Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

So fighting and killing is okay in your worldview, but intercourse is off the table?

Yes, although I don't support fights or killing in real life other than the obvious stuff like war

So which is worse in the real world, taking a life or having homosexual intercourse outside of marriage?

You'll have to wait on the full answer for this question. I cannot look up the verses I want to answer this question as of right now. I could give you the short answer though:

Both are terrible, especially when you compare it what the Bible says about those things. Murder is much worse because you are taking the life of someone away, where as Homo intercourse is a terrible sin that defiles the body God gave you.

I'm interested in the verse where Jesus said that when you get a chance to look it up though.

Bible only makes reference to male-male homosexuality, is lesbo tribbing okay? 

I can't imagine a good God who doesn't support that. (remembers to delete browsing history)

wow. I think this comment is also obvious and goes with what I said earlier, God does not support this

It applies to both Men and Women. So no

The prohibition, both in Leviticus and its re-formulation in the New Testament, both use gendered language to refer to the act on male on male sex acts. How are you determining that lesbianism is prohibited? 

homosexuality reefers to both man/man and woman/woman. Plus, God made man to be with women, not man with man or woman with woman
1 Corinthians 7:2-5 nlt But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

You're wrong about the word meaning, but yeah, I think it's best that you personally just continue thinking sex is icky.

1 Corinthians is also, incidentally, where it says it's better not to marry at all.

I thought it meant being attracted to the same sex? And yes, it would be better not to marry, with the main reason being self-control. It also said in 1 Corinthians 7: "It’s better to marry than to burn with lust."

Matthew 19 1-12

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went down to the region of Judea east of the Jordan River. Large crowds followed him there, and he healed their sick.

Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: “Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’" And he said, “‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.”

“Then why did Moses say in the law that a man could give his wife a written notice of divorce and send her away?” they asked.

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended. And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.”

Jesus’ disciples then said to him, “If this is the case, it is better not to marry!”

“Not everyone can accept this statement,” Jesus said. “Only those whom God helps. 12 Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

Hebrew 13:4 nlt

Give honor to marriage, and remain faithful to one another in marriage. God will surely judge people who are immoral and those who commit adultery.

1 Corinthians 7-2 contains advice on how to avoid porneia, a Greek word that means improper sexuality: incest, adultery, the like. It's closely related to the feminine Greek noun porne, which means (a normatively female) prostitute. Given as St. Paul (and 1 and 2 Corinthians are considered authentic Pauline writings) is writing to Greeks living in Corinth, and giving advice to married people,  he's clearly talking about avoiding heterosexual relations outside of marriage. 

This puts Paul in line with other ancient Mediterranean writers, who largely did not describe female homosexuality. Whether they did not care, or did not have sufficient insight into the private lives of women to know it happens, is unclear. 

So like I was saying

Murder:
Genesis 9:5-6 nlt
And I will require the blood of anyone who takes another person's life. If a wild animal kills a person, it must die. And anyone who murders a fellow human must die. If anyone takes a human life, that person's life will also be taken by human hands. For God made human beings in his own image.



Homosexuality:

homosexuality refers to both man/man and woman/woman. Plus, God made man to be with women, not man with man or woman with woman

1 Corinthians 7:2-5 nlt But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Leviticus 18:22 nlt
Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.

Also you can read 1 Corinthians 7 nlt for instructions on marriage if you really are interested in reading what the Bible says about this

I say we stop here with this on the threads. message me if you want more info on this

There now, we have a whole new thread for you gays to keep going in.

Thanks for the thread. I wish there was a way to hide this from the home page for the younger writers, Avo messaged me about it so I had to apologize to her.

I think there are worse things on this site than a debate about homosexuality. 

True, but I don't want to be the one introducing it to someone young who does not know what it is

You're actually very lucky to have stumbled upon this site rather than CoG. (AKA Choice of Games)

That site is basically Sodom where they do nothing but celebrate homosexuality and degeneracy of swapping out your man parts for a lesser model. Along with dressing up in fursuits and wearing diapers. Worse still, they push this ideology on children.

So actually you probably should continue spreading the cause of righteousness so that the youth here may see it and not be swayed by evil.

Thanks

Introducing what? The concept of The Gay? The Bible itself?

The regular users of the site aren't going to walk on eggshells because kids might be around, if the kids are here it's up to them to use their own judgement. But even in a strictly PG conversation this is not a scary topic that needs to be spoken of in hushed tones.

If they're both sins, would you have a train run on you (this means multiple of them taking turns (homosexually)) by big black crossdressers (they are not passing) if it would prevent the Holocaust?

@Blister1

Reminder that the Holocaust was really bad

Yes, thanks for the reminder anyways :D

Dammit Sherb, I thought at least you were based.

The answer to "How many Jews died in the holocaust" will forever be "not enough".

Notice how this was never answered...

It's not even six million big black men, Petros was being very generous.

Nobody here is a Hebrew priest so I'm not sure there's much to the argument that Leviticus applies here. Or why this specific verse does but not the rest.

>>homosexuality refers to both man/man and woman/woman.

You also are conveniently changing the meaning of what the Bible actually says to fit your personal belief, which is poor form in a debate.

Even so, you would still apply it to both. Also, I'm no bible scholar, so I might make a few mistakes when it comes to certain things that I have not been taught a ton on

Malk mentioned the specific wording used though. The issue here is that you keep going back to the word "homosexuality" itself which doesn't even appear in most English translations, and putting a meaning on it that was not the intent of the original author.

I'm interested if he knows any details about Lev 18:22 though since that one is also apparently linguistically interesting in context.

From what I know, that verse can also be interpreted as 'don't sleep with children as you'd sleep with an adult' this is quite a contentious subject, though.

Yeah, pretty much everything in Leviticus afaik is very specifically addressing issues in that culture, and there's a lot devoted to incest with that potentially being one of them because of some specific word only appearing one other time and used in that context.

Malk really has to be the guy for these questions though, I don't know anyone else with relevant degrees.

Ok, I'll address that question with that context in mind. I think I was still trying to answer both Petros and Malk's questions at the same time. Also I used Lev 18:22 in my answer to one of them

Uhhhh. Ever heard of the Ten Commandments? 

Yep, those too play a part in this

Of course he has, they have been placed by law in every classroom in his state.

I was surprised when I found that out. I think it is cool since we can't really talk too much about religion we can in history a little and I was able to talk about my trip to Mexico I'll be on to my teachers, we just can't debate or bring it up in lessons during class, or something like that

Okay, that's great for you personally, but what if instead the mandatory poster said, "Allah is the only God, and Muhammad is his prophet"?

A public school is meant as a neutral place for everyone to learn without having one belief system or another forced on them, it's part of the whole equality and freedom and respect for everyone under the same law thing that America allegedly was supposed to be about at one point.

I don't see how it is being forced, it's not like we go over them in class and there aren't signs saying something like : "You can only practice Christianity in schools and no other religion."

Maybe not yet, but if the tenants of one faith are the only ones presented, even if they are officially reviewed by the teacher, implies that other faiths are not as welcome. It also provides fodder for disingenuous arguments by Christian nationalists.

Those are big words, but I think I understand.

It has sparked conversations between me and my classmates about remembering the Ten Commandments.

You clearly do not lol. 

That's nice that it has sparked conversations, but that's really not the point here. 

Equal representation is such an important thing, especially for kids. It's so easy to see things like Christianity being favored and feel alone or like you/your religion is worse or lesser than others. 

What the fuck?! Separation of church and state. I don't care if Congressmen and Governors go to Mass, Synagogue, or Mosque. Hell, if they wanna do a quick "Hail Satan!" before they begin voting on issues, I dislike it on a personal feelings level, but I respect it as part of the First Amendment.

But unless we're adding the Six Paths of Buddha and the Five Pillars of Islam to the classroom, the Ten Commandments shouldn't be included either.

Well, "In God We Trust" is the national motto of the United States

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the main reasons that people sailed to the Americas from Britan to escape religious persecution? The United States should be a place where people are free to practice any religion. 

They are free to practice any religion, there are no laws against religion that I know of, but posting the Ten Commandments on every wall in every room in school's does not violate the practice of religion.

As Mizal has already pointed out in her response, it is unconstitutional for the government to establish a practice favoring a religion. 

See my post a little above this. You know very well if it was something from a religion you disagreed with you'd be singing a different tune and/or crying like a bitch lol.

That's just what goes on the god called Money.

And? I seem to recall Jesus stating "Render onto Caesar what is Caesar's" when the issue of Pagan engravings on coins was brought to his attention by Pharisees. It's pretty clear that what mankind chooses to write down on their currency is irrelevant and that dedicating the self to God is infinitely more important. 

I would also like to state that "In God We Trust" is a motto. Court rulings have already established that a motto has no bearing on government practice, after people sued the police for not intervening when civilians were in danger despite their motto being "Protect and Serve."

that "quote" is found in Matthew 22, Mark 12, and Luke 20, where he teaches that people should pay taxes and fulfill their civic duties to the government (the "Caesar") while also giving their devotion and obedience to God. The phrase highlights the separation of church and state, acknowledging that while civil authority has legitimate claims, God's authority is supreme, and the things that belong to God—like human beings created in His image—should be dedicated to Him

And money belongs to the government. Not to God. So the phrasing on the dollar bill saying "In God We Trust" would not be an argument against the separation of Church and State. By your own acknowledgment, that verse is a statement from Jesus himself on the fact that the state and the church are not one and the same.

Well after looking some of this up I seem to understand some of this better.
I found some of this to be helpful in my understanding:

Government Neutrality: The government cannot endorse, support, or interfere with religious institutions or practices.

Religious Freedom: The state cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

No Official Religion: The United States does not have a state-sponsored religion.

Distinct Roles: The government is responsible for civil matters, while religious institutions manage spiritual and moral affairs.

Yes.

Believe it or not, they used to teach these things in school.

You guys are all just being primed to be dumb and complacent I'm pretty sure. You might get a better sense of that in a few years when you notice how many kids in elementary school now will reaching adulthood without even being able to read enough to look things up this way.

Do you think the government passing a law requiring schools to put up the Ten Commandments would be a violation of government neutrality in regards to supporting religious practice?

When looking the law up, I found this to be helpful. I can see and understand why this would be a violation of government neutrality and supporting religious practice

Legal and Constitutional Issues

First Amendment Violation: Critics, including the ACLU, argue the law violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government establishment of religion.

Stone v. Graham: Opponents point to the Supreme Court's 1980 ruling in Stone v. Graham, which found a similar Kentucky law unconstitutional.

Ongoing Lawsuits: Lawsuits have been filed to block the law, with some federal courts issuing injunctions against its implementation.

Parental Rights: Some parents express concern that the law infringes on their parental rights to instill their own beliefs in their children.

Yeah, many Christians have been pushing against the separation of church and state since the very beginning. The original motto of "E Pluribus Unum" is much more fitting for the ideals of the nation.

Not all of us. A lot of Christians who can see past the end of their noses understand that compelling people to practice Christianity will just lead to less Christians in the long run. Jesus never made anyone follow him. And since Christian means "like Christ" we shouldn't either. I've also heard Christians bring up Salem and the European Witch Trials as an example of what happens when the government gets involved in religion. Had the judges wrote back the people of Salem saying "No, you cannot kill and imprison people because you think they are committing a sin." instead of using their government-appointed judicial power to legitimize the paranoia in collaboration with the Church, many people would still be alive and fewer families would have been ripped apart and forced into penury.

r/TexasTeachers has been popping up in my feed alot since this happened, plenty of Christians recognize this as a terrible idea and sure to go to shit just like everything the government touches.

What do you mean "many Christians have been pushing against the separation of church and state since the very beginning."? I don't know what you have been told or read, but The church I go to does not support this but the opposite. We go to all kinds of countries to spread Christianity. Maybe I just don't understand half of the stuff y'all are saying, especially with y'all giving me all kinds of angles, topics, and questions right now that it is getting harder to understand

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

This is a grade school concept. In the generation before yours, 5th graders learned about the Bill of Rights.

That happened to be one of the hardest things for me to learn, even in 8th grade, along with the Constitiution

I'm pretty sure I'm the same generation as him (at least I'm assuming he's a highschooler) and where I live we did get a pretty good education about stuff like this. Even if you live in a area where it's not taught in schools, it's super easy with the internet now to do some research and learn about things. The internet is especially cool because you get to see arguments from all sides. 

Blister, you should really do some research about these things. Understanding your government is a pretty important thing, especially if they've stopped teaching it in schools now. (I don't know what's going on in public schools anymore because my parents moved me to private school.)

I'm also fairly sure I'm in the same generation, my area also got a fairly good education regarding this. I live in a region considered by most to be pretty 'conservative' as well.

Half of the houses where I live fly the confederate flag lol. I'm just glad that I switched to a private education as soon as the public schools in my area started getting weird about politics. 

He's saying a lot of Christians are for the state favoring Christianity over all other religions, making it the "official" religion of the US in law, basing laws on what the Bible says, ect.

Technically he's not wrong, but many Christians have also been opposed to compulsory conversion as well. And as for the angles, have you tried taking a deep breath after some thought and addressing the statements one at a time rather than answering quickly and possibly not understanding what's being said? There's not a timer on this forum.

doesn't compulsory conversion include forcing or under duress often through threats of violence, expulsion, or other negative consequences?

It would. Like Antraxus said, many Christians have been for that by passing laws that are based off Bible Scripture, which would in practice lead to incarceration for anyone who does not practice Bible teachings.

As I've pointed out, a lot of Christians think that would cause people to either rebel against Christ, or else obey him out of fear of consequences rather than genuine faith.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Yeah, it's pretty illegal. And functionally is really just going to breed the natural resentment that people have for a thing that's forced upon them.

Ten Commandments is just another empty gesture meant to keep a specific subset of voters happy anyway, the government would be terrified if kids were exposed to any of Jesus's actual teachings. The bright side here is there will be more learning about the Constitution and Bill of Rights now since a lot of teachers are putting topical quotes up next to their mandatory Jew poster.

I want a campaign for Trump to sell everything he has and give the money to the poor

Just thinking about homosexual intercourse makes you a homo in your heart.

But I think as long as you kill the other guy when you're done, these actions cancel each other out.

I don't think that quite works, but either way you should commend this comment for getting my water all over my screen.

lol

That is two terrible sins, so they would not cancel out but only make things worse.

This is very true.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  But since three lefts make a right, you would need to add at least one more act to turn it right.

Hi I'm The Gay, heard you needed some questions answered - ask away! 

Are you Boy The Gay or Girl The Gay?

I am the one that is apparently a sin in the bible, not the other one that isnt 

So a boy then?

I hope you're not here to tell Blister about that time you slept with his dad, I thought you agreed not to mention that.

Well, I didnt plan to!

That's pretty American tbf.

Blister, what would you do if you saw two gay men kissing in public?

Look away. If I knew them I would confront them individually later

What if you see your two best friends making out in public, in fact, in the middle of a youth group session as an act of protest?

I would definitely confront them. None of my best friends are anywhere near the kind to protest something in this way, especially not against the church. All my best friends are those who pursue God the best they can.

Well, while the Bible does say you can confront your fellow Christians, you should do so only if you are not also guilty of what you're condemning them for. Example, I would not confront them as I also engage in homosexual activity from time to time. Or to paraphrase a bible verse, take the beam out of your own eye before you remove the speck in yours.

Based on how you feel about it, I would say you're not any type of homosexual. I would like to state that murder is significantly worse than intercourse and homosexuality for a few reasons.

One: You're literally ending a person's life. There's a reason why Cain got such a significant punishment and why at the end of days the martyrs will be calling on God to avenge their blood. To take a life that God has created is literally destroying his work and hurting countless people. We are supposed to comfort those who grieve, not inflict grief on them.

Two: When the prostitutute in the temple was to be stoned for intercourse, Jesus said "Let whosoever is without sin cast the first stone." All he said to her was to "Go and sin no more." While intercourse outside of marriage is a sin, consider the fact that only one of the two caused direct admonishment from Jesus.

Three: This last part is not exactly biblical, but it still pertains to morality. Every society that progressed past the point of "Let us not shit in the same pond we draw water from" has agreed that murder is bad. While homosexuality has had mixed reactions. Murder has such a negative effect on the human soul and psyche, more than any other crime has been shown to. There is a very good reason why killing someone is seen as a loss of humanity and innocence. Because it is. It is such a horrendous act that it impacts your very soul in the worst way possible, and doing it repeatedly will render you an unfeeling shell. Plenty of people can have intercourse before marriage or either someone of the same gender and remain largely the same person they were before. Only the most emotionless, deranged individuals can kill without remorse.

I agree. I'm only answering their questions as of now.

I'll try to clear everything up in one big response so we don't have to bounce from different lines in this thread. Give me a sec to put it all together. my current response I currently full of all of these :“ due to me copy and pasting verses so it is taking a while.

Time to clear up on the original questions.

I am not a Bible scholar yet, so I probably am not THE best person to ask, but i'll use my knowledge. I will be restating a lot of what I said earlier along with the same or similar Bible verses, so feel free to skip over the Bible verses if you don't want to re-read them.

I do have like 5 different topics covered here and it looks like a mess to be honest.


As to answer Petros question: Both taking a life or having homosexual intercourse outside of marriage are terrible, especially when you compare it what the Bible says about those things. Murder is much worse because you are taking the life of someone away, where as Homo intercourse is a terrible sin that defiles the body God gave you. God made man to be with women, not man with man or woman with woman.

Murder:
Genesis 9:5-6 nlt
"And I will require the blood of anyone who takes another person's life. If a wild animal kills a person, it must die. And anyone who murders a fellow human must die. If anyone takes a human life, that person's life will also be taken by human hands. For God made human beings in his own image."

I hope this helps both Petros question and Malk's questions along with anyone else who has questions regarding homosexuality and marriage:

Homosexuality:

Leviticus 18:22 nlt

"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."

Marriage:

1 Corinthians 7:2-5 nlt

"But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

It also would be better not to marry, with the main reason being self-control as stated in 1 Corinthians 7

Here are some other verses I hope help:

Matthew 19 1-12

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went down to the region of Judea east of the Jordan River. Large crowds followed him there, and he healed their sick.

Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: "Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife for just any reason?"

"Havent you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning God made them male and female. And he said, This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together."

"Then why did Moses say in the law that a man could give his wife a written notice of divorce and send her away? they asked.

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended. And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery,unless his wife has been unfaithful."
Jesus disciples then said to him, If this is the case, it is better not to marry!"

"Not everyone can accept this statement," Jesus said. "Only those whom God helps. Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."

And also in Hebrew 13:4 nlt

"Give honor to marriage, and remain faithful to one another in marriage. God will surely judge people who are immoral and those who commit adultery."

Honoring man and woman or husband and wife:

Deuteronomy 22:25-27

“But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, then only the man must die. Do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no crime worthy of death. She is as innocent as a murder victim. Since the man raped her out in the country, it must be assumed that she screamed, but there was no one to rescue her. "

Ephesians 5:28-29 28

"In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself. No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church."

Colossians 3:19

"Husbands, love your wives and never treat them harshly. In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered."

1 Peter 3:7

"In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered."


Ephesians 5:28-29 and Colossians 3:19 instruct husbands to treat their wives with self-sacrificing love and kindness, rather than harshness, and 1 Peter 3:7 urges husbands to give honor and live with understanding toward their wives. Disrespectful and harsh treatment is condemned as contrary to these divine commands.

⁠Leviticus 20:13 ESV:

"A man who lays with another man should be stoned."

So being gay and having gay sex is fine as long as you're high, checkmate. 

Please don't ever play with the words in the Bible. I find it highly insulting

The Bible consistently warns against changing God's word, with explicit passages in Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19 stating that adding to or taking away from God's commandments and prophecies will result in divine rebuke, loss of reward, and exclusion from eternal life. Various other verses also emphasize the integrity and unchanging nature of God's word, stressing the importance of handling it with reverence and not distorting it to fit personal interpretations or traditions

Human Responsibility: Believers are instructed to obey and carefully handle God's word, not to alter it to fit changing societal views or personal interpretations. (even if you don't believe)

Consequences of Distortion: The Bible teaches that distorting God's Word, whether by addition, subtraction, or misinterpretation, is a serious offense with severe spiritual consequences.

Deuteronomy 4:2:

"You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you".

Proverbs 30:5-6:

"Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar".

Revelation 22:18-19:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll."

Going by this the fact the Bible is in English at all is sinful as hell.

What do you mean?

When you translate things from another language, you're changing the text. Every translation is going to have slightly different meaning depending on the individual who interpreted it. It's impossible to have a completely unchanged translation of something. That's why when two different people translate the same text, you will come out with slightly different meanings or words that impact the text on a whole in a large scale. 

I still don't get the "sinful" part, why is it bad that it is in English?

You said that changing or altering the words of the bible is sinful. Translation does just that. 

translations are based off of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew words, they are different translations, not altercations

Often the translations convert phrases instead of words and do so with ill-concealed preconceptions and biases

No, I'm done with this

You are the blackest most retarded gorilla nigger I have ever witnessed on the internet.

Did you actually read my previous response or just skim it? Languages don't have exact translations for words because they're different languages. Depending on how the translator translates it, it will alter the meaning of the text. 

I have re-read most of yalls responses multiple times. The verse still has the same meaning, they're just worded differently allowing people to choose the one that makes the most sense to them. A lot of people I know go back and forth between translations when they're studying the Bible.

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll."

Now you're contradicting yourself. This says that the adding or subtracting of words is sinful. When you translate, you're going to have to add or subtract words. Even if you get the connotation of every word exactly as was intended in the original language, going off of this logic, translating the bible would still be sinful. 

That verse in Revelation is explicitly about the book of Revelation anyway, I'm assuming he just grabbed it from ChatGPT along with the others, because it really makes no sense in his context of applying it the rest of the Bible. (Which didn't even exist.)

As somebody who has never read the bible, (I probably should, it's a good historical text and it's always interesting/worthwhile to delve into religions) the holes in his arguments were embarrassingly apparent. I feel bad for any future teachers who actually have to teach him how to put together a cohesive argument. 

The Bible, Shakespeare, and the usual famous dead Greek guys are something everyone should really have at least some passing familiarity with. They're important not just in their own right but for being THE shared cultural touchstones for Western society, they're so heavily referenced in art and writing in so many ways you really do yourself a disservice not knowing at least some of the basics.

My favorite Bible version for that sweet spot between readability and poetic flow is the English Standard Version, but Malk usually has a couple of his own recommendations. (Avoid the original King James Version imo, a lot of people swear by it as the earliest completed English translation, but the language is pretty difficult even if really beautiful in places. The main thing though is that Malk says it's not a great translation anyway since it makes some big leaps and assumptions in certain passages.)

You are going to want some kind of guide to historical context for the Old Testament though, but Bibles with notes and maps are common.

Edit: found an earlier post where he called the NRSV the gold standard.

My understanding is KJV is trash, but most of my fundie church families swear by it. Back when my family went through the charismatic non-denominational thing, though, it was NIV. I decided to buy myself a JPS Tanakh to get what I assume is a decently accurate Hebrew translation. Interesting stuff for Christians in that. Probably Isaiah 7:14 stands out most to me, as someone raised in the most fundie way possible.

But my favorite for the New Testament is the Middle English Wycliffe Bible, for no other reason than Middle English is fun.

I'll check it out next time I get sucked into this topic. Dr. Alter not only seems to be well-respected by his peers based on my five minutes of googling, he also (almost) has a perfectly aptronymic last name.

In my fundamentalist, faith healing, tongue speaking, hand raising in worship and fifteen minute tithe sermon childhood religious training, that passage definitely applied to the whole book. Probably because it was usually the good ol' King James version, which says "book" and not "scroll." Never mind the fact that the canon was not yet established and there certainly wasn't a single book containing all the Gospels and Tanakh and so on.

Nevertheless, that is we they believed. After all, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" in those branches of Christianity, such passages have multiple meanings. Not just Jesus as some believe, but the Bible itself as well is a physical manifestation of that "Word" which John starts with, and it just applies to whatever they need it to. Take it on faith. Let the Holy Spirit guide your understanding.

So yeah, the Bible is timeless because John refers to it as well as Jesus in its opening sentence, and because the KJV says "book," well, Rev 22:18 applies to the entire thing. Also "scroll" is like a book, so it counts. Or so the thinking seemed to go. A lot of intuition and, (I think the term is) sympathetic magic (these spritual laws; certain utterances like "in JESUS name" whilst the speaker has unshakable faith, hands touching foreheads to heal or cast out demonds, etc. Normal Christians thought we were a cult when they came to our Youth Group services, and in hindsight I can see why).

Somewhere I got derrailed....

See I always thought the usual interpretation of that was "no Joseph Smithing."

Dire really did a service for the thread, because when Blister got triggered here that was the point I realized he must be heavily autistic in addition to the other things he has going on.

This is actually a great example though of the importance of context: it's the exact same word, but for cultural reasons the meaning is different. And if the sentence can mean two things, someone coming along later would have to look at the surrounding clues to make their best guess at which it was and rephrase it in a way that clarifies that--or in a way that reinforces the meaning they already believe or prefer which can be a case with some translators.

Anyway, I cornered Malk tonight and made him break down a Hebrew verse for me, and I have concluded that Hebrew is REALLY hard to follow. They have 13 vowels for one thing, and everything is written backwards. And that's the barest technical baby steps without even getting into things like words that are an entire phrase about an abstract concept, or words with specific context sensitive meanings that end up as the same less nuanced English word.

For me it was a bit of a red flag when Blister says he doesn't read stories with female protagonists because he is not interested in exploring other points of view. Someone that close-minded can never have a healthy and normal view of the world. Also, only ever reading one book (whether it is the Bible, Qur'an or something else) is also not a good idea.

I'm just happy my post came out that coherently, I was falling asleep but saw I had a tab open where I'd apparently started to type something about Dire the other night. So I typed that and then passed out, and I'm happy to see there were no bizarre autocorrects for once.

Anyway, saying "autism" is always a 50/50 chance of being correct around here, but that may be giving him too much credit. I forgot that given the speed of the reply with all those verses and some others not quite making sense the way he used them, someone had suggested ChatGPT, so it might just look like robotic spewing because it is. Maybe that's what I'd meant to type there.

But also yeah, I had thought that was pretty weird as well, though now I just assume it's part of leaning into his "girls are icky" theme harder than anyone I've ever seen. Guess it's a good thing they don't seem to teach about WWII in Texas schools anymore or he'd have to take a failing grade on Anne Frank.

He also left comments saying he gave Inseparable and Now You Gotta Deal With This S*** both a 1/8 without reading them lol.


Edit: given some of the replies to Petros I'm still leaning autism though. He instantly accepted the idea that MHD was a big hung gay black man in a dress after all.

Oh, I was actually curious about something regarding this.

@Blister1 so we've established you don't read stories with protagonists that don't share your gender- what about stories with protagonists that don't share your race, would you read those? Or stories with protagonists with a different belief system than you?

Since you have tagged me I will answer this question.

I don't read girls with female protagonists because I'm not a girl and do not wish to read stories from the perspective of a girl. I DO NOT have a problem with reading stories with protagonists that don't share my race or stories with protagonists with a different belief system than me, of course, that is that they are not persecuting my religion or my race,however, I'm fine with reading history stories contains all of these

This is one of the weirdest things I have ever heard.  Do you watch movies that have a female lead protagonist?

yes

Then why not books?

What is specifically the problem with books then?

sooo this is different than reading a story with female protagonist how?  Im honestly asking the question, this is kinda fascinating.

When the six moons rise over Ch'zx'ttk IV, the Z'rk sharpen their six scything appendages before the sacred Wkka stone in preparation for the Great Harvest..

Warrior Four Sixteen of the N'zzgaga Hive rips a bloody swath through an unsuspecting Softling village, in triumph hauling back bundles of bloody appendages and the Softlings' still mewling young.

The Laborer Caste by now has prepared the Octogonal Chambers, each one with a layer of fresh soil and soft and fragrant dried grasses collected last summer. Gently onto each of them is set a pile of flesh about the size of the abdomen of an adult Z'rk, then more soil and grass is heaped over it, except for a hollowed out depression.

The time comes upon Warrior Four Sixteen; into each of the hollows, one by one she begins to lay her translucent eggs, and this is the point where Blister tabs out in disgust at the realization he's been following the story of a female. It's just too weird now, man.

lol. 

But what kinda fascinates me is that, for example, he would be ok watching the movie, "Gone with the Wind", but not the novel. Or perhaps would watch "The Hunger Games" but would not read the book.  The disjointed reasoning that apparently he somehow reconciles in his mind is interesting.

However, I will probably be bored of it now if he gets around to explaining.

Then I will spare you my explanation, especially since it is simple and already been stated many times

Stated where?

Girls are icky.

And Blister has to sidestep and run off for a stimming session any time he's asked a question he doesn't have a good answer to. I am questioning more and more the idea this kid is in high school.

Most of my friends are in fact girls, I just don't like reading from a girl's perspective. Why do y'all make every one of opinions a big deal and say I am wrong because my opinion is different?

When you hold very odd opinion that intentionally narrows your perspective that very few (if any) others hold, it is reasonable to search for the reason

It has been every opinion that I have had on this site gets shot down by y'all.

You have a set of very alien opinions and you wall yourself off from forces that could change your mind. I have been trolling you, but I genuinely want you to think.

So this is a very arbitrary belief system that doesn't make sense.

I mean, even if your belief is wrong, it would better if it was logically consistent.

Like, say you're a white 17 year old boy. Then in your belief system, you would be logically consistent if you only consume media about white, teenage boys, with them as the focus and the main character.

You would be a bigot and dumb, but at least logically consistent.

But you also admit that you don't mind race, or different experiences, and gender is the only hang up you have. Why?

You further muddle your point by saying if a movie has a girl protagonist, that's ok, but if a book does, you stop reading. Why? What's the difference for you, and what makes a female led movie ok but not a female led book?

So when you say stupid stuff randomly that isn't even logically inconsistent, people will call you out on it and say that you're dumb. You still offered no explanation why female led movies are ok but not books. Like DB said, there are movies that are adapted from books, so will you just watch the adaptation and not the source material because it's in the medium you prefer? Like, you got to tell us more dude.

Because that opinion doesn't make any sense and is limiting you so much. 
 

Also, you're not answering any of us. Why do you not like reading from girl's perspectives? 

Dude, you have to grow up. That is a really childish mentality to have and you're basically shutting yourself off from fiction that contains half of the world's perspectives. This kind of thinking is going to make you less socially aware.

" I cAnT SeE frOm a WoMAns POV beCauSE I DoNtT HaVe BoOBS" 

Dude, most people can watch The Lion King and relate to animated animals. As a man, I typically prefer male protagonists, but I can certainly enjoy a female protagonist, just like I can an anthropomorphized animal or even a damn car if its written well enough. How is being a woman such a big symmetry breaker?

I'm... confused. 

Do you think reading books from a girl's perspective will turn you trans or something? I really can't think of a logical reason for this. 

What version of the Bible are you using? The word homosexuality as well as our specific definition of it is a modern one and does not appear in most translations.

I'm waiting for Malk to go more into that one though.

NLT, for most of the verses, sometimes niv or nkj

Lmao

NLT has been the easiest one for me to understand. Plus, all translations have the same value, they are just worded differently since most Greek, Latin, or Hebrew words have more than one translation in English

....which frequently changes their meaning, yes.

Words have a funny way of doing that when you use different ones instead.

Need to get Daji up in here with the Message lol.

He'd probably like it.
Blister, translation can matter because English often has a different structure than or lacks words that are one-to-one equivalents to the original language of the Bible. So translators need to use their knowledge of the Bible, the culture, etc. to make translations while also being careful not to change the meaning of the text. You wouldn't want Google Translate to translate your Bible for you. The NLT has such an emphasis on readability and modernity that it can sometimes play fast and loose with things compared to some other translations.
Ultimately, the best Bible (assuming it's one translated in good faith) is the one you will actually read. However, I would be open to improving your reading level and checking out other versions. You can even go to websites like Blue Letter Bible to compare translations. :)

The bible was not written in English. 

Leviticus 18:22, you've selected an incredibly free translation. An accurate rendering is: "Do not lay with a man in the manner of a woman". There is no word in Biblical Hebrew for homosexuality. 

I can just imagine the heavy sigh with which that first line was written.

Funnily enough, my dad studied Hebrew (not sure if it was the Biblical Hebrew, though), and he talked to me about the inaccuracies of the translation from Hebrew to English multiple times when I was young. 

https://www.amazon.ca/Hebrew-Bible-Translation-Commentary/dp/0393292495

This is a version Malk highly recommends when pestered. But some things are just hard to translate, Hebrew is a very complex language and there aren't 1 for 1 meanings for a lot of things, and others are a best guess based on context.

That's the good translations anyway, not the ones that make leaps to more easily match the translators pre conceived beliefs.

It looks interesting, but I don't have that much money, lol. Thanks anyways!

Oh yeah, forgot I was talking to a kid. If you dad reads Hebrew he probably has a lot of good resources on this kind of thing anyway.

So this is the reason Blister has been trying to vote me out of the mafia game.

Can't say I know what you mean.

Use your context clues. 

(Pretty sure she's a lesbian, or at least in some way queer)

She's a 7'8" hung, gay black man wearing a dress

Also an Amish Eskimo.

I didn't know that.

Sorry MHD, but I do not make most choices based on people's sexuality or other related things, especially if I don't know you

Gay men are icky

That's why we Holocausted them

I fucking wish we did.

Or that the Holocaust ever happened.

You're brown and very obviously gay, you literally would have been one of them. You aint on the team bitch

Honestly, I need to stop this here, I have been talking with y'all about this for over 3 hours straight since I have been home, so I need to go do other stuff.

Hey Blister,
Just some future advice. You got to learn to let things go and at some point, just leave. The more you talk, the more you're just digging yourself in a grave. I don't mean this in an insult, I mean this with all the love in my heart, but you need to know when to stop, because you will just tire yourself out.

I don't even know what's going on(came to the thread late lol), but it sounded like you wanted to stop multiple times but then pulled yourself back in to the discussion to address another point. So on the internet, when it gets to that point, and you're not having fun, just close the laptop.

RK, you're being a killjoy again

Don't worry Petros, I don't think he'll listen anyway.

He's not even reading it.

I'm not sure about this, signalling he wanted to debate a topic with wacky fervor but then sidestepping everyone's points was what really turned the tide against Flutter that time. It's not a good look, as some might say.

I don't think this is quite the same thing as what Flutter did. (As Flutter explained his reasons for not addressing all "the little details" from what I remember. Of course, this is ignoring the fact that Flutter came to the conclusion that he was just more right than everyone, claiming to have already thought through every counter argument to his beliefs in advance essentially.)

I may be reading the situation wrong, but Blister to me just seems like someone who feels very very inclined to explain/justify his beliefs thoroughly every time they are questioned for whatever reason. I don't think he's deliberately trying to participate in an active debate or have his views meaningfully challenged, he just seems to have a sporadic drive to defend any accusation to his beliefs whenever it just so happens to cross his path.

I was mostly just referring to RK's suggestion of "stepping away", which can be very situational. Very very few other parallels to Flutter, thankfully.

He definitely should've answered Petros's important question though!

Also, this might be the most coherent post I've ever seen from you. If you're taking something, it's working.

Goodness this is a miserable thread, it gives me indigestion to read. That all input is met by the mechanistic and cyclical meanderings of an unthinking creature with a disemboweled soul, his very being stunted and twisted like a bonsai tree around the wires of backwards and often recently invented dogmas. Like a conniving cancer cell he must push himself and others toward this skeletal existence that has no room for the actual, many-faceted reality which these teachings were meant to prepare and adapt humans for. If I believed that this was the nature of God, I would have tried to off myself, too.

www.dictionary.com

(The kids are going to need it.)

At this point, all I can say without losing braincells is,
Imagine not being able to form opinions of your own, purely quoting a book which you admitted had been translated several times several ways, and managing to piss off even the people who call others faggots on the daily. In fact, you're so retarded I've gotten second hand embarrassment being near you in an online forum. I can't tell if you're brainwashed or just plain stupid, and neither way works in your favor.

I tried to play nice by pming you but from all I've seen on this thread I genuinely don't know if there's a single space in your head that has a single original thought. You're a bible-humper in the worst way because you don't even know anything besides what's been spoon fed down your throat by the dear daddy church.

You're an insult to all Christians who truly just want to believe in God and preach the gospel AS THEY INTERPRET IT, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW RELIGION IS SUPPOSED TO BE. Religion is an interpretation used for faith and the strengthening of the human spirit, not whatever this bullshit is.

Your stupid ass is going to martyr yourself either way, content with how long you've been living in a ditch under a rock in Chernobyl. 'Oh, the internet dwellers don't understand! I tried so graciously to listen to them too!' No you fucking didn't. You read, didn't comprehend, didn't think, and spouted up verses like they were your own thoughts.

I have at least five Christian friends who hate me because I'm a cock sucking tranny and think I'm going to hell, but they're still my friends because they don't force all their religion shit on me, and if they do, they can have a coherent discussion using their own thoughts without just throwing out bible verses. I have even more friends who're Christian who don't even give a single fuck, because they keep to themselves and interpret the gospel as spreading love and kindness. Are they not true Christians? What about you, Blister? Hate the sin love the sinner? Love thy neighbor? See, I can also throw out poorly translated bible verses without an opinion. Fuck you.

Who the fuck cares. You're going to go crying to your mommy and block the site anyway because of all those meanies were telling you to use your brain. I despise everything you stand for and every point you've made. I fucking hate this stupid fucking thread. Kys.

Tl;dr: lol, fag.

This thread is now Liminal's coming out party

I thought everyone knew already. It’s pretty apparent.

I ain't reading allat

That’s why theres a very helpful tl;dr that explains everything ^-^

I ain't readin' that either. My laziness exceeds the bounds of mortal ken

Wait are you FTM?

THEN I WAS RIGHT

I can detect biology through typing habits, just a little thing I do.

FTM! So close, very impressed, though.

That was a little goof which I have now repaired to CONTINUE BEING RIGHT

I knew Gryphon was biologically female as well and that Kiel was a natural born cunt.

You also guessed Abge if I recall correctly.

Abge originally came to us as a little girl, then later came back as a non gendered robot who "didn't feel emotions" and also funnily began typing like a robot too, all 80k words at once.

Also, she was an attention seeking compulsive liar, it's funny she clashed so much with someone else we knew in hindsight.

I didn't know you were trans Liminal. Congrats! I think you're officially the second based trans member on the site, and you're definitely better than abgeo. Oddly enough, they actually were a pretty long-term member when I came to the site, but then they blew it all up by cheating with AI.

Also, is this thread Blister saying that being gay is bad or something? If that's the case, then he's going to be in for a rude awakening once he goes to college. I mean, unless he's going to BYU or something, he's going to meet new people who challenge his viewpoints and live different lifestyles than what he's used to. Hopefully, that means he'll grow as a person.

I mean this is just such a reductive view of looking at humanity, and while there's certainly nothing wrong with being religious, there's more to you as a person Blister, and you need to expand your mental framework some more.

You can't live life like this Blister. Sooner or later, the pressure is going to get to you. Plus, this kind of thinking is just going to make you go crazy man.

There are so many incredibly kind and gracious people who fully embrace their Christian faith, but they don't use it to beat others over the head with a stick. You really have to grow as a person.

I still have no idea what this thread is supposed to be about, but Blister, you got to relax and chill out.

I have no idea what the Bible says about homosexuality, but I know Christians who can love their fellow man and treat people with respect regardless of their views on what's sinful or not.

I'm really not trying to disrespect your religious beliefs, Christianity is a great religion! I'm just saying you also have to have a code as a human being to treat everyone else like human beings and respect them rather than be uptight or so rigid.

This thread happened because I am a master baiter

Lol, that is hilarious! I really want to see what initial comment led to this thread being started.

Summary of the thread this far for those just now meeting up with us:

>Blister is presented with silly hypotheticals
>Site members having fun, especially Petros
>I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream is recommended by Mizal, along with a link. (Everyone should read that, by the way.)
>Suddenly, religion is brought up far more
>Deep intellectual debate but just on one side
>Blister shows sheer lack of original thought
>Site members slightly disturbed, still making fun
>Blister "leaves" several times
>Petros has some more fun and him and Mizal continue to be my favorite duo on the forums when trashing a noob.
>Liminal has a crashout and reveals that he was, in fact, trans the whole time which was pretty obvious.
>Petros doesn't want to read.
>RK shows up and is wholesome and tries to give good, kind advice.
>Petros likes to master bait.

All in all, a solid binge reading thread if you'd like to see the hopelessness of our future society.

(Also thanks! I'm surprised Mizal didn't figure it out, seemed like she knew already hahah.)

Thanks for the tldr! All of this makes more sense now.

A lot of this was split off the quote thread earlier, in which I quoted AM's hate monologue from the story and a discussion was had over what kind of content Blister preferred to avoid. (Something he'd brought up in his other thread.)

The answer was the very American "violence fine, sex bad", and then Petros got off work around then and decided to troll Blistee by making him think. (Though he still has not answered the most important question..)

The Gay Debate is one of my favorites though. Always predictable starting out since in the entire Bible there's only those same couple of verses, and people will usually tell on themselves with how much gay sex lives rent free in their mind versus what's actually in the text. (Why has "God hates bankers" never caught on, isn't there way more backing that one up?)

Blister sadly is just awful at debating, but he's pretty young. A writing site is really not the place to fall apart when presented with the idea that words have meaning and phrasing matters though, lol.

I always assume it's specifically an American thing to paralyze in a fetal position when it comes to grasping concepts like things not easily translating 1 to 1 across cultures and languages. But in this case dude was already getting stunlocked at the point where different words in English meant different things so idk, might just be that kids have super unique and special brains.

Life will probably force him to loosen his views a lot, like you said, he's quite young. I remember having rather conservative views about stuff like sex too when I was a kid, it seems pretty typical for children to be that way. Sex is always icky. People almost never change their minds in the moment, never expect that in a debate, it's in the hours and days after, when they're still chewing on it that they start rethinking things. With some of the comments that were made though, it made me feel like we had Bezro back, warping IP addresses and time and space.

I don't give a crap if he changes his mind, but if someone is prepared to die on a hill they need to be able to articulate why.

Fair.

And what I called Blister is actually extremely funny, if you don't get it it means you just don't know the secret lore.

"God Hates Bankers" has never caught on cause if the anti-gay politicians said that, then who would donate to their campaigns and handle their offshore accounts?

Gryphon is trans too I think.

This is honestly the only thing that I have actually read from this thread today.

I get what you are saying. The purpose of this thread was that Petros asked a question regarding murder and homosexual intercourse. I had no intent of beating people in the head in the stick with this thread. I already know about Homo stuff in this world, and I hate that it exists, but like I said yesterday, just because someone is LGBTQ+, does not mean I hate that person but rather their lifestyle. I wish that would be able to see what I see that it is wrong, but I understand that not everyone believes the same. However, if you are Christian, you should know what the bible says what is right and what is wrong. Homosexuality in its entirety is wrong because it is not the way God designed it.

Matthew 19:4-6 The Message (MSG)

He answered, “Haven’t you read in your Bible that the Creator originally made man and woman for each other, male and female? And because of this, a man leaves father and mother and is firmly bonded to his wife, becoming one flesh—no longer two bodies but one. Because God created this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art by cutting them apart.”

"I had no intent of beating people in the head in the stick with this thread."

Is that what you think is happening here

Why do you keep citing the most dogshit youth pastor in converse translations 

Anyway, that verse is about divorce retard 

I choked IRL at "haven't you read in your Bible".

ngl this is the first time I've ever seen The Message used unironically.

>An entire essay by me about how Blister needs to have original thoughts
>Blister quotes a completely unrelated bible verse again to justify not having a brain (Worse, it's really stupid and apparently one of the worse translations.)
>I consider Mizal's suggestion to throw my prosthetic at the screen

I have only read PK's response that I replied to and all these replies to my response since 11:30pm last night according to the time on this sight.

Like Daji said, there's nothing wrong with it in concept, but it's very much not a translation that should ever be used in one of these "every word of the Bible is the literal truth" debates lol.

Basically it's a lot of paraphrasing by a very nice man born in the 1930s who was trying to be the Steve Buscemi meme.

Bro is citing the Cocomelon Standard Bible. 

If he's been reading my responses, he already knows and just hasn't processed the information yet.

If homosexuality exists and your god exists, Blister, it is because your god put it or allowed it to be there. I am so sick of the cognitive dissonance on this issue. If homosexuality really is just a choice, my response to dudes who say that is PROVE IT and suck my dick. A classic one, of course. But they won't, because the thought disgusts them, which is exactly what gay people feel when thinking of doing heterosexual activity. Because it isn't just some perverted choice people randomly make one day.

Call it a mental disability if that makes you feel better, or a powerful little demon, whatever, but these aren't people just deciding to wallow in evil because they're just bad, vile little perverts. In fact every gay person I know is ten times the puritan than I am. Anecdotal evidence, of course, which holds little value. But the fact remains if gay is a choice, why don't the militant straights prove it by taking a shot in the mouth?

Ignore this crusty pervert.

He means "every gay he knows" in the Biblical way.

You also have to consider that literally everyone is sinful and transgresses against God on the daily. Jesus ate with prostitutes and publicans (tax collectors who were pocketing the funds for themselves). He forgave thieves and criminals. Therefore, a Christian can find the humanity in a gay person and hang with them.

My pastor brother would say this. It's a pretty Christian thing to say. If you can't love the gays you definitely don't know Jesus and will absolutely be one of the ones hearing, "Depart form me, worker of iniquity, I never knew you."

Unrelated: I saw a Muslim guy on Quora say being gay was a test from Allah, and that he felt honored by Allah for being thought of so highly to be given such a test. He claimed he must avoid all sexual relations for the duration of his life so as to not slip into gayness. All part of the test.

"I have at least five Christian friends who hate me"

"but they're still my friends"

I don't think you understand how friends work...

I can see how that’d be confusing. They just hate the fact that I’m trans and gay, but they enjoy hanging out with me for other reasons.

Wait, you're a cock-sucking tranny? Nobody fucking told me. How many more of you are there, other than Darius, Petros, and malk?

^^ brown guy 

Wait, Cel's brown?!

He doesn't like to be reminded of it.

People who have seen his selfies have described him as "looking like the son of the guy who owns the kebab stand", take that how you will.

lol, nigger

It's sandnigger, raghead, or kebab or something like that. Cel does not get invited to the bbq

I want barbeque

Don't come to Arkansas. It's like Tennessee bbq and Texas bbq were combined into something that loses what made either of them special

Since he's an Arab who believes in white supremacy, can I call him "race traitor?"

I still look forward to Malk's contributions to the debate on whether words have meanings.

But idea for new debate topic, maybe this one will be less challenging:

Blister should see if he can prove that cutting the testicles off of little boys is morally wrong.

You just want to see me lose my mind again, don’t you? These balls are home grown, I’ll have you know. (It’s a prosthetic, not surgery.)

No really, the until very recently historically common practice of castrating little boys, is it wrong? Or is it more of an ambiguous, personal act? We need to know what the NLT has to say.

Look, do you want opera composers to be able to write parts for male sopranos or not!?

What about nipping the tip? I suppose the harmful effects aren't particularly bad, and as Mel Brooks said, "The ladies love it," but it's not like infants have the power to consent to getting the carrot chaffed. On the other hand it pleases God.

Do you get so mad when you see a thread like this you take them out and throw them at the screen?

Honestly, that could be a cool trick.

Guess I could, but I never thought to do it. Would be pretty funny, though.

Also funny when people see me without it for the first time, because it's at that point they realize I wasn't really a cis boy the whole time. (Or they think I have a micro-penis and have been stuffing my pants.)

My contribution to trying to help Blister develop his mind: read this letter on what happens if we try to take everything in the Bible literally:

https://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ss44/joke/laura.htm

Well, this thread was quite a doozy to read. Philosophically speaking, I'm something of a neanderthal, but I thought I'd share an interesting verse that always gave me a lot to think about.

"For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." - Genesis 3:5

These were Satan's words to Eve when he was tempting her to eat the forbidden fruit from the tree in the Garden of Eden. Assuming his words were true, and with a bit of reverse logic, we can infer that God did not want humanity to have the ability to know of good and evil. This means that whenever we judge something or someone as good or evil, we might be committing the first, explicitly forbidden sin ourselves. I'm not saying I'd never call out someone for committing a sin, but I am only going to do it if I think it is worth committing a sin myself.

"assuming his words were true" - amusing as one of Satan's names is 'the father of lies', and earlier on in the verse he literally contradicts God by saying 'you will not surely die'.

I don't think that's why God forbade eating the fruit. After all, how is one supposed to 'seek justice' or hold anyone to any form of societal values if we can't judge that what they have done is wrong? It's more likely the tree was there as a boundary allowing humans to actually choose to trust and obey God, thus exercising free will, or to rebel.

Once they ate the fruit, Adam and Eve became ashamed of being naked and covered their bodies. At the very least, it did have an effect on their psyche in the sense that they started seeing things in terms of good or evil. So that part at least was true.

As for the whole 'Seek justice' thing, I did mention that I would call people out and hold them accountable if the sins they commit were bad enough. Judge away if you feel you have to, but understand that you don't always have to. In the other cases, it's always better to advise than condemn.

Right, it says their eyes were opened and they were ashamed. They wanted to hide themselves from each other and also to hide from God. There's nothing evil about not having clothes of course so I think the stronger message there is a symbolic one. The Eden story the way I read it is about mankind losing the innocence of basically being intelligent animals and moving on to greater awareness of their actions.

Guilt is a part of that and so is blame--seems worth noting though that the first thing they did with that knowledge when confronted was to be weasely buck passers each pointing the finger at someone else when asked a simple yes/no question though lol.

But a few verses later it even confirms what happened there. "Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken.

It's interesting to me too that this is the story of mankind transitioning from a more carefree day by day existence to agriculture and animal husbandry and binding cities and all the problems of law and social structure they've been fucking up at ever since. It does a lot of heavy lifting for a pretty short and simple story.

But anyway back to your original point, there's also, "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and the parable of the unforgiving servant also in Matthew somewhere that are usually cited on this.

"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." - St. Matthew 7:2

It's actually another one of my favorite verses. :]

I agree with both your points. Particularly for that verse, if you judge someone it's only right you get judged the same way - being a hypocrite is never good.

It could also be that Lucifer was the good guy all along, and perhaps a nice story-game can be written where you join the ultimate Freedom Fighter/Conspiracy theorist group, where the conspiracy is so deep that God Almighty orchestrated it and the rebellious Lucifer was really just someone who so strongly believed in Truth and Freedom he could not stand idly by, leading humanity out of the brainwashing bondage so that the true fight for freedom can begin.

Of course this would never work since God is slightly All-Mighty. Not unless you do something like that campy Lucifer TV show and have the fundamental problem be a lack of understanding of God's plan to help humanity—and even Lucifer—grow, rather than a conspiracy to manipulate and control lesser beings.

Too bad that's already been done. But I guess maybe it hasn't been done in a more serious way, other than those Sandman comics. But even that's probably not really scratching the surface of the narrative. Inb4 Paradise Lost.

Eh, I was interested for a second but I already did something similar in Fey Light so I will leave this to someone more talented.

Nobody's going to write this. You're going to be smug and say it was your idea

I was toying with the fictional idea where all humans are actually fragments of a Defeated God. The Victorious God destroyed the Defeated God and then broke him into fragments (humans) in the hopes that when the fragments are reunited after being subjected to the whims of the material world, the Defeated God would be reborn as a being loyal to the Victorious God.

Of course, there are beings outside of "existence" as defined by the Victorious God who may want a different ending to the story. :]

This was the overarching plot of the "His Dark Materials" series.

That's interesting. Didn't that get cancelled? If so I had planned to watch it and then decided not to so as to not get blue balls. Am I wrong on that?

That would be one thing if those were Satan's words, but there is no Capital S Satan of the Bible. The idea of a Satan was an abstraction and a teaching tool used by far later christians. The guy who told Eve to eat the apple was literally a snake, the reason he's there is part of the creation mythology to explain why snakes are like that and animals don't talk anymore. To presuppose that the snake was Satan would create flagrantly insane subtext, like God punishing an entire species of animals to squirm around on the ground because of something a sapient supernatural creature did while pretending to be one.

Capital S Satan is a prominent figure in Job which is one of the older books, although in a different kind of role then he'd get later on.

Hey Blister!

What is the meaning of life? The universe? And everything?

That's a silly question; Everyone knows it's 42.

Hey @Blister1 !

What are your thoughts on anime?

I promise that this connects with the thread discussion in an extremely relevant way and is not just a completely random question I pulled from the Ether...

I mean, we already knew you're gay. What's the point of this demonstration?

1. My bio should be enough evidence in of itself to disprove your gay claim.

2. I was just trying to bait Blister into saying he disapproves of anime cause its too lewd/satanic or whatever. I don't care one way or the other, I mainly just thought it would be funny... :/

Better to accused of gay than to like anime and remove all doubt.

This implies that liking anime is somehow worse than being gay... (If I'm reading what you said correctly that is...this really does come off like you rushed the wording of your sentence due to not being fully awake or something)

Not the kind of attitude I expected from a community that has "lol fag" as its default go to insult...but whatever I guess...

:/ :/ :/ :/

No no no, not worse at all. In fact no judgement is made. Rather it is an equivalence. Everyone likes anime, because in the immortal words of Kurt Cobain, "everyone is gay."

Anime makes you gay.

Oh really? This is news to me! :O

Explain...

Did you even read his post?

"Better to be accused of being gay than to like anime and remove all doubt (that you are gay)."

I assume most people who aren't brainless spastics (and even a few who are) also managed to recognize the reference meaning it really shouldn't need to be spelled out this way.

I did deliberately leave off the "be" to make it more understandable to people who grew up on memes. Perhaps I erred in that choice.

I didn't get the reference. Its not helped by the fact that I've never equated the idea of liking anime with being gay at any point in my entire life.

If you're not familiar enough with Mark Twain to recognize the quote, then I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was mocking an illiterate downie weeb. Please remove the cock from your mouth (it can cause diseases) and crack open a copy of The Very Hungry Caterpillar. Work your way up from there.

(It was attributed to Lincoln before Twain, but realistically it probably is by neither.)

Fucking fuck. Now I'm the fucking retard

I've seen it in a textbook listed as Twain's too, basically there's a ton of funny/sarcastic sayings from that period just sort of got glomped onto him.

"It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

Read it, learn it, live it.

Blister could benefit too.

Gay is the more acceptable escape route, once you can no longer take interest in 3D women it's either prettyboy twinks or big breasted ten year olds with colored hair and no nose.

So there's a difference then?

I feel like this contradicts what you said earlier... (Anime makes you gay)

One could argue its just two means to the same end, but I digress.

For the record, I totally get the watching anime equals autism/antisocial or incel/virgin or coomer stereotypes.

The gay one seems more of a stretch though by comparison, though I guess I can see how that leap is made a little bit better now that I had time to think about it! (lol :P)

She was clarifying flux's point earlier, retard. Try a print book fucktard

I think I understood what she said just fine.

Flux himself clarified that he didn't consider one to be better than the other (before he replied with his new post just now obviously).

Mizal obviously saw my other post and made a reply to me in general. If this was an attempt to say I was being stupid due to some dumb bs semantics, you have failed.

This was an attempt to say you're stupid due to being a dumb motherfucker online with dogged perseverance

Well, it starts like this: You see this young man from school one day. He is an adept warrior, with a natural talent for assassination.

And then for whatever reason, at some point he wears this outfit:

And then suddenly you find that you have become gay.

You knowing this information outs you as well, no?

I think all his other posts outed him already.

Better to have been gay and lost, than to have never been gay at all.

Lol illiterate

Alien was the guy Abe was pointing at.

As it ws obviously the response you were looking for... "lol fag"

1.  How on earth is a bio any kind of authorative proof of anything?  "Look, I'm not (whatever), my bio says so."  This statement is complete retardery. Your assertion that it means anything proves you are a moron.

I didn't expect this thread to blow up during the night. Too bad my filter has kicked in and this thread is technically blocked due to inappropriate content. We might have to make a new thread if there are more questions like Alienrun's

You have a content filter on your computer? Oh, boy...

Yes, for inappropriate content. includes cuss words, pictures, and topics like homosexuality and other "adult" themes that I'm trying to avoid. The questions from yesterday weren't too bad, but some of the stuff y'all said after I went to bed are questionable....

You're fu©king ret@rded. Stop living in the womb and face the real world.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, or a bad thing, but one thing I know is that Blister will never be able to talk to an Australian.

I would PM me if you have questions directed to me, looks like this thread is being used by tons of people to ask questions so it might be a little confusing

I'll see if I can get your dad to turn off the filter

Does your filter block YouTube videos? You might love this classic:

Bearforce1

Since this has become so contentious, here's the REAL Leviticus 18:22.



Interpret as you will.

Has never read the Bible.

Later I'm going one by one to every thread on this forum to say FUCK SHIT CUNT so that this child's filters won't let him use it.

I'm pretty sure someone will have naturally beat you to it in most of them, I honestly don't know how he's using the forum at all.