Contrary to Popular Belief

[undeadexistentialist]

snippety doo-da

It's something of a thorny issue to get around, and

I do agree though, that Christians ARE meant to love and tolerate the shit out of everyone. One of the most core tenets of Christianity is that anyone can be saved if they accept Jesus as saviour, and it pisses me off how people make that into "Anyone apart from X group which I don't like". You don't have to agree with people over their morality, but you damn well have to give them a chance.

This seems to strike me as an issue not so much that it can be turned into "anyone expect X group" (though that is, naturally, a huge problem) as the ease with which it can be turned into "so long as I believe in God I can do whatever the hell I want because 'he forgives'", which seems to me to be a way more ominous threat.

Ha, mega props for the scallywag bit though, I'm a huge fan of being unnecessarily dramatic in everyday life

Captcha: think hard
Why thank you sir captcha, I am!

 

[undeadexistentialist]

I myself am asexual, and have been called an "abomination" by other Christians, simply because I wish to die alone; that I'm not following God's path

OH, also for that, it seems like they should be applauding you for being that way, because doesn't that make you the epitome of not being tempted to sin? Personally, I honestly can't understand not being sexually attracted to people, but by the same token, I also don't understand quadratic equations so who am I to tell you about the validity of your positon?

Captcha: eat out

This is actually the first time I've personally encountered mysteriously-on-topic captchas, and it's really quite creepy isn't it?

 

[Emperor Nat]

This seems to strike me as an issue not so much that it can be turned into "anyone expect X group" (though that is, naturally, a huge problem) as the ease with which it can be turned into "so long as I believe in God I can do whatever the hell I want because 'he forgives'", which seems to me to be a way more ominous threat.

The worst thing is that Paul writes things specifically against that sort of mentality. The one I can pull off the top of my head is "Shall we sin all the more that grace may abound? By no means!"

I myself am asexual, and have been called an "abomination" by other Christians, simply because I wish to die alone; that I'm not following God's path. To them I say, "Foul scallywag, what wouldst thou know of righteousness?" ... Or, you know, something less dramatic and Elizabethan.

Really? Wow, that sucks. It's also plainly illogical, and counter-Biblical. Paul says at one point that if sex is a concern of yours then you should get married and enjoy it, but if you don't care then living alone is a better option for you because it'll leave you free to work for God without having familial responsibilities.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Cheese is actually bad for mice.

The original Star Wars trilogy wasn't really all that great, and people who complain about the prequels are just looking at the originals through Nostalgia Goggles.

That's opinion more than anything.

Water does not necessarily mean soft landing.

What? People actually think otherwise. What about the examples at the Golden Gate bridge....Then again some Russians jumped out of a plane without parachutes during WWII cause "snow is soft"

Bridget in Guilty Gear never really hid his gender; it shouldn't be a surprise that he's a dude.

He did as a child, otherwise his family would have faced discrimination.
And the only people who get surprised (to my knowledge) are naturally players who don't read his backstory.

 

[MetalMagpie]

Grand-daddy longlegs aren't venomous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opiliones

I swear that entire myth (or at least its recent popularity) comes from this Ricky Gervais stand-up routine:

<youtube=ewOS4AsJMS8>

Here's the lesson kids: Don't get your knowledge of zoology from comedians. Sometimes they are joking.

 

[ATRAYA]

This seems to strike me as an issue not so much that it can be turned into "anyone expect X group" (though that is, naturally, a huge problem) as the ease with which it can be turned into "so long as I believe in God I can do whatever the hell I want because 'he forgives'", which seems to me to be a way more ominous threat.

The worst thing is that Paul writes things specifically against that sort of mentality. The one I can pull off the top of my head is "Shall we sin all the more that grace may abound? By no means!"

I myself am asexual, and have been called an "abomination" by other Christians, simply because I wish to die alone; that I'm not following God's path. To them I say, "Foul scallywag, what wouldst thou know of righteousness?" ... Or, you know, something less dramatic and Elizabethan.

Really? Wow, that sucks. It's also plainly illogical, and counter-Biblical. Paul says at one point that if sex is a concern of yours then you should get married and enjoy it, but if you don't care then living alone is a better option for you because it'll leave you free to work for God without having familial responsibilities.

Many Christians feel that it is "not natural", because, according to societal views, you aren't allowed to die alone, and the "proper" way of doing things according to "God's will" is that you have to get married and have lots of babies.

 

[ATRAYA]

Myself and undeadexistentialist just had a fairly lengthy conversation about this exact topic throughout this thread. It is actually stated several times in the Bible that we have been "delivered" from Mosaic law, and that it no longer applies (Jesus brought new laws). But we are not to forsake the Old Testament, as it is still very important for Christians to be familiar with. I'm curious as to where you found the bits on homosexuality in the New Testament, however. As far as I am aware, save for a few loose Greek translations that require more study, the New Testament does not say anything about homosexuality.

Yeah, I didn't see that there were any other responses to your post until I'd replied. Woopsie!

As for my source:

Romans 1:26?27, 1 Corinthians 6:9?10, and 1 Timothy 1:9?10 are the passages which speak about homosexuality, putting it alongside other mentions acts such as adultery and the generic 'sexual immorality'. These passages are not in the gospels, but the Pauline Epistles are still firmly part of the New Testament canon.

Well, Romans is quite vague, just saying something about "unnatural lusts", and Corinthians is more mentioning the previous offenses from Mosaic law (saying that we have been forgiven since those days for such acts). However, I HAD forgotten about that one in Timothy, so thank you for reminding me. Nevertheless, it says nothing about punishing or judging anyone, and therefore my main point still stands.

 

[MetalMagpie]

If Jesus was a real person, his name was almost certainly Joshua (or Yeshua or Yahushua, depending on your preference in spelling).

Jesus is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew name Joshua, and may have gained its popularity when early Christianity mixed with Greek culture. The works of Greek philosophers in particular had a huge influence on early Christian thinking, and at the time Christianity was in the process of trying to separate itself as much as possible from mainstream Judaism.

Source: A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch

 

[Vault101]

Fun fact: There are literally no good pictures of me on this planet.

You should see my passport. I look like a straight-up terrorist with a grudge against normal eyes.

(Also, that picture is a couple years old, taken in the dark, with me trying to be creepy. And women still tell me I'm "above average", regardless of that pic's existence, so if that's what girls like...)

don't worry....given better lighting and setting you could actually be on the cute side

 

[Professor James]

This really shows what time we're in. If anyone remembers, I made a thread exactly like this 2 years ago and got locked because of arguments.

 

[sunsetspawn]

Now I need to get to work so I can get that cheddar, cause THAT'S what the women really want...

but I need to address this right quick.

The original Star Wars trilogy wasn't really all that great, and people who complain about the prequels are just looking at the originals through Nostalgia Goggles.

This is so very wrong. Hopefully I'll be able to break it down later, but I'll start with this.

Who is the protagonist in the Phantom Menace?

exactly

 

[prophecy2514]

...

Grand-daddy longlegs aren't venomous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opiliones

Vikings didn't wear horned helmets. (At least in battle.)
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2189/did-vikings-really-wear-horns-on-their-helmets

You mean daddy longlegs, and they are venomous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellar_spider

As an extension to this, they are indeed venomous, but their fangs are not strong enough to pierce human skin.

 

[AlexWinter]

-snip

You're right. I don't believe anybody would date someone they find unattractive without monetary compensation. But personality is what makes someone attractive.

So nice try but you stuck the landing. A+ for effort.

 

[lacktheknack]

Fun fact: There are literally no good pictures of me on this planet.

You should see my passport. I look like a straight-up terrorist with a grudge against normal eyes.

(Also, that picture is a couple years old, taken in the dark, with me trying to be creepy. And women still tell me I'm "above average", regardless of that pic's existence, so if that's what girls like...)

don't worry....given better lighting and setting you could actually be on the cute side

D'aaaawww, thanks.

 

[razer17]

While violent crime may not go down, it's harder to shank large numbers of people to death than shoot them, which would at least reduce the number of massacres which seem to be so popular in America.

The weird thing is that they aren't that common. However, whenever they do happen they become a massive deal, completely forgoing the twelve other instances where this person was stopped. Frankly, I still maintain that if there had been a single person with a concealed carry permit in that Aurora theater, we'd be reading about a hero that stopped a potential massacre rather than some fucked up college student.

I don't think that is true. Any one other than a highly skilled person who is able to actually shoot another human being would have done more harm than good. Research has shown that just because you are good at the range, you would be good in a real life situation. The guy in the theatre was a straight up psychopath, and the lack of empathy and emotion he would have had would have made him a much better shot than like 99.9% of the population.

For the average human being there would be two major problems when trying to shoot back at the killer: Firstly, shooting another human being is hard. Even if your life depends on it, for the average man taking a human life is difficult. Secondly, the theatre was dark and the loud screams and gunshots would have been disorientating. Add to that the extreme emotional stress, people running around, not to mention tear gas, it would have been less than optimal. On top of that the killer was wearing a bulletproof vest and a helmet, so a concealed 9mm might not have done much anyway, even if he did hit.

On top of all that, even if there was someone who could ignore the stress, the gas, the darkness, was quick thinking enough to pull out a gun and return fire, managed not to hit any fleeing civilians and then take the killer out of action, the killer would have still had enough time to kill and injure several people.

In reality what would have happened if someone returned fire is more likely that he would have drawn the attention of James, and if he fired possibly hit a couple more innocents, and then been killed.

 

[Queen Michael]

You know all those nativity scenes where Jesus is in a stable with Mary and Joseph? At no point does the Bible say that they were in a stable. That Jesus was put in a manger doesn't mean that they were in a stable. Maybe they were given a place to sleep by a childless couple who didn't have a proper bed for Jesus.

 

[razer17]

Grand-daddy longlegs aren't venomous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opiliones

Vikings didn't wear horned helmets. (At least in battle.)
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2189/did-vikings-really-wear-horns-on-their-helmets

You mean daddy longlegs, and they are venomous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellar_spider

As an extension to this, they are indeed venomous, but their fangs are not strong enough to pierce human skin.

Well, if you'd actually clicked that link you would have found out that they CAN pierce the skin, but the venom is really weak and just causes a mild burning.

Also, usually this myth is told in relation to crane flies, which aren't even spiders, as far as I'm aware.

 

[Matt King]

Dragon Age 2 is a flawed and ungraceful sequel to an otherwise better game. It is not complete and utter shit worthy only of scorn and hatred, however.

that boys and girls is what we call an opinion

 

[Matt King]

...

Grand-daddy longlegs aren't venomous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opiliones

Vikings didn't wear horned helmets. (At least in battle.)
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2189/did-vikings-really-wear-horns-on-their-helmets

You mean daddy longlegs, and they are venomous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellar_spider

As an extension to this, they are indeed venomous, but their fangs are not strong enough to pierce human skin.

does that mean if i eat one i would die?

 

[prophecy2514]

...

Grand-daddy longlegs aren't venomous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opiliones

Vikings didn't wear horned helmets. (At least in battle.)
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2189/did-vikings-really-wear-horns-on-their-helmets

You mean daddy longlegs, and they are venomous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellar_spider

As an extension to this, they are indeed venomous, but their fangs are not strong enough to pierce human skin.

does that mean if i eat one i would die?

...well there's only one way to find out.