Jump to content
The Big Bang Theory Forums
Sign in to follow this  
walnutcowboy

Argue

Recommended Posts

new and very provocative topic:

 

Same sex marriages: yes or nono?!?

 

I say yes, because bible is for them.

-No it really is!

 

You see, in Revelations, John tells we are all married to Christ at the end of times.

-now I'm a bloke, and Christ is a bloke, so if we marry, it's same sex marriage! In heaven!

 

So clearly God has to be all right with same sex marriages to allow this.

-and if God is OK with it, so must I be!

 

BTW, I asked about this from real theologigians, and they said it is a real marriage in heaven, and not just a metaphor...

 

(Mind you, personally I think John goes on about this marriage because he is gay, but that is not churches opinion. So...)

 

Any comebacks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

new and very provocative topic:

 

Same sex marriages: yes or nono?!?

 

I say yes, because bible is for them.

-No it really is!

 

You see, in Revelations, John tells we are all married to Christ at the end of times.

-now I'm a bloke, and Christ is a bloke, so if we marry, it's same sex marriage! In heaven!

 

So clearly God has to be all right with same sex marriages to allow this.

-and if God is OK with it, so must I be!

 

BTW, I asked about this from real theologigians, and they said it is a real marriage in heaven, and not just a metaphor...

 

(Mind you, personally I think John goes on about this marriage because he is gay, but that is not churches opinion. So...)

 

Any comebacks?

There are three posibilities.

 

1: You're having a joke.

2: You're serious and don't understand the Bible.

3: You're playing a troll.

 

My guess is, you're playing a troll. No one can be that dumb.

Edited by Catweazle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I see catweazle is one of those christian who dare not think, or talk about, difficult and controversial issues.

-bit of a lack of balls there, eh???

 

Not to mention that he is probably anti-gay bigot too.

 

But I am quoting official dogma with the marriage in heaven thing, and it is quite strange to me that same-sex marriage would be ok in heaven, but not in earth.

 

But hey, if you have no balls to argue of such topic, then just go back to your momma's. She'll give you a pat and a cookie! how nice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I see catweazle is one of those christian who dare not think, or talk about, difficult and controversial issues.

-bit of a lack of balls there, eh???

 

Not to mention that he is probably anti-gay bigot too.

 

But I am quoting official dogma with the marriage in heaven thing, and it is quite strange to me that same-sex marriage would be ok in heaven, but not in earth.

 

But hey, if you have no balls to argue of such topic, then just go back to your momma's. She'll give you a pat and a cookie! how nice!

I'm not affected by political correctness, hense I enjoy what might be considered controversial. Of course one is in danger of being labelled a bigot if one doesn't accept modern societal morality, which I don't.

 

What society calls progress, I call moral decline. I take my lead from scripture rather than the ever changing "moral progress" that the majoirty of folk accept.

 

So, lets start our debate and see where it leads.

 

Judging by your claims and statements, I believe you have little bibical understanding. However, that is an assumption I've formed following our previous debated, which you did not finish. Of course you may have a comprehensive knowledge of scripture with just a different interpretation. Or, you may be just a simple troll out on a fishing trip.

 

Please use scripture to back up your claims. Show me the scripture which states there is same sex marriage in heaven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I see catweazle is one of those christian who dare not think, or talk about, difficult and controversial issues.

-bit of a lack of balls there, eh???

 

But hey, if you have no balls to argue of such topic, then just go back to your momma's. She'll give you a pat and a cookie! how nice!

Come on, I'm waiting for your opening shots. I know you've been online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Onet thing people should know about bible is that Bible contains very little actual data about the big issues, such as heaven, life after death, God, and Holy Spirit.

 

Take the life after death issue. there are only couple of cryptic passages about what happens after death, in the Bible. Which means we do not know jack about the afterlife.

 

Despite this lack of data, theologians have written thousands of pages about the afterlife. Now how is that possible? Simple!

-they made it all up!

 

And same goes for most theological literature. It's imaginary stuff people made up to fill in the big blanks.

 

The worrying thing is that many of these fairytales are now accepted as official church dogma.

 

And so, in my estimate, today's church theology contains about 5% truth and 95% lies, made up stuff and fairytales. And that's being generous.

 

 

A honest theologian admits that she does not know everything.

 

But unfortunately most theologians want to assume the air of know it all, which forces them to lie, mislead and make up stuff as they go along.

 

Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Onet thing people should know about bible is that Bible contains very little actual data about the big issues, such as heaven, life after death, God, and Holy Spirit.

 

Take the life after death issue. there are only couple of cryptic passages about what happens after death, in the Bible. Which means we do not know jack about the afterlife.

 

Despite this lack of data, theologians have written thousands of pages about the afterlife. Now how is that possible? Simple!

-they made it all up!

 

And same goes for most theological literature. It's imaginary stuff people made up to fill in the big blanks.

 

The worrying thing is that many of these fairytales are now accepted as official church dogma.

 

And so, in my estimate, today's church theology contains about 5% truth and 95% lies, made up stuff and fairytales. And that's being generous.

 

 

A honest theologian admits that she does not know everything.

 

But unfortunately most theologians want to assume the air of know it all, which forces them to lie, mislead and make up stuff as they go along.

 

Sad.

You may be surprised to hear that I agree with much of what you have said. The first thing you should know about me is that I don't subscribe to 90% of professing Christian dogma and belief. The very fact that Christianity is divided into hundreds of bickering disagreeing denominations is obvious proof they cannot agree on what bibilcal scripture states. Christianity is  confusion personified.

 

I think and debate by biblical scripture only. I do not add or take away from scripture, I simply go by what is clearly written.

 

21st century Christianity has become so far remove from 1st century Christianity that Jesus, who founded it, would not recognise it. Over the last two thousand years it has been watered down and infiltrated by myths and paganism.

 

You may have thought of me as a typical Christian. I am not. I debate against them.

 

Kudos for your honest revelation.

Edited by Catweazle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent example of fairytale theology is the Cataloque of Angelic and Daemonic Entities, that was written in the middle ages.

 

As a book it is brilliant: It lists hundreds of types of angels and daemons, complete with full names, descriptions of their looks, their duties, and their standings in the hierarchy of heaven and hell.

-the illustrated version is especially impressive. (containing some impressively sick pictures)

 

But of course the whole book is complete poppycock. Fairytale material. Made up stuff.

 

And yet it is part of official catholic theology.

 

Nice one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet it is part of official catholic theology.

 

Catholic theology should really be called Catholic mythology.

 

Example: They took a 14th century poem (Dante’s Inferno) and created the myth of an ever burning hell where the damned are torture without hope for eternity.  They have terrified the illiterate masses over the centuries into following the false doctrines of their church with the constant threat of hell. However, they created a thing called “The Indulgence” a way of buying yourself, or your loved ones out of hell. Millions of deceived folk bought Indulgencies, filling the overflowing coffers of an ever increasing financial power. Yes, the Vatican is very wealthy.

 

They also invented the need for infant baptism. Folk were told if their babies died before being baptised they would go to hell. Infant death rates were high before the 20th century, so the terrified parents paid the baptism fees and became victims of the myth.

 

I could go on with the behaviour of past Popes, but the details may be too graphic for folk to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theology kills true religion.

 

For theology is like a prison build around true religion.

-and when this prison is ready and whole, the religion inside dies away.

 

And when the true religion is dead, theologians replace it with lip service and empty rituals.

 

Faith is like love: it is illogical, irrational, and surreal.

Theology, on the other hand, is logical, rational, and realistic.

So, theyre are complete opposites. No wonder theologians always hate people of real faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, nearly everyone believes their particular flavour of religion is true without proving it for themsevles. They simply accept what their religious leaders tells them. And, the same applies to their religious leaders. They accept their beliefs from their predecessors only studying within the confines of their faith.

 

The result is; The blind leading the blind.

Edited by Catweazle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is, nearly everyone believes their particular flavour of religion is true without proving it for themsevles. They simply accept what their religious leaders tells them. And, the same applies to their religious leaders. They accept their beliefs from their predecessors only studying within the confines of their faith.

 

The result is; The blind leading the blind.

 

Indeed, blind leading the blind. Well put.

-Perhaps if pope would wear smaller hat, it would not slip onto his eyes so often!

 

But here's something real worrying: Many theology students are atheists these days!

 

No joke: in our local university, there is a good christian theology department. But of the students, only few actually believe in J-man and his miracles and stuff. The rest do not, and what's worse, the rest are always catcalling the true believers for their faith.

 

And this lot is our future priests... Not good.

 

me? I believe every single miracle, even the walk on water stuff. I've a logical mind, but I've never doubted J-man.

-I suppose you could call that faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You silly bugger. Don't you know that the native language of the UK is English. For American's English is an adoptive language. It is you, silly billy yanks, that can't get to grips with the spelling.

And stop changing words. Cars have bonnets and boots, not hoods and trunks. You walk on the pavement, not the sidewalk. You ride on the railway, not the railroad. You drive on the motorway, not the highway. Baseball is rounders, and your so called American football is rugby.

Now shut your cake hole.... that's right... cake hole.... NOT pie hole.

*Americans

 

With your self-stated superior grasp of the English language, surely you are aware that an apostrophe is never used to form a plural for anything other than a single letter or number.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Americans

 

With your self-stated superior grasp of the English language, surely you are aware that an apostrophe is never used to form a plural for anything other than a single letter or number.   ;)

 

If I made a statement claiming a superior grasp of the English language it was a lie. I'm fully aware of my gramatical shortcoming. I'd also be lost without a spellchecker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argue sucks... better leave this thread and through it in a black hole :p

 

Whose idea... to resume it? :lol:

Edited by wannamaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell all of you that if were taking my college debate class you would all fail! You debate logically & with reason. Religious texts cannot be used as a source because they are based on faith, not reason. You can bring a reliable philosophy into the debate. Philosophy is inclusive and religion is exclusive.

Discuss....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argue sucks... better leave this thread and through it in a black hole :p

 

Whose idea... to resume it? :lol:

 When I started this thread the ONE RULE was don't get personal or to hurt others feelings.

 I started this thread it was suppose to be a FUN thread not a serious one!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell all of you that if were taking my college debate class you would all fail! You debate logically & with reason. Religious texts cannot be used as a source because they are based on faith, not reason. You can bring a reliable philosophy into the debate. Philosophy is inclusive and religion is exclusive.

Discuss....

 

Your college debate class does not own the rules on debating, therefore your statement is mute. Obviously you do not understand the meaning of faith, therefore your reasoning powers are limited. What you claim can and cannot be inclusive is nothing more than a claim.

 

Your post is illogical and unreasonable.

 

Go play with your college buddies with your protective rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your college debate class does not own the rules on debating, therefore your statement is mute. Obviously you do not understand the meaning of faith, therefore your reasoning powers are limited. What you claim can and cannot be inclusive is nothing more than a claim.

Your post is illogical and unreasonable.

Go play with your college buddies with your protective rules.

Wow! What hateful remarks! I posted rules for debating and suggested a discussion on what I posted. You personally attack me & my profession? And in the same post tell ME I know nothing of faith while acting in the most in-Christian manner? You've just proven how EXclusive your religious views are! WWJD indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! What hateful remarks! I posted rules for debating and suggested a discussion on what I posted. You personally attack me & my profession? And in the same post tell ME I know nothing of faith while acting in the most in-Christian manner? You've just proven how EXclusive your religious views are! WWJD indeed!

You've proven you have no idea, and most obviouly no aptitude for debate.

 

The first rule of debate... do not take it personally. You can see you've failed there can't you?

 

Learn to recognise bait and ignor it. You've failed there too.

 

Do not make assumptions. You've failed there also. Imaging my religious views.

 

If you knew anything of debating, you'd know it's not for the faint of heart. You need to grow a thick skin. Yours looks thin.

 

Do you want to play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I made a statement claiming a superior grasp of the English language it was a lie. I'm fully aware of my gramatical shortcoming. I'd also be lost without a spellchecker.

I only would like to know who was the silly person inventing the idea of making English language the "universal language" and to force lot of people in the world to learn it. I know people will reply that English is practical language because sentences are short and you express yourself in a very direct, simple way, but in reality it is not simple language. Even natives have problem for writing it because English is written in a different way than spoken. What a silly idea to write a language in very diferent way than spoken! And there is not clear rules! Why the "oo" of "boot" sound different than the "oo" of "blood"?? And this is only an example :icon_rolleyes:

The English should be written like this:

De English shud bi writen laik dis :icon_lol: Du yu anderstand wat ai min??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.