How can Christians that have sex outside of marriage condemn homosexuality?

[Jesus Is Lord]

And what if a person is cool wit choosing not to believe in a god helped shaped by man? Or what if a person is cool wit not choosing to believe in anything dealing with organized religion?

You just said in your earlier quote that "A lot of ignorant lost souls in this thread. You dudes need intervention. Seek God, whch ever one you choose, just seek."

How can a person be a "lost soul" when dey've made their choice and set their anchor on what to believe and what best suits their life? Whether it's believing in a chosen god or not.

I dont understand your last 2 contradicting posts big homie.

No contradicting, I responded to those that don't have a God or stand for nothing, not to those who stand for something. If you stand for nothing then you're a lost soul. Scroll though this thread and use your discernment ( if you have that gift) and see what I'm seeing. ONCE AGAIN, a person can choose whatever stance they're cool with, just choose something and stop judging other religions or cultures because some within that group choose to demonstrate actions or words that is in direct conflict with said religion. Every religion have suspect people, not just certain ones. It's ignorant to point out one group of people as "fake".

 

[OG_StankBrefs]

The opinions and rhetoric shared by many of the 'independent thinkers' on here are eerily similar to the spoutings as Dawkins, Maher, Hitchens, and even Karl Marx. How often do we hear, "Religion is the opiate of the masses" and other such deviations?



Have you questioned your own belief set? Have you questioned how something has come from absolutely nothing? Do you have evidence for those beliefs, which atheists claim as necessary in order to believe anything? Since atheism is the superior position, can you show me one great atheist empire throughout human history? Should not a superior set of beliefs manifest superiority when applied? So let us have at it.

Nobody said anything about atheism being some "superior" vantage point. Dat's your own threatened mind set projecting. I have not completely dismissed da existence of higher life forms. I just have chosen not to believe dey take shape in da form of da gods man has indeed shaped and formed over da course of time to fit THEIR agendas. Whether it was collecting tribute for their own pockets, indulgences, attempt to conjure fear/invoke hatred towards other cultures in order to fight wars dat helped increase da size of empires, or used as a means of punishment(hell, purgatory, after life consequences, etc.) in order to keep in check anybody who'd dared to question such beliefs.


You speak as if Jesus/Christianity is da sole truth. Dat dere can be nothing else. When in reality you are in fact just regurgitating da shyt you been told since birth in a Christian dominated society. Had you been born in da remote mountains of Tibet I'm 100% certain you wouldn't be proclaiming Christianity as da glorious truth like you are doing right now. So once again, you are merely da bi product of years of indoctrination passed down to you from your ancestors who got it from their ancestors who got it from da slave masters who brought em ova here who introduce Christianity to dem in da first place. Dat shyt is historical FACT whether your Stockholm syndrome allows you to grasp dat simple truth or not.

I don't understand how anybody who's picked up a fukkin history book and/or has an ounce of rational thought can read half da shyt in da bible/any other book of faith and not look at it wit da face.

If you were to take da Bible, da Quran, book of Dianetics, Da Lord of da Rings, and a Harry Potter book and gave dem shyts to somebody who didn't know anything about religion and ask which one was real what do you think dey would choose?

 

[Sierra Mist]

Too many nuts and berries.
You don't have to be an atheist to not be a Christian. You don't even have to be an atheist to not be religious. You people need to read a book. Atheism isn't owned by any group. No one can own NOTHING.
These same people who hate EVERYTHING about white people can't get enough of WHITE JESUS. "But... but Jesus is black!" It doesn't matter. The white people who GAVE you Jesus say he's white and if you tell them any different, your ass wouldn't make it home.

The only reason you are Christian is because the countries who were "Christian" won the most wars. That has nothing to do with God. There isn't an army that has ever walked this Earth that didn't feel like God was on their side and if you think the army that made it home prayed to the same God every time then you are mistaken. You're just following the white man's dogmatic, evangelical scoreboard. You're one of the many people he took over and told "God is white, Jesus is white and if you attack me you're attacking God. I dominated your people because God was on my side. You want to be on the winning team? Be a Christian like me.... then maybe you will ALMOST be as human and close to God as I am..... Black man, Asian man, Native American man.... but you still will never be as great as I am because I am white like God."

Believe what you want to believe but at least know WHY you believe what you believe.


This has been a Misty Sierra Leone production and I approve this motherfukking message.

 

[Stacks]

Religion is for the weak.

 

[OG_StankBrefs]

No contradicting, I responded to those that don't have a God or stand for nothing, not to those who stand for something. If you stand for nothing then you're a lost soul. Scroll though this thread and use your discernment ( if you have that gift) and see what I'm seeing. ONCE AGAIN, a person can choose whatever stance they're cool with, just choose something and stop judging other religions or cultures because some within that group choose to demonstrate actions or words that is in direct conflict with said religion. Every religion have suspect people, not just certain ones. It's ignorant to point out one group of people as "fake".

Breh i have no prollem wit people who believe in whatever random shyt dey choose too. Mah irritation has always/only came from when dese same people try to act like dat shyt is FACT.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

If you were to take da Bible, da Quran, book of Dianetics, Da Lord of da Rings, and a Harry Potter book and gave dem shyts to somebody who didn't know anything about religion and ask which one was real what do you think dey would choose?

I'm not a religious person but to be fair, this is a bad comparison. Most holy books are respected and studied by scientists, historians, philosophers, etc for their important Historical, and societal contexts. Some stories use exaggerated imagery, which was normal for that time period, but truth is they are real accounts of real events by real people.

 

[Drew Wonder]

I respect devout Christians who genuinely believe homosexuality is a sin and disagree with the lifestyle but don't actually hate gay people

I also, to a lesser extent, respect homophobes who acknowledge the fact that the only reason they're homophobic is because the shyt grosses them out. at least they're honest with themselves. I just know not to take them seriously when they express their views

who I don't respect are the

1) casual Christians who fuck people they know they'll never get married to, lie, cheat, gossip, etc. yet judge and condemn homosexuals as if they're any better and less likely to go to hell in the eyes of their God

2) non-religious homophobes who only hate homos because it grosses them out, but are too dishonest with themselves to admit it. so they throw in a bunch of bullshyt smart dumb nygga arguments and adopt Right Wing conservative slogans (they're destroying our country, they're influencing our kids, etc) to justify their hatred

 

[marcuz]

I'm not a religious person but to be fair, this is a bad comparison. Most holy books are respected and studied by scientists, historians, philosophers, etc for their important Historical, and societal contexts. Some stories use exaggerated imagery, which was normal for that time period, but truth is they are real accounts of real events by real people.

that's the "truth"?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

that's the "truth"?

I'm not saying all the stories are true from a literal sense. I'm saying that real people wrote them while witnessing real events. Their account of the events may be incorrect or biased, but it is an account of real event.

For example i could go outside and witness an eclipse. I can explain this as a black angel covering the sun, bringing darkness. My story may not be logically/scientifically true, but that doesn't mean the eclipse didn't happen.

 

[OG_StankBrefs]

I'm not a religious person but to be fair, this is a bad comparison. Most holy books are respected and studied by scientists, historians, philosophers, etc for their important Historical, and societal contexts. Some stories use exaggerated imagery, which was normal for that time period, but truth is they are real accounts of real events by real people.

You do realize da immense time gaps between da accounts of dese "real events" by "real people" right tho homie?

And see it's dat exaggerated imagery part dat murks up da water. lol It's almost like an ancient form of da Blair Witch Project. Half truths mixed wit made up shyt or just 100% fabrications. I'm sorry but if dese doctrines are filled wit "truth", incompletes, white lies, exaggerations, and/or "fibbs" how is somebody who's already inquisitive by nature OR deciding whether to choose/dedicate their whole way of life to said belief system supposed to take any of it seriously?

Like how am i sposed to write off some nikka livin inside a big fish, people livin to be hundreds of years old, folks turnin into pillars of salt but then accept da idea of a Triune god, some dood walkin on water and bringing da dead back to life? Do you get where I'm goin cuz?

 

[marcuz]

I'm not saying all the stories are true from a literal sense. I'm saying that real people wrote them while witnessing real events. Their account of the events may be incorrect or biased, but it is an account of real event.

For example i could go outside and witness an eclipse. I can explain this as a black angel covering the sun, bringing darkness. My story may not be logically/scientifically true, but that doesn't mean the eclipse didn't happen.

it would mean you were completely off about what actually occurred.


btw, correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't the first bible written hundreds of years after jesus' supposed death? also, hasn't the bible been rewritten and translated hundreds of times over a 2,000 yr period?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

You do realize da immense time gaps between da accounts of dese "real events" by "real people" right tho homie?

And see it's dat exaggerated imagery part dat murks up da water. lol It's almost like an ancient form of da Blair Witch Project. Half truths mixed wit made up shyt or just 100% fabrications. I'm sorry but if dese doctrines are filled wit incompletes, white lies, and/or "fibbs" how is somebody who's already inquisitive by nature OR choosing to dedicate their whole way of life to said rules of dat shyt supposed to take any of it seriously? Do you get where I'm goin cuz?

Most written word from ancient times is filled with this type of imagery. There was no tv or movies so writters purposely wrote with exaggerated imagery to most importantly keep the listener interested, and also to help the listener visualize the event. Plus the stories were written to be HEARD not read. They were not supposed to be scrutinized for literal accuracy.

In fact the notion of interperating the bible as literal word for word truth is a fairly new idea. Most historical biblical scholars didn't believe the bible literally.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

it would mean you were completely off about what actually occurred.

Correct but if you had no other verifiable account of the event, then you have to use mine. That's not to say you should believe it, but you can use your own logic and knowledge to paint a picture of what really happened.

btw, correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't the first bible written hundreds of years after jesus' supposed death? also, hasn't the bible been rewritten and translated hundreds of times over a 2,000 yr period?

The new testament was written after christs death, but the old testament was written thousands of years before his birth. Yes it has been translated re-written and re-interperated many times over the years, but that still doesn't mean it should be compared to Harry potter. And you say jesus' "supposed death" as if you don't belive he existed. It has been pretty much confirmed scientifically/historically that he existed. Whether he the messiah the bible says he was is still up for debate.

 

[Jesus Is Lord]

Breh i have no prollem wit people who believe in whatever random shyt dey choose too. Mah irritation has always/only came from when dese same people try to act like dat shyt is FACT.

Same here. It's all about faith and all faith isnt fact.

 

[marcuz]

The new testament was written after christs death, but the old testament was written thousands of years before his birth. Yes it has been translated re-written and re-interperated many times over the years, but that still doesn't mean it should be compared to Harry potter. And you say jesus' "supposed death" as if you don't belive he existed. It has been pretty much confirmed scientifically/historically that he existed. Was he the messiah the bible says he was is still up for debate.

i should have said supposed resurrection

and no, there's no proof that there was actual man born from a virgin named jesus christ, who was crucified and resurrected. that isn't to say a carptenter named jesus who was murdered for his beliefs.

but if i'm wrong, i'd be interested in the scientific evidence. either way, doesn't make any of it true.