His4Ever, why are you telling lies about your Deity?

Vanilla, a few weeks ago in a private e-mail exchange with His4Ever she explained her views on what happens when a homosexual becomes a Christian. They were outrageous and nonsensical enough that I could not respond.

His4Ever, do you realize that by refusing to address your mistake on page 6, you’ve just lost a large amount of credibility when it comes to any assertions you make about what the Bible says? Coupled with your habit of not responding when someone else cites other verses from the Bible in response to something you’ve said it says, you’re not coming off as particularly credible.

How can I say this without sounding condescending? I realize that critical thinking doesn’t come easily to everyone. I’m also very aware that this Board can make great intellectual demands on people, especially in Great Debates. That’s fair enough – the purpose of this Board is fighting ignorance. When you said Christ told the woman at the well to go and sin no more on page 6, when you asked if there wasn’t some alternative history in which modern day Protestantism didn’t grow out of Catholicism, when you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that Mormons and Catholics are wrong, you demonstrate your own ignorance and, what’s worse on this Board, you refuse to do anything about it.

In my book, condemning people to Hell without taking the trouble to find out who and what they are is a form of bigotry. I know you say you don’t do it; the Bible does, but you’ve just demonstrated your ignorance of what the Bible says. Despite what you believe about what your Way is, it comes across only as hatred, condemnation, and blindness. Here are a couple more passages for you:

This took place immediately after Christ chastized the Pharisees in Matthew 15:6 by saying, “You have made God’s law null and void out of respect for your tradition. What hypocrisy!”

**Libertarian’s already cited the next few verses. You do the same when you say Catholics and Mormons are not Christians. I’ll also point out that right before this is a passage which a friend of mine who used to be a Fundamentalist says some Protestants used to justify their rejection of Catholic hierarchy, Matthew 23:9, “Do not call any man on earth, ‘father’ for you have one Father and he is in Heaven.”

By the way, His4Ever, do you realize that the verse you used for your last signature is one of the ones Catholics use to justify their belief in transsubstantiation?

CJ

Well, thanks, but some posters on here want some answers so you may want to e mail them, too.

I don’t know if you do realize you are only turning people Off to the gospel by your postings here.
Are you aware of this?
Come on back here, and talk to these people!(they won’t bite).
But the may disagree; thats okay too.

Word to the wise, let’s be careful discussing private email threads. Lynn has made it clear this is verboten.

And more on topic, I very much doubt His will ever satisfactorily answer the questions posed to her. Her form of Christianity (and IMHO most fundamentalist types of same) is incoherent and illogical, not to mention incompatible with the real world. So I dont expect rational answers from an irrational belief system.

Lost? lost? L-O-S-T ?

:smiley:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You’re such a kidder, cj.

Homebrew, I’m a Christian. I’m supposed to be merciful. That, combined with a tendency towards understatement . . .

CJ

i think I’ll just go brew something at home…:slight_smile:

Like tea? :slight_smile:

I cannot brew anything else…:slight_smile:

I do not think she is going to answer Any more questions.
I think IMHO, we are just not accepting her truth, and God help us then!:frowning:

cj: I trust that was a typo above where you said

As an LDS myself, I appreciate your repetition shortly thereafter in which you indicated what you really meant to say there (I think). As I’ve told a number of people, we LDS may not be their particular flavour of Christianity, but we’re still Christians.

Cool! Now you’re channelling British crossword puzzles. If H4E can’t figure out something straightford, there’s no way she’ll figure that out!

It was a typo, Monty. Sorry about that – I was trying to put things at least somewhat delicately. As for the second comment, that was directed more at Homebrew.

Wait a minute! I just got the joke!
CJ

:slight_smile:

Somebody might. I can’t assent to that because I have heard of this Jesus guy. Aside from that, I’ll assent to Jesus out of fear of hell and simultaneously admit the possibility that hell may not exist.

It isn’t turning every single person off to the gospel, so she is succeeding in her purpose here. Besides, I’m attempting to not look at H4e anyway, I’m attempting to look at Jesus. (Note attempting. My successes are few and far between, which is a very good thing.)

lel, I hope you don’t mind if I pity you.

Sigh… the Christian religion is NOT about avoiding Hell. If you assent to Jesus in order to escape Hell, you have totally missed the point.

She doesn’t get it though.
She thinks anything other than her beleifs is a watered down gospel, meant only for sinners to feel good about sinning.

I don’t think theres any getting thru to her.:frowning:

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance- that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

Herbert Spencer

Go for it.

Wow, I just realized that I just assented to Pascal’s Wager. How’s that for unoriginal thinking?

Certainly. Yet one can also learn arguments and information and willfully choose to ignore such – contempt after investigation, perhaps?

Ignorance titers are lower if one investigates first, and holds in contempt later, than if the reverse is true. And this site is all about fighting ignorance, right?

And in case it wasn’t clear, that quote by Spencer was meant forH4E

It was clear, Qadgop. I’m just responding because I began to investigate things and early on ceased to do so because I so strongly wish to believe in Christianity as propounded by conservative evangelicals that I must suppress things that I have begun to learn in order to believe in such.

Is being willfully ignorant after being made aware of one’s ignorance better or worse (comparatively speaking) than being inadvertently ignorant because one refuses to investigate the evidence?