I had no idea Curtis was so young, and it explains so much.
I have to say, he is very well written for a person his age.
This needs research. And experiments. Lots of 'em.
That being said, as the Internet is my witness, I believed everything even remotely sexual had been tried at least once. And videotaped.
Well bless your heart.
It’s unfair to automatically discount anything he says due to his age. If his arguments are flawed due to lack of experience or due consideration, then you can attack them on that merit.
I remember long ago I didn’t tell anyone on the internet how old I was until I was 19 or 20, exactly because I didn’t want to have what I had to say unfairly dismissed.
I believe it’s because he acts like a know-it-all, perhaps? And if you’ve read his lectures in other religious threads, it’s quite irritating. (Read some of his abortion threads, for example.)
Spelling, grammar, and punctuation is pretty good, though. And he does present ideas fairly well. I generally don’t agree with a significant proportion of his conclusions, but he’s straight-forward enough.
One constant is that he seems quite confident about his conclusions. I remember having the same confidence in my (much) younger days. Now the more I learn, the more I realize how little I truly know.
Experience will improve him, I’ve no doubt.
Or pants for that matter, and he certainly would have known of them.
He did mention country music but only to say he thought Stand By Your Man was ironic coming from a woman who had been married for so many times and to say Porter Waggoner was being a jerk on the Dolly Parton mealticket lawsuit, these of course being in The Apocalypse of St. Vinnie, generally considered apocryphal now.
Do KJV-only people not know that King James was widely rumored- with some evidence- to be bisexual (or homo plus wife) or do they know but not care? For that matter do they have a clue why the KJV versionS of the Bible existed (i.e. political motivation/divine right of kings/etc.) or do they know but not care?
My reaction regarding his age has nothing to do with his grammar, spelling, punctuation, or the content of his arguments. It’s the unbending, unyielding attitude of “I’m right, you’re all wrong, you just don’t understand the situation as well as I do and if you did, you’d realize that I’m right and you’re wrong.” It’s the black-and-white thinking.
Ugh, no way Our Lord and Savior would sport that ugly-ass skirt-over-pants look, Sampiro.
Hey, y’all saw this church is offering barbecued chicken and sides along with this book burning, didn’t you? I can’t believe I’m going to outflank Curtis on the right, here, but let’s not get all hasty in pitting them.
A standard characteristic for that age. Many folks persist in it long-term. Most don’t.
But I’m still happy to see 13 year olds using decent spelling and grammar on the internet. 
Oh, do those still exist? I remember some jokes about that sort of thing when I was a (somewhat more countercultural & cosmopolitan fundie/evangelical) kid.
Read these verses in the KJV.
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
It says effeminate: not homosexuals. That opens the passage up to all kinds of different interpretations.
Jesus said…
Matthew 22:37-39 (King James Version)
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the first and great commandment.
39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Personally, I choose to follow Jesus, not Paul.
I don’t care if he speaks like Noam Chomsky – I don’t think I’m the only one who resents being lectured on morality by a kid who’s almost young enough to be my son. Especially when his ignorance is frighteningly obvious.
(His constant thread starting is a wee annoying as well.)
This has always frustrated the heck out of me. Paul’s a really interesting figure, and a great example of someone struggling to reconcile their new “be excellent to each other” faith with their old “fuck anyone who doesn’t follow my rules” way of living. Some parts of his letters are beautiful, some are outright shitty, and we can learn a lot from both aspects.
But why the hell do so many “Christians” really just want to be Paulines? (Well, maybe because they’ve got some of the same issues he did.) He may have been divinely inspired, but he wasn’t divine, he was human, imperfect and fallible. What’s the basis for putting his insistences above the spoken words of God-as-Christ? (Aside from the issues thing.)
Perhaps quiet amusement might be a more appropriate response than resentment.
'Cause it’s in the book. I really think that’s the reason.
ETA - that was to Sebastienne.
This confuses me too. The story of Saul/Paul’s conversion on the Damascus Road is an amazing story. Paul’s words contain a lot of good messages. But, in my belief, Paul didn’t die for my sins. Jesus did. That’s why I’m a Christian, not a Paulian.
Paul was a way better salesman.