[serious] Off Topic Moderation Input - Part 2

[Ben Kenobi]

Congratulations. You've provided (rather tenuous) evidence for what was already a given in they hypothetical.

What sense does it mean to have two sexes if they aren't intended to have sex with one another?

Christ's teachings were love. Love for God, your neighbor, and sinners. Christ taught to help out, to focus on your own improvement, to not cast stones. You do the opposite, and in doing so you knowingly do those things to God, proving you don't love him.

"you really should help the gay people by being supportive and understanding rather than so condescending. How do you know what love is? Who do you get to tell that their relationship is truly love"

Already answered. Are you a moron?

Christians have the obligation to correct one another. Are you a Christian? Then what gives you that authority?

When you are sinning against most of God's laws, so as to continue to do X, then yes, it's myopic to pretend X is actually something you should do.

The teachings do not become less true because of the sins of the preacher. Christ's truths are transcendent.

Even if you can twist some passage in the Bible to maybe mean that doing X is ok.

Please find me one which teaches that sodomy is a virtue and gay marriage is a sacrament.

My point being the clearest things in the Bible are that Christ wanted people to love each other, to treat each other well, to not cast stones at sinners, to worry about their own sins

Christ argues that true sons are disciplined by their fathers.

Attacking others based on their sin definitely is a sin.

Not according to St. Paul who argues we have an obligation.

Especially when in doing so you continually deny your own sin rather than accepting correction (which is what you are claiming should be done!)

Why would a Christian accept a non-Christian's understanding of sin?

You clearly stated "benefit of the doubt" twice in regards to marriage vs another form of relationship. As such, you are clearly disparaging the non-marriage option.

Which is why I wasn't being derogatory in referring to your relationship as marriage.

Making derogatory insinuations isn't the "good" thing you seem to think it is. It just takes the bad of being derogatory and combines it with the two-faced nature of those who are afraid to take responsibility for their derogatory insinuations.

Yes, insinuating that your longterm relationship is a marriage is derogatory.

If you want to insult me, go for it. I can take a lot more than anything you could come up with. If you want to insult Net, it will only continue to cement how horrible a person you are.

I'm not quite sure how that would accomplish my aims.

[Ben Kenobi]

Isn't that sexist, Aeson? I mean, what if she doesn't have any balls?

[Aeson]

Thanks for demonstrating why you're the ideal opponent for Ben. You seem to have whatever he has.

I'm the ideal opponent for anyone, since I am always right and can thus ensure that the truth is always represented fully.

As for what Ben and I share in common, the one thing we obviously both have that you lack is the balls to personally state our opinions rather than to rely on anonymity of a DL while doing so. You of course lack the cahones, and are just a little *****.

[Aeson]

"He made them male and female, thus a husband will leave his mother and father, and cleave to his wife and the two will become one flesh."

Congratulations. You've provided (rather tenuous) evidence for what was already a given in they hypothetical.

Seeing as you define Christ's own teachings as hate, a house divided cannot stand.

Christ's teachings were love. Love for God, your neighbor, and sinners. Christ taught to help out, to focus on your own improvement, to not cast stones. You do the opposite, and in doing so you knowingly do those things to God, proving you don't love him.

Are you a Christian?

Already answered. Are you a moron?

Either Christianity teaches it or it does not. Labelling the teaching as 'myopic' changes nothing.

When you are sinning against most of God's laws, so as to continue to do X, then yes, it's myopic to pretend X is actually something you should do. Even if you can twist some passage in the Bible to maybe mean that doing X is ok.

Sure, just like Luther and Calvin disagreed on things. Your point being?

My point being the clearest things in the Bible are that Christ wanted people to love each other, to treat each other well, to not cast stones at sinners, to worry about their own sins rather than the sins of others. All the things you ignore and do the opposite of.

If homosexuality is sinful then warning others of this fact is not sin.

Attacking others based on their sin definitely is a sin. Especially when in doing so you continually deny your own sin rather than accepting correction (which is what you are claiming should be done!)

Did I say that? Look, you've been in a long term relationship. No insult was intended.

You clearly stated "benefit of the doubt" twice in regards to marriage vs another form of relationship. As such, you are clearly disparaging the non-marriage option.

There are plenty of things that I could say that I'm not saying. Do you really want it, Aeson? Again no insult was intended.

Making derogatory insinuations isn't the "good" thing you seem to think it is. It just takes the bad of being derogatory and combines it with the two-faced nature of those who are afraid to take responsibility for their derogatory insinuations.

If you want to insult me, go for it. I can take a lot more than anything you could come up with. If you want to insult Net, it will only continue to cement how horrible a person you are.

[Ban Kenobi]

One of the central tenants of intellectual honesty is to observe the source of information. Using anonymity to present information sourced from your own opinion is thus intellectually dishonest. You are trying to present your take on this discussion as if it were from "Ban Kenobi" rather than give credit for it to whoever you actually are.

I'll just note it's good you didn't take exception to the scared ***** part, since that's obviously also true

Thanks for demonstrating why you're the ideal opponent for Ben. You seem to have whatever he has.

[Aeson]

You either don't know what "intellectual honesty" actually is or you're just being intellectually dishonest as usual.

One of the central tenants of intellectual honesty is to observe the source of information. Using anonymity to present information sourced from your own opinion is thus intellectually dishonest. You are trying to present your take on this discussion as if it were from "Ban Kenobi" rather than give credit for it to whoever you actually are.

I'll just note it's good you didn't take exception to the scared ***** part, since that's obviously also true

[Ben Kenobi]

Your argument is with Christ and what Christ actually said. Good luck on that battle

"He made them male and female, thus a husband will leave his mother and father, and cleave to his wife and the two will become one flesh."

The standards Christ taught, which you ignore to continually spout hate.

Seeing as you define Christ's own teachings as hate, a house divided cannot stand.

You're the opposite of everything Christ taught someone should be.

No, I'm the opposite of Bizarro Aeson Jesus.

The passage you posted was that Christians should "accept correction". Something you obviously do not do.

Are you a Christian?

My argument is you ignore almost everything that Christ taught, and focus on one myopic point.

Either Christianity teaches it or it does not. Labelling the teaching as 'myopic' changes nothing.

many actually intelligent theologians

Sure, just like Luther and Calvin disagreed on things. Your point being?

I specifically gave you homosexuality as a sin for the hypothetical ... then pointed out how your sin is a worse one even in that hypothetical.

If homosexuality is sinful then warning others of this fact is not sin.

There is nothing wrong with being single, or waiting until you're sure/ready to get married.

Did I say that? Look, you've been in a long term relationship. No insult was intended.

just to be derogatory of my relationship with Net

Right because when people are trying to insult your relationship they consider it marriage.

That should read, "excuse me for ignoring that you'd already told me you weren't married

Things change, Aeson.

disparaging the fact that you aren't married yet

There are plenty of things that I could say that I'm not saying. Do you really want it, Aeson? Again no insult was intended.

[Ban Kenobi]

Using a DL to try to hide your identity isn't intellectually honest. I at least have the balls to stand behind my statements and take responsibility for them. You on the other hand are obviously a coward, whoever you are. Hide like the scared little ***** you are

You either don't know what "intellectual honesty" actually is or you're just being intellectually dishonest as usual.

[Aeson]

The two most intellectually dishonest posters on Apolyton argue over Christianity or some ****.

Using a DL to try to hide your identity isn't intellectually honest. I at least have the balls to stand behind my statements and take responsibility for them. You on the other hand are obviously a coward, whoever you are. Hide like the scared little ***** you are

[Aeson]

You've already stated that being wrong on this issue puts someone's soul at risk.

In the hypothetical, yes. Which is why you should probably spend more time worrying about your own sins, rather than those of others.

You're saying it's a sin for a Christian to say that homosexuality is sinful.

I'm saying it's sinful to cast stones at sinners or to spend time ignoring your own sins to focus on the sins of others.

Hey, I had the honesty to actually convert to the religion.

Makes no sense. It would be dishonest of me to convert to a religion I professedly do not believe in.

You want me to condemn righteousness as sin, and accept sin as righteousness. This is all this is here.

You think that it's a sin to follow the teachings of Christ, and instead you will focus on doing the exact opposite of everything Christ taught.

The dispute is really simple. If Christianity teaches that homosexuality is sinful, then I have an obligation to teach what He taught, not what others prefer.

You have an obligation to accept correction yourself, which you obviously do not do. You prefer to continue to willfully ignore the teachings of Christ to persecute those who have sinned.

[Aeson]

Not when there's disagreement as to what constitutes the standard.

Your argument is with Christ and what Christ actually said. Good luck on that battle

This is exactly my point. You have a different standard. It stands to reason then that you cannot assess a Christian because your standards are off.

The irony here

What 'other standards'? You're saying it's wrong for me to confront another Christian while at the same time affirming that it's ok to confront me when you believe I am wrong. That won't fly.

The standards Christ taught, which you ignore to continually spout hate. You're the opposite of everything Christ taught someone should be.

Is it? In saying that Christ teaches that this is sinful? That's what correction is about and St. Paul says that we have an obligation to correct our brothers and sisters in the faith.

It is not a sin for a Christian to correct one another.

The passage you posted was that Christians should "accept correction". Something you obviously do not do.

So your argument is now, "we can ignore what Christ taught about marriage". Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Plenty of others did. Luther, Calvin, etc.

My argument is you ignore almost everything that Christ taught, and focus on one myopic point. (A point that many actually intelligent theologians disagree with you on interpretation. But that's aside the point for now.)

So you see my point. You argument is thus - "I'm not wrong, you're wrong about homosexuality, homosexuality is not a sin".

No. Your reading comprehension is as horrible as your willingness to follow the teachings of Christ.

I specifically gave you homosexuality as a sin for the hypothetical ... then pointed out how your sin is a worse one even in that hypothetical.

I'll be sure not to make that mistake of giving you the benefit of the doubt.

There is nothing wrong with being single, or waiting until you're sure/ready to get married. The fact that you claim marriage is the "benefit of the doubt" shows very clearly how you are taking something you are wholly ignorant of (to the point of being opposite of known facts) just to be derogatory of my relationship with Net, and both of our choices in that regard.

You're a horrible person, Ben.

Right. Excuse me for assuming that you married the woman you love.

That should read, "excuse me for ignoring that you'd already told me you weren't married, and instead reiterating my lie in an attempt to try to disparage your loved one, and then disparaging your loved one by disparaging the fact that you aren't married yet instead of accepting correction of a simple fact."

[Ben Kenobi]

Then you should try it, because you're obviously not loving God when what you do to the "least of these" is hate and spite.

You've already stated that being wrong on this issue puts someone's soul at risk.

When presented with your own sin, you harden your heart

You're saying it's a sin for a Christian to say that homosexuality is sinful.

Obviously this is how you will be judged (if you are), not based on your empty words.

Hey, I had the honesty to actually convert to the religion.

No, you don't have an obligation to "correct them".

Yes, I do. Hebrews 12.

You do have an obligation to correct yourself ... which you resist doing for years now whenever your hypocrisy is pointed out.

You want me to condemn righteousness as sin, and accept sin as righteousness. This is all this is here.

That in itself shows just what an awful Christian you are. You'll spend years casting stones at others for sins, while you are committing worse ones continually (even in doing so).

The dispute is really simple. If Christianity teaches that homosexuality is sinful, then I have an obligation to teach what He taught, not what others prefer.

[Ban Kenobi]

The two most intellectually dishonest posters on Apolyton argue over Christianity or some ****.

[Ben Kenobi]

It makes every bit of sense to point out how someone fails to live up to their own standards

Not when there's disagreement as to what constitutes the standard.

Do you believe that homosexuality is sinful?

No, I do not.

This is exactly my point. You have a different standard. It stands to reason then that you cannot assess a Christian because your standards are off.

So we can say in your eyes MrFun sins in one way.

It's not just who he chooses to sleep with. It's also that he teaches that 'this is not sin'. The church actually considers the latter far more serious.

I'm pointing out how using other standards from your own religion, you are a much worse sinner than MrFun

What 'other standards'? You're saying it's wrong for me to confront another Christian while at the same time affirming that it's ok to confront me when you believe I am wrong. That won't fly.

that the very act of pointing out MrFun's sin

Is it? In saying that Christ teaches that this is sinful? That's what correction is about and St. Paul says that we have an obligation to correct our brothers and sisters in the faith.

You are judging

It is not a sin for a Christian to correct one another.

(I will point out that Jesus spent very little of his time preaching against homosexuality

This doesn't change the fact that he explicitly taught that marriage was between one man and one woman for life.

He spent most of his time teaching about how not to act like you do.)

So your argument is now, "we can ignore what Christ taught about marriage". Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Plenty of others did. Luther, Calvin, etc.

Because you make Christianity look bad. You're an embarrassment to the faith you claim to have.

How?

If they don't repent, they might end up in hell along with other non-repentant sinners such as yourself?

So you see my point. You argument is thus - "I'm not wrong, you're wrong about homosexuality, homosexuality is not a sin".

It is a lie that you continually spread even though you've been corrected on it several times in the past. Your point in doing so here was so that you could make derogatory insinuations about my relationship with Net by referencing one of your backwards beliefs.

I'll be sure not to make that mistake of giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I don't much care if you choose to insult me personally, but your target there could only have been Net.

Right. Excuse me for assuming that you married the woman you love.

[Aeson]

Loving God comes first. Absolutely anything that you do without him will not be fruitful.

Then you should try it, because you're obviously not loving God when what you do to the "least of these" is hate and spite. When presented with your own sin, you harden your heart and continue to do it rather than repent. Obviously this is how you will be judged (if you are), not based on your empty words.

What about when St. Paul states when he says, "accept Correction as discipline - for God is loving you as true sons". Either Christianity teaches that homosexuality is sinful or it does not. If it does - then I have an obligation to other christians to correct them (and them me), when they get it wrong.

No, you don't have an obligation to "correct them". You do have an obligation to correct yourself ... which you resist doing for years now whenever your hypocrisy is pointed out. That in itself shows just what an awful Christian you are.You'll spend years casting stones at others for sins, while you are committing worse ones continually (even in doing so).