I’m not complaining, dipshit. You are.
He may be a prick but from where I’m sitting he’s a prick with a bloody good argument. May I suggest that instead of random ad hom potshots you naysayers actually step up to the plate and justify your attacks with reasoned answers to his points?
What on earth, then, prompted you to post this:
If you aren’t complaining, what are you doing? Babbling? Raving incoherently? Howling at the moon?
Lib, you just complained about Demo interpreting.
It’s a joke. (See the smiley?) Don’t liberals have a sense of humor? Or do you deny that you’re a liberal? And why did you and your left tit, Vorlon, feel compelled to hijack Poly’s thread?
Your argument is full of straw, and you are full of shit.
You must really love shit and straw.
Shit, straw, and raving loonies. Bring 'em on.
We should get together and masturbate.
Nah.
By it’s very nature, a belief system is usually inextricably linked to a persons moral values.
Moral codes are usually extremely complex, with many factors for consideration - thus the phrase “the moral maze”.
Badchad is effectively asking Polycarp to justify what will be a complicated set of factors, all the while phrasing his questions in the most loaded way possible. In short, the old example of “have you stopped beating your wife” isn’t a patch on this line of attack.
Or do you really think that you could answer any set of moral scenarios I could set you without ever appearing to contradict yourself?
Not to butt in… aw heck, that’s what I’m doing.
NotquitesoBadChad? People don’t get “Condemmed” to hell. They earn it by the way they live their lives. God is merely the judge, the one who rules on how you lived your life.
Actually, it is badchad’s thread, addressed at Poly. And it has been nothing but a hijack from the start.
Not sure why either, because, for the most part, I find badchad’s arguments quite compelling and direct. Sure, he is not the most agreeable of debaters, but then again, it shouldn’t come as news to anyone that religious and/or political debates can, and often do, get quite heated. So, why not respond to the content of his posts as opposed to resuming the pile-on?
Unless of course, you’d rather continue to take the easy way out.
RedFury, they’re not direct at all. In fact, they’re massively vague. Read his last response, and notice that he offers zero particulars or specifics. Only upon request did he offer his scriptural cites for Christ’s mention of hell, and he’ll need to be asked for his cites regarding this statement:
“Offhand I recall”? “I think”? “IIRC”? Could he be less specific? And none of his statements on what he claims Jesus to have said are either specific or of substance.
Were you born this stupid or did your mother drop you on your head? You are so desperate that you are reaching with this one. This passage is commonly interpreted as a prohibiton against storing up treasures exclusively on earth. You know, the things that you “can’t take with you”. How comforting would the thought of Heaven be if you hadn’t stored up any treasures there when you had the chance?
**
Sure it is okay. As long as they don’t violate anyone’s basic human rights. Since when was it a sin to state your opinion? As long as you’re not a jerk about it, I don’t see the problem here.
**
More evidence of you being hit with the Stupid Stick. Poly was told by medical professionals that he WOULDN’T have survived his first heart attack.
**
Well, duh. Now let’s just hop in our time machine and see who was right!
You are just silly badchad. And I bet someone smarter than me could do a better ream-job on your strawmen than I did.
Fair enough – I too would like to read the pertinent quotes where Jesus forbids the above actions. And once offered, I’d like to read the rebuttal.
But that’s precisely my point, why not let the debate go forth?
Actually, Jesus said that God specifically does NOT judge, and has given all power over judgment to Him:
“Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son” [John 5:22]
And as it happens, Jesus has decided not to exercise His power of judgment:
“As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.” [John 12:47]
So who judges us? We do. We judge ourselves by His word:
“There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.” [John 12:48]
Judgment is nothing more than a decision about whether or not we love His word. And it’s a decision we make of our own free will.
Out of curiosity, did a quick search on the divorce/remarry issue, and this is what I came up with:
The above quote, pre-spun, appears to validate what badchad said.
RedFury, my understanding of that passage is that Jesus was not addressing divorce so much as he was illuminating the hypocrisy of his questioner’s legalistic world-view, and indicting humans for thinking they could draw close to God by relying on the letter of the law.
Didn’t he also say, in the same exchange, that to hold hatred toward your brother is tantamount to murder (sorry, I don’t have a Bible handy right now, so can’t cite)? He certainly was not advocating prosecution of the hateful; he was pointing out the impossibility of anyone’s satisfying the law.
His point was that reliance on our own ability to follow the “rules” was not only futile, but distracting us from focusing on the meaning behind the law.
In addition to what Rimshot said, what’s the big deal? So someone commits adultery. It barely merits scribbles in the dirt, remember. That was a central theme of Jesus’ ministry — that the heart of the law is mercy, not judgment.
“He may be a prick but from where I’m sitting he’s a prick with a bloody good argument. May I suggest that instead of random ad hom potshots you naysayers actually step up to the plate and justify your attacks with reasoned answers to his points?”
Well fuckin’ told. I thought he put a great argument together. He’s not really a prick…just sort of a fight-picker. BFD.
"Poly was told by medical professionals that he WOULDN’T have survived his first heart attack. "
Yeah, but he DID survive it. You make it sound like no one ever beats the odds, either by chance or with the help of medicine. What was god’s reason for picking Poly, out of all the sick and dying people on the planet at that moment, to save? What does he have going on that the rest of the dying don’t? Get real. I suppose god picks who will win the Superbowl, too.