A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2012, 12:35 PM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(22-08-2012 12:27 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Well that was quicker than I expected.


[Image: Mike-Tysons-Punch-Out-NES-Gameplay-Scree...R5z3bGRsPA]

Dude! that referee is Mario!!

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -- Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 12:37 PM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(22-08-2012 12:14 PM)ddrew Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 12:02 PM)kim Wrote:  Ooh... I missed that part of the new testerone testament. Blink Where is it that Jesus had a wife or even sex?


Just point me to the juicy parts - I haven't got all day, I gotta do laundry. Dodgy

I think some pussy woulda done Jesus some good.. poor fella never enjoyed the fruits in life! Too busy punishing fig trees...

Assuming that the Jesus depicted in the Bible actually existed...Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-08-2012, 12:42 PM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(22-08-2012 12:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 12:14 PM)ddrew Wrote:  I think some pussy woulda done Jesus some good.. poor fella never enjoyed the fruits in life! Too busy punishing fig trees...

Assuming that the Jesus depicted in the Bible actually existed...Consider

Even imaginary friends would enjoy some action...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
22-08-2012, 12:45 PM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(22-08-2012 12:42 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 12:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  Assuming that the Jesus depicted in the Bible actually existed...Consider

Even imaginary friends would enjoy some action...

I imagine so.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
22-08-2012, 12:47 PM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(22-08-2012 12:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 12:14 PM)ddrew Wrote:  I think some pussy woulda done Jesus some good.. poor fella never enjoyed the fruits in life! Too busy punishing fig trees...

Assuming that the Jesus depicted in the Bible actually existed...Consider

Well the idiot that wrote the damn story shoulda at least given him the chance at some pussy damnit! Perhaps the authors were deprived.. that'd make what 4 idiots that never saw the benefits of pussy? Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John...

4 sex deprived assholes that couldn't get their story lines right.. idiots!

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -- Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ddrew's post
22-08-2012, 12:51 PM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(21-08-2012 11:10 PM)cufflink Wrote:  
(21-08-2012 03:48 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  A person can be gay and be a Christian. He simply cannot participate in homosexual acts which are sinful.

First let me indulge my inner grammarian here. The phrase "homosexual acts which are sinful" is ambiguous, since it's not clear whether you intend a restrictive or non-restrictive interpretation.

NON-RESTRICTIVE: "homosexual acts, which are sinful" (Note the comma!) That is, homosexual acts, all of which are sinful.

RESTRICTIVE: "homosexual acts that are sinful" That is, some homosexual acts are sinful, some are not. You're just talking about the sinful ones.

I assume you intended the non-restrictive interpretation.

So . . . let me ask you a question I've always wanted to ask a Christian.

What about blow jobs?

Those are rather common (although some would say not common enough) in both heterosexual and homosexual contexts.

Is oral sex sinful? Is it OK if it's between a husband and wife? Does God think a female mouth on a penis is fine and dandy but a male mouth is a no-no? (I assume Catholics are against any kind of sex that doesn't allow the possibility of procreation, right?)

Just wondering.

It's fine within marriage.



PS
For everyone out there, I simply cannot answer everyone's questions and still have a really productive discussion, so I will only answer some. If you mock me, I will assume you are not interested in a civil debate and I so I won't respond to you. If you are respectful and civil, I will try my best to answer, but I just ask that you don't pile on. One topic at a time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 12:52 PM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
Is there any religion that isn't down on sex? I mean even Hare Krishnas exalt the idea of being virgin. Weirdos.

If religion was anything, where are the damn temple prostitutes I was promised by the likes of Edgar Rice Burroughs ? I'd have a lot harder of a time refuting those religions Big Grin I'd have to really get to the meat of the argument... examine the theology in detail so to speak Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
22-08-2012, 12:57 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2012 01:01 PM by Chas.)
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(22-08-2012 12:51 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  
(21-08-2012 11:10 PM)cufflink Wrote:  What about blow jobs?

It's fine within marriage.

Whose definition of marriage?
A religion may define marriage any way it wants to, but civil marriage is a matter of law.

Marriage as defined by the Bible:
■Marriage consists of one man and one or more than one woman (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).

■Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines or sexual slaves in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).

■A man might choose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or a relative (Lev 18:11, 20:17, Lev 20:14, Lev 18:18). The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is not in the Bible.

■If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned to death (Deut 22:13-21).

■A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29), unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).

■If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).

■Women must marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).

■Women are the property of their fathers until married and the property of their husbands thereafter (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).

■The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work (Gen 29:14-30).

■Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).

■Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).

■It is better to not get married at all—although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-08-2012, 12:59 PM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(22-08-2012 12:51 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  If you mock me, I will assume you are not interested in a civil debate and I so I won't respond to you. If you are respectful and civil, I will try my best to answer, but I just ask that you don't pile on. One topic at a time.

I think that is totally fair. Just please try to keep in mind that mocking a belief system that we see as absolutely ludacris is inevitable. Don't confuse it with mocking you.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stark Raving's post
22-08-2012, 12:59 PM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(22-08-2012 12:51 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  For everyone out there, I simply cannot answer everyone's questions and still have a really productive discussion, so I will only answer some. If you mock me, I will assume you are not interested in a civil debate and I so I won't respond to you. If you are respectful and civil, I will try my best to answer, but I just ask that you don't pile on. One topic at a time.

Hey listen TrueReason.... need to put this introduction thread on the back burner.. some of your discussions ya got going already might better be organized in their separate threads... Be a great idea for you to pick 2 or 3 topics you feel you'd most like to discuss and open threads on those topics.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -- Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like ddrew's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: