[serious] Off Topic Moderation Input - Part 2

[kentonio]

I haven't argued with Ben for a while, because I decided the malevolence radiating from him just wasn't worth being around. The idea that I'd run from an argument with you though it frankly hilarious. You're about a third as clever as you think you are. You write extremely tedious page long diatribes where you try and twist the truth to suit your nonsense while stupidly believing everyone else is too dumb to notice.

But you know the worst part? You're boring. Really, really ****ing boring. I stopped arguing with you because I realized that literally nothing you had to say was even interesting. In that way, you're actually worse than Ben.

[Aeson]

That's because they are the same person. When Ben is inevitably banned at some point, the Aeson DL should be banned too to ensure justice is served.

I'll again note that you argue endlessly against Ben, since it's an easy win. You drop and run any argument with me because you know you have no chance to win. Clearly your words are just a fantasy, it's your deeds that show what you really think, and who you really are. You're just an impotent coward trying to assuage your embarrassment at being you, by pretending I'm Ben.

[kentonio]

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

That's because they are the same person. When Ben is inevitably banned at some point, the Aeson DL should be banned too to ensure justice is served.

[Aeson]

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

I'm honestly confused as to why you want to spend so much time to prove [a]the given[/a] in the hypothetical. It's the given. It's not being disputed!

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

Logic. Reason. If you are wrong, I can point it out. Deal with it.

Christ argues that true sons are disciplined by their fathers.

MrFun isn't your son ...

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

An obligation you've ignored. The obligation is to accept correction. Not to give it. You won't accept correction on anything, which is why it's so delicious how you keep referring to how it's a Christian's obligation to do so.

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

Because some of them are rather plainly stated. You don't have to be Christian to know that lying and murder are sins. You don't have to be Christian to know that Christ taught parables about the mote and the beam, that Christ spoke against casting stones at sinners, etc. It's very simple to read the Bible and see these things for yourself, regardless of your religion.

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

No, using "benefit of the doubt" of being married clearly implies there is something wrong with not being married. Otherwise there's nothing to benefit from your lie.

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

Yah, you don't have anything to benefit from making yourself look like an even more horrible human being than you already are. But that's never stopped you before. You were threatening to do something along those lines. I called your bluff. You folded. For once you made the right decision.

[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."