewh0seek, via spectra-fidelis-deactivated2012)
“Hate” your mother and father in that sentence refers to holding God over their will.
Separating yourself from the expectations of the people around you.
Second sentence refers to wishing injury on your brother.
If you have further questions, my ask box is always open. I’d love to talk.
According to Christians: humans sin. Sin, no matter what kind, is punishable by death; “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Ever since that very first sin, when Eve took a bite of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, humans have been mortal. Their mortality was the punishment for doing…
- The animal sacrifices never “fixed” the Israelite’s sin. If you study further into the nature of the Mosaic Law, they still had to follow it with intention. They couldn’t just “go through the motions,” because it made the law pointless. Hebrews 10:4
- Jesus’s sacrifice was voluntary. The Christian Law states that, to receive the salvation through Him, one must accept his teachings and act upon them, effectively separating yourself from the world.
- If God could “simply forgive his creation,” there would be no need for love. Acceptance of the sacrifice proves a voluntary action. God cannot be tolerant of willful sin, so someone has to repent before being forgiven.
(Source: anatheistbiblestudy, via spectra-fidelis-deactivated2012)
What is a real Christian? Who deserves to be called a real Christian, and who does not? These can be difficult questions, and sometimes I don’t envy the plight of Christians at all. It seems like almost no matter what you do, someone is going to come along and claim…
(via spectra-fidelis-deactivated2012)
Don't expect much if anything. I plan to slap words upon keys of black and white as the digital poet screams. Soiled thoughts of sadness mixed in with jubilant epiphanies shall crawl across this space. The odd video or two should appear as well. I am not the type to automatically follow back; I will peruse your archive for a while before deciding to follow or not. For more information, type in /blahaboutme at the end of the url.
