Unanswered questions

[Bad Writer]

Wow. You have lied to yourself and lied to me recounting the nature of our conversations.

I was starting to develop a great respect for you as you seemed to earnestly follow the logic of discussion we were having.

Till now. Now it all just fell apart. You have completely invalidated all of your work and effort to this point.

I smell a weasel, and he's trying to escape.

You started out arguing what the bible did and did not say.

What, that it doesn't speak out against homosexuality? I proved that point, you moron. It only speaks out against a part of homosexuality (the act), and I'm getting a little miffed at you insisting that there's some large overarching topic that I'm avoiding or did avoid. We're talking about a lot of stuff, and maybe some things just aren't easy for you to talk about. You could admit that instead of trying to shift the blame on me, bucko.

When it was proved to you conclusively (a dozen different times mind you, something all of your peers got after one or two explainations) that the bible identified all sex out of we'd lock a sin, including gay sex.. You took the intellectually dishonest road and moved to dismiss the whole bible (the very same bible you were desperately trying to use to prove me wrong mind you) just like you did in your first post to me.

I always move to dismiss the Bible. It cannot be taken seriously, so the fact that I'm reading out of it is more of a game than anything. It doesn't matter what I prove to you: the shit in it ain't real. What's real (and this is what I'm pissed about) are the words in it that have been interpolated to target homosexuality. People who (for some odd reason) believe in the Bible take that shit seriously, and then we're all in trouble. Were you not there when we talked about this, or did you glaze over it again, as you did that last post of mine? You see me as dodging your arguments: I see it as some points not worth arguing, such as the fact that the Bible speaks out against sexual sin (which, let me remind you, doesn't matter in the end, because the shit in it ain't true).

Now the circle is complete, and at the end you had to remind yourself as I pointed out you did not believe in any of this anyway.... The point? Your not the unique snow flake you think yourself to be. You fit a stereotype to a fault. I thought you were one of the few who would break the rule, but it seems you value what you been taught to think over learning to think for yourself. As such I have to shake the dust from my feet and move on to others for a while. (It's not you, it's me.)

Great monologue. Take your bow.

Now stop the bullshit and realize that you're just upset that I don't play by the rules of Drich or his god. The world doesn't work as perfectly as you think it is; not every conversation is going to end up the way you want it to. Just like how you think you're going to go to heaven...dude, the brain contains your consciousness, and when it's dead, there's nothing else. You can't prove that there is, so you need to accept the facts that we have.

Paul tells us we should only get married if we burn with uncontrollable passion...

Sounds like he might have had a hard time keeping it in his pants then.

[Cyberman]

Thanks statler, now we just need to here waldorf's thoughts and we can move on to a commercial break.

I see Minnie as the Waldorf. The crotchetier of the two crotchety muppets.

Ad hominems, Drich?

I expected more from you, i genuinely did.

[Silver]

Ad hominems, Drich?

I expected more from you, i genuinely did.

Not surprising, since Sock cannot seem to differentiate itself from the real self. After all, Drich is Fr0d0, and Fr0d0 has been having problems lately.

[Drich]

Paul tells us we should only get married if we burn with uncontrollable passion...

First of all, Paul is unreliable. A heretic and reputable sinner who supposedly saw the light while being trampled by a horse? Yeah, he saw the light, alright. The light of fame.

Secondly, burning with uncontrollable passion is rather sexual. Ironic?

First off back at you, if you cut out Paul's works then your not speaking of biblical Christianity, which is what is being discussed here. Your speaking of some straw man version of Christianity, which I can not answer to as it is something you or someone else made up.

Secondly, burning with uncontrollable passion is extremely sexual, which is why Paul recommends two eligible people who 'burn' this way get married.

What of the Song of Songs? That whole book is a passionate book of poetry and expressed desire that follows Solomon and the 'shulimite' woman from courtship to marriage to consummation. If you read the book the consummation was not for the purpose of making babies.

[Bad Writer]

What the fuck is Straw Man Christianity? You can't simply shrug off the fact that there are literally thousands of different denominations that claim to be Christian. Objectively speaking, all of you would be Straw Men according to your flawed definition.

[Drich]

Thanks statler, now we just need to here waldorf's thoughts and we can move on to a commercial break.

I see Minnie as the Waldorf. The crotchetier of the two crotchety muppets.

Ad hominems, Drich?

I expected more from you, i genuinely did.

You get back what you put in.

You gave me your personal thoughts on my religion, I gave you my personal thoughts on your personal thoughts. Stator and Waldorf, sat on the sidelines and pooped on everything the muppets did, all the while rarely leaving the comfort of their box seats and actually put themselves in the middle of the show. That is what you just did.

So again you get from me what you put into your posts to me. Fair enough?

---

Ad hominems, Drich?

I expected more from you, i genuinely did.

Not surprising, since Sock cannot seem to differentiate itself from the real self. After all, Drich is Fr0d0, and Fr0d0 has been having problems lately.

Lol, so I'm a sock puppet of frodos account? What makes you say that? Did he call you Spicoli too?

[Silver]

First off back at you, if you cut out Paul's works then your not speaking of biblical Christianity.

I have a problem with Paul because he reiterates precisely what is wrong with modern Christianity. He was in his day exactly the same as many Christians claim themselves as today. False believers seeking to gain something, mainly acceptance. From the wrong source, naturally, but when acceptance is granted what does one care of the illogicality surrounding its source?

[Cyberman]

You get back what you put in.

You gave me your personal thoughts on my religion, I gave you my personal thoughts on your personal thoughts. Stator and Waldorf, sat on the sidelines and pooped on everything the muppets did, all the while rarely leaving the comfort of their box seats and actually put themselves in the middle of the show. That is what you just did.

So again you get from me what you put into your posts to me. Fair enough?

Only if you missed the questions I posed, or want to avoid them. Even then it would be more honest to say you don't know or maybe haven't thought about it, rather than trying (and failing) a cheap brinksmanship tactic in order to save the face that nobody has even suggested threatening.

One of the advantages of a text-based forum such as this is that every submitted post becomes part of the written record; so all anyone needs to do is flick back a few entries and every evasion is laid out for all to see.

Of course, the real irony in your diversionary tactic is that Statler and Waldorf are themselves Muppets and actually part of the show that you want us to think they are disrupting - sorry to drop this on you but they're not real people, you know.

[Drich]

First off back at you, if you cut out Paul's works then your not speaking of biblical Christianity.

I have a problem with Paul because he reiterates precisely what is wrong with modern Christianity. He was in his day exactly the same as many Christians claim themselves as today. False believers seeking to gain something, mainly acceptance. From the wrong source, naturally, but when acceptance is granted what does one care of the illogicality surrounding its source?

...So you ignore the teachings of Paul because you do not like him, but cant comprehend a version of Christianity that allows fun sex between a husband and wife. That is because Paul's primary message is freedom in Christianity. Take away Paul and his teachings and you will bind yourself to a legalist lay crippling version of Christianity. The funny thing is both Paul and Christ said that is ok. If you can not handle the freedom Christ offers you can bind yourself to the law any way you like, just be prepared to be judged by your own standard.

[Silver]

...So you ignore the teachings of Paul because you do not like him.

No, I ignore Paul's teachings because he is no better than a modern televangelist. His teachings are false, and quite contradictory to the teachings of Christ. It is no surprise to biblical scholars that Paul disagreed with Christ regarding most teachings.

Not that the teachings of Christ should in any way be relevant toward his existence, but as a prophet created from the imagination of man his teachings were spot on in how to treat one another.

Paul is a douche, plain a simple. The precise opposite of Christ.