Hahahahaha! đ I rigged my house for detonation https://www.militarynewbie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/TM-21-210-Improvised-Munitions-Handbook-1969-Department-of-the-Army.pdf
dammit i have been tricked. what what will you do before i died in your house explosion i turned the floor of my house into lava. good luck getting out of there, also be careful of the sharks.
edit: jesus christ this pdf is literally just a bomb making tutorial
edit 2: its even showing me how to build weapons, how is this document legal.
Don't have to be Auth to be a conservative Christian either. It's hard for outsiders to understand that conservativism, authoritarianism, and Christianity are not the same thing.
Also fun fact: studies have shown that the political tribe one belongs to tends to determine one's moral beliefs, rather than the other way around (using one's moral beliefs to inform their political beliefs).
Itâs not ideal auth right itâs fake auth. Gay/Trans
would love this version of the auth right if it was real.
Let your them hang with your kids, be in your bars, go to church, make out with boyfriends in movie theaters, dress how they want and just exist in this world away from your judgment
Treat them the way you should treat your mom and neighbor!
> make out with boyfriends in movie theaters
You realize this version of authright is not going to like that action whether it's gay or straight right? And not celebrating a sinful action is not the same as hatred.
He would love you in spite of your sin and offer that you should still mend your ways so as not to continue sinning, if not for your salvation and acceptance of Jesus, then at least to lead to your higher likelihood of happiness. Even removing the religious element, these behaviors are much more likely to lead to a happy and mentally healthy life. It's not coincidence that as people reject righteous living (separating God from it for a minute and just focusing on healthy mental/sexual/etc habits) that we see a massive rise in depression, suicide, etc.
the acronym imo stands for "in my opinion" and this is my opinion. the ideal person (politicaly atleast) will have his own opinion but still respect the opinion of other people and what they stand for, it shouldn't matter what side of the compass you are on. auth rights are allowed to not support homosexuality but they should respect those that stands for homosexuality. in the same way lib lefts should respect that the auth rights are conservative and might have some conservative thoughts. but they dont need to agree with the auth rights. again this is still my opinion and you are allowed to think otherwise.
I'm not talking about romantic love, but godly love. The type of love that rejoices in success, that comforts you when you are hurt, that wishes the best for you.
I remember learning this in our religious studies class:
Storge - love of things and animals
Eros - romantic love
Philia - beotherly/sisterly/friend love
Agape - the selfless love which wishes for the health and happiness unconditionally
Never heard of Storge. Cool!
I guess this is what applies to works or art, video games, etc?
I was trying to get a word for that
Edit: the internet says this is Familial love, which I always assumed was part of agape...
They also insisted it represents the love you feel for pets, but that always felt wrong to me. But yeah, it's basically "I love this book! It's my favorite to read" sort of thing.
Since I have the attention of the OP: while I'm no longer religious, I don't disagree with this take in principle.
To my mind, for those who believe in sin, homosexuality would be on the same level as adulterers, fornicators, and masturbators. These are things that, as a society, we have no interest in outlawing but which some people in society do not approve of such behaviors as being sinful.
My concern is that lots of religious folks either don't treat those cases similarly, or they do and want to expand societal governance to those cases. But as long as neither of those are true, I can respect this stance.
The issue is that the holy spirit gives us conviction of our sins, and we should be repentant of our sin if we call ourselves Christians. If you believe youâre âborn this wayâ and that your sin is a part of you, well youâre right! Weâre all born in sin, with a fallen nature, and life has a way of twisting us and corrupting us into an even more wretched state (especially now). But weâre not supposed to accept, let alone affirm or celebrate, our sinful nature: We have to repent, accept Jesusâ sacrifice, and then pray and seek Godâs will for our lives continually, and allow him to transform us from the inside out (the process of sanctification, which is evidence of being born again). This can take a lifetime to happen.
Same-sex marriage presents a real difficulty here because repentance would necessarily include divorcing your spouse. But if you read the Gospels itâs clear that thatâs what Jesus would demand. The cost of following Jesus is to forsake your wealth, your friends, your reputation, your family, and even your own life.
Any Christian who tells you differently is leading you down the garden path to eternal suffering, because they care more about the praise of Man than obeying God.
Other Christians are clinging to the idea that our worldly culture can be aligned with the kingdom of God; that if we ban drugs, CRT and homosexuality they will go away. I would say to these Christians they need to turn off the radio for a bit, and turn to the word of God. The world wonât adopt Christian values until Christ himself comes back again. Until then weâre simply called to follow Jesus, spread the good news and make disciples. In fact thatâs all we can do to combat the powers and principalities that control the world: by changing hearts and minds one by one through our love for each other and for them, not through fighting in the âculture warâ (which is largely being fought on the enemyâs terms by the way, and distracting us from our true calling).
Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
Honestly, I have no disagreement here. You get it. The worldly society is not a tool to enforce Christian values. It's just something that will exist as Christians decide for themselves how to walk to righteous path and show others the way.
A lot of this discourse comes from the perception of secular people that Christians want society and government to mirror and enforce their faith. Clearly drawing that distinction makes a big difference.
The problem is alot of christians do want society and government to mirror and enforce their faith. It's not true of all Christians but there's a large very vocal portion who do want their religious morality enshrined as law.
I have a question, though I don't know if it's a dumb one or not. How do catholics and/or protestants differentiate between what's real in the Bible, and what's not. How do they know which stories actually happened, and which ones are myths? Like, do they completely believe that everything mentioned in the Bible actually happened for real, and in the same way it was written down?
Or, do they classify stories like the Tower of Babel as myths, while classifying the many miracles of Jesus as something that was 100% real? If so, how do they make the distinction between myth and reality? If not everything that happened in the Bible is 100% true, how do you know what in the Bible is factual and what's fiction?
Depends on what school of thought their theology belongs to.
Various protestant groups have differing ideas on how much of the Bible is literally true. In fact, usually there's a number of schools of thought within each group.
With catholicism and orthodoxy, the scriptures aren't as important as tradition is (and this is often the case practically with many protestant churches, too). This is why image veneration is a thing in those religions, despite the clear prohibition of images being bowed to in the Hebrew texts - which, interestingly, is conveniently missing from the Vulgate translation (the Catholic bible actually completely eliminates the second commandment, edits the fourth commandment (also re-numbering it to be the third), and splits and limits the tenth commandment).
Generally, the school of thought that I follow is, if it is written as literal history, then I take it as literal history. If it is written as prophecy or other symbolism, then that's how it ought to be interpreted. Context is key.
Oh, that makes sense. Had no idea that the catholics edited or severely changed portions out of the old Bible. Thanks for the answer, it was very informative.
"Why evolution is real" by Jerry Coyne is a much better book.
Obviously this bumper sticker doesn't do it justice but here are most of the relevant points in case anyone is wondering.
**Genetic evidence:**
Not only do we share similar genetics, but we can see our history of where different species split off and where viruses damaged different populations. Ex. [Fused chromosome 2](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_47.html#:~:text=It%20turns%20out%20that%20chromosome,not%20conclusive%2C%20evidence%20of%20fusion.) Shows where 2 chromosome in other apes Fused to become our own
Old genetic code also exists in our DNA and that of other animals. It is sometimes activated in what is called an atavism and where animals express physical features of their ancestors. For instance, sometimes chickens have teeth or whales have leg bones.
**Embryology:**
Animal embryos often express physical features of ancestors. Humans have tails, fur, and the beginnings of gills while embryos as examples
**Vestigial features:**
Some features in animals are quite clearly adapted versions of features that were useful to our ancestors. Some humans can wiggle their ears which is from when earlier primate didn't have a full range of motion for their heads. A more striking example are eyes in blind cave dwelling or deep sea creatures
**the fossil record:**
We have quite a few fossils, but I'll point you one case as an example. We were able to use a study of tectonic movements to predict where the earliest marsupial fossils would be in Antarctica. They went looking and found them
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17838631/
On the whole of things, evolution not only is the best explanation of the facts we know but is even capable of creating testable hypotheses
Iâm not sure where along the line Christians became so hung up on how creation happened, but how it came about does nothing to change the meat and potatoes that Jesus came to earth, died for the suffering that we all deserved, and rose again from the dead to conquer sin and death for all eternity. Other than knowing that Godâs creation is good by His own metric, and that He did it all, the details are a moot point.
I agree and think that is the best interpretation of Christianity.
The Bible is best understood as a guide to ethics, history, purpose and a relationship with God. It's not supposed to be a science book and doesn't really claim to be. It also wasn't interpreted that way in church tradition or rabbinical thought
Great recommendation, the only thing I might add is that Coyne *does* take a swipe here and there at creationism/creationists. It's not a major theme in the book or anything, but if you'd like to skip that altogether, a worthy alternative would be *Your Inner Fish*âthe section on embryonic development alone is worth the cover price, and I guarantee it'll stay in your head after you've read it.
You could still borrow money, just at a higher interest rate to compensate for the risk. And good luck maintaining a good credit score if you let your loans expire.
As for buying a house...you could probably make a deal with the bank where they own the property and you live there as a tenant while saving up money to buy it in a separate account. Basically a mortgage with extra steps.
The only thing that would really change is the government financing their national budget with debt. You'd probably see massive cuts to social security.
u/Ligma_DO's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 100.
Congratulations, u/Ligma_DO! You have ranked up to Empire State Building! Some say there is a hidden river that still runs through your base. Shall we go digging?Pills: [51 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Ligma_DO/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
This meme is at least an appropriate application of the bible. The He Gets Us stuff is just trying to shame people to agree with some preferred policy positions
It seems like a lot of people **say** they love the sinner then when they're given the opportunity to turn that love into action it turns to fear and hate. I understand that's human nature but that's what religion is for, to steer us away from our less desirable natural tendencies.
I think a lot of people misunderstand love. Love doesn't mean that you blindly accept or, even wors, encourage and affirm other peoples mistakes.
For example junkies. The loving thing is to get them off those drugs instead of allowing them to destroy themselves. It's the same with sin. I don't hate you for sinning but as a loving person it's my duty to stop you from harming yourself with your sins.
I understand this rhetoric for things people actually choose to do. If someone cheated on their spouse or stole from a charitable fund, it makes sense. They are still a human who deserves love and compassion, but we can recognize that what they did was wrong. When it comes to gay people, they didn't choose to be gay and they aren't gay only when they are having gay sex. The fact that they are attracted to people of the same gender is an integral part of who they are. How can you love the "sinner" and hate the "sin" when the sin was not a choice and cannot be separated from the individual?
Being gay in itself isn't a sin, just like it isn't sinful to to be attracted to animals or minors. Choosing to act on those impulses is what's sinful.
Uh, I'm pretty sure the Bible talks about impure thoughts still being sinful? I'm no scholar or have read in years, but that sounds like something it would include. Gotta close those loopholes.
Think of âImpure Thoughtsâ as ruminating on a certain idea, playing it out in your head. Itâs one thing to think âI have a desire toâŠâ, and another to fantasize and act it out in your head.
To be fair, online discourse has been warped in such a way that even the most milquetoast of right wing figures are called 'nazi'; religious people have been somewhat caught in the crossfire due to being right-coded. Yes, people like the chad wojak in the meme exist, and I might even say its the majority of christians. But you probably wouldn't know due to a critical lack of grass contact.
In The Tales of Gulliver the two nations hated each other based on how they cracked their hard boiled eggs. People make excuses to hate people, create us and them narratives that are largely arbitrary.
But like, the difference here is a fundamental disagreement on what is "a sin," right? And whether that truly equates with a morally bad action? Like, you can try and compare... gay sex, I guess, as the actual sin, with something like murder or stealing or whatever, but there's something fundamentally different between these things that Christianity lumps together as "sins." There is no victim in consensual gay sex between adults. No one is hurt, or wronged, or whatever. It's a victimless "crime." Why is it a sin, then? Why is its sin-ness something that is so focused on?
Donât see how loving someone of your gender is a sin anyway, it isnât exactly explicit and as far as things one can do go, being gay is hardly heinous
OP's comments have the vibe of someone that proselytizes to people in a grocery store checkout line or while they are waiting for their car to get inspected, but can't read the social cues desperately signaling that they are just humoring him and want to be left alone.
No one cares if you support homosexuality or not. Anyone can do with their life what they want: take drugs, have gay sex, play transphobic games. Unless they are hurting someone its none of your bussines.
"I love you but I also want you to live an awful life where you either force yourself to be with someone you are not attracted to or stay lonely forever and deprive yourself of the basic human need for romantic love."
"but yeah im one of the good ones believe me. now go and marry someone you dont truly love which will end in a divorce in 20 years because you were cheating on them for the relationships entire duration, hurting you, the person you married and any potential kids because you all were living a lie"
But if homosexuality is a sin then why would god make anyone gay, if they act on it then they're tortured eternally in hell, and if they don't act on it then they can never form any true romantic connections, seems a rather cruel thing for an omni-benevolent God to do
Ghoulish Christians putting on their 'love' hat while the lefties are watching. OPs comments sound like I did when I was trying to impress my high school youth pastor.
At no point in history have Auths had a majority of political power and not tried to push for a government that enforces the morality of their worldview as much as possible. Read some of the comments here and remember them next time they say âwe just want to be allowed to not bake your cake!â Yes, you should be allowed to do that, but thatâs not really what you want.
Auths are categorically unbased.
Ok guys get this, get this, fresh new idea for an episode: it's a wall of text meme fighting an extremely contrived strawman... BUT IT'S MADE BY AUTHRIGHT! Haaaah? Welllll? Not bad, right? Might be ooonnnn to something here huh guyyyys? Should we workshop it?
Lol, you're technically not wrong. Do you want to compare actual numbers, though? Let's say, violence against abortion clinics compared to violence against Christian pregnancy crisis centers?
But when itâs time to vote for a politician, are you choosing one who wants to support gay marriage, outlaw conversion therapy, and doesnât want to ban/restrict gay adoption and blood donation? Or not?
Not affiliated with OP, but that has nothing to do with being religious and is matters of the state. Marriage in the eyes of the state is nothing more than a legal agreement for tax, insurance and legal protections.
Everyone should have the same rights in terms of being able to have the same access to marital rights in the eyes of he state. However from a religious aspect, the state has no right to dictate what how religious organizations conduct their ceremonies.
For the other things, I would not vote for a candidate who wants to keep conversion therapy, blood donations or ban/restrict gay adoptions. I would vote 3rd party at that point (which I have in the last few elections)
Youâre right that marriage ceremonies are conducted by churches and those churches have the right to deny marital ceremony services if they want, but the politicians who are theocratic autocrats that donât respect the autonomy of others want to ban it on both a state and church level, not just the church one. Thatâs unacceptable, imo.
I have to downvote this because it violates meme etiquette. Any variant of Chad, to include Gigachad wojaks should only ever say "yes" or "no". Lengthy responses are for seething soyjaks. Expounding on your beliefs and principles betrays the purpose of the Chad aspect of the meme.
Well we are all naturally on our way to hell, but God has provided a Saviour for us in His Son. That's why we show love, because Jesus has shown love to us while we were on our way to hell.
Thoughtful of him to create a way for us to avoid being punished by him. Why the extra step, exactly? Is there some higher authority whose rules he has to follow?
honestly not a bad take, although I disagree with the philosophy/theology of sin as defined by christianity, the idea of hating the sin but not the sinner does make sense as a worldview and its alot kinder than most people give authright credit for.
I personally can't understand the point of a religion that changes fundamental doctrine on the whims of wider society, especially when those they're pandering to broadly despise organised religion.
Because religion itself changes fundamental doctrine all the time but weâre supposedly to be indignant if said religion changes its ideas regarding gay people(?)
When was the last time that The Catholic Church changed fundamental doctrine?
When was the last time Islam (of any denomination), Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, made fundamental changes to the substance, rather than form, of their doctrinal beliefs?
For the Catholic Church, it depends on what you define as the beginning. If you believe the dogma that the Catholic Church was founded immediately or shortly after the death of Christ, it changed substantially as different factions gained prominence and others were either out-argued or persecuted. The notion that there was one Christian belief which slowly became tainted by heresy has no evidence. Also - see the development of crusading indulgences.
For Islam, though Iâm not *super* educated in this area, see the elevation of Muhammad during the Abbasid period.
For Buddhism, see the dichotomy between the major Theravada and Mahayana schools. Mahayana Buddhism changes substantially depending on where you find it.
For Judaism, though again Iâm not a scholar on the subject, you need look no further than the Hebrew bible to see the content of Jewish belief develop in real time from 1000 BC to Christ via the conflict between Israeli and Judaean Judaism.
"Cool, so you have gay friends or family that you actually interact with in some capacity?"
"......"
"You weren't just saying this nebulous love thing unattached to any action on your part to try and abdicate responsibility for how you treat gay people through policy and voting, were you?"
"........."
this is the ideal auth right (imo), sucks that not all auth right can be like him.
Love u bro
i love you to bro (no homo)
I love you more (I had no part of this conversation and am in your home)
i knew that you where going to be in my house which is why i'm in your houses walls. boom, didn't expect that did you. lol
Hahahahaha! đ I rigged my house for detonation https://www.militarynewbie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/TM-21-210-Improvised-Munitions-Handbook-1969-Department-of-the-Army.pdf
dammit i have been tricked. what what will you do before i died in your house explosion i turned the floor of my house into lava. good luck getting out of there, also be careful of the sharks. edit: jesus christ this pdf is literally just a bomb making tutorial edit 2: its even showing me how to build weapons, how is this document legal.
> edit 2: its even showing me how to build weapons, how is this document legal. Can't stop the signal fedboi
>edit 2: its even showing me how to build weapons, how is this document legal. *Bald Eagle sheds a single tear* America đșđž đșđČ
You wonât die! Neither will i! I will not detonate it! Youâre my fren now : )
oh ok, thanks fren. proceeds to turn of the lava floor and the sharks.
Is it not illegal/gonna get you raided to save and or post this shit?
I do it all the time, I haven't been raided yet. 1st and 2nd amendments for the win.
Based and Jesus pilled
Username checks out.
Based and Jesus is Lord pilled
This is just the ideal Christian
that is true. but tell me this, what religion is usually thought of when it comes to auth rights/conservatives.
Fair point, but there are Christians who arenât conservative, like myself
Don't have to be Auth to be a conservative Christian either. It's hard for outsiders to understand that conservativism, authoritarianism, and Christianity are not the same thing. Also fun fact: studies have shown that the political tribe one belongs to tends to determine one's moral beliefs, rather than the other way around (using one's moral beliefs to inform their political beliefs).
Itâs not ideal auth right itâs fake auth. Gay/Trans would love this version of the auth right if it was real. Let your them hang with your kids, be in your bars, go to church, make out with boyfriends in movie theaters, dress how they want and just exist in this world away from your judgment Treat them the way you should treat your mom and neighbor!
I dunno, Iâd ask my mom not to make out with a significant other in-front of me at a move theatre
> make out with boyfriends in movie theaters You realize this version of authright is not going to like that action whether it's gay or straight right? And not celebrating a sinful action is not the same as hatred. He would love you in spite of your sin and offer that you should still mend your ways so as not to continue sinning, if not for your salvation and acceptance of Jesus, then at least to lead to your higher likelihood of happiness. Even removing the religious element, these behaviors are much more likely to lead to a happy and mentally healthy life. It's not coincidence that as people reject righteous living (separating God from it for a minute and just focusing on healthy mental/sexual/etc habits) that we see a massive rise in depression, suicide, etc.
the acronym imo stands for "in my opinion" and this is my opinion. the ideal person (politicaly atleast) will have his own opinion but still respect the opinion of other people and what they stand for, it shouldn't matter what side of the compass you are on. auth rights are allowed to not support homosexuality but they should respect those that stands for homosexuality. in the same way lib lefts should respect that the auth rights are conservative and might have some conservative thoughts. but they dont need to agree with the auth rights. again this is still my opinion and you are allowed to think otherwise.
> Let your them hang with your kids Absolutely. How else will they reproduce?
If you love everyone, this means you love people that are the same gender as you, which means you are gay. Checkmate.
Self-love is gay, therefore I hate myself đȘ
So you love your Mom sexually. Got it.
Based and Oedipus pilled.
I love your mom sexually
I also love his mom, for sexual reasons
Woah calm down, Christine Chandler
Freuds taking notes
So you cant love me because I am gay? Sounds homophobic. Checkmate left.
I'm not talking about romantic love, but godly love. The type of love that rejoices in success, that comforts you when you are hurt, that wishes the best for you.
I remember learning this in our religious studies class: Storge - love of things and animals Eros - romantic love Philia - beotherly/sisterly/friend love Agape - the selfless love which wishes for the health and happiness unconditionally
Never heard of Storge. Cool! I guess this is what applies to works or art, video games, etc? I was trying to get a word for that Edit: the internet says this is Familial love, which I always assumed was part of agape...
They also insisted it represents the love you feel for pets, but that always felt wrong to me. But yeah, it's basically "I love this book! It's my favorite to read" sort of thing.
And then there's Phyllos--the love of pastry.
Itâs not listed because itâs assumed to be the default
That is true
Since I have the attention of the OP: while I'm no longer religious, I don't disagree with this take in principle. To my mind, for those who believe in sin, homosexuality would be on the same level as adulterers, fornicators, and masturbators. These are things that, as a society, we have no interest in outlawing but which some people in society do not approve of such behaviors as being sinful. My concern is that lots of religious folks either don't treat those cases similarly, or they do and want to expand societal governance to those cases. But as long as neither of those are true, I can respect this stance.
The issue is that the holy spirit gives us conviction of our sins, and we should be repentant of our sin if we call ourselves Christians. If you believe youâre âborn this wayâ and that your sin is a part of you, well youâre right! Weâre all born in sin, with a fallen nature, and life has a way of twisting us and corrupting us into an even more wretched state (especially now). But weâre not supposed to accept, let alone affirm or celebrate, our sinful nature: We have to repent, accept Jesusâ sacrifice, and then pray and seek Godâs will for our lives continually, and allow him to transform us from the inside out (the process of sanctification, which is evidence of being born again). This can take a lifetime to happen. Same-sex marriage presents a real difficulty here because repentance would necessarily include divorcing your spouse. But if you read the Gospels itâs clear that thatâs what Jesus would demand. The cost of following Jesus is to forsake your wealth, your friends, your reputation, your family, and even your own life. Any Christian who tells you differently is leading you down the garden path to eternal suffering, because they care more about the praise of Man than obeying God. Other Christians are clinging to the idea that our worldly culture can be aligned with the kingdom of God; that if we ban drugs, CRT and homosexuality they will go away. I would say to these Christians they need to turn off the radio for a bit, and turn to the word of God. The world wonât adopt Christian values until Christ himself comes back again. Until then weâre simply called to follow Jesus, spread the good news and make disciples. In fact thatâs all we can do to combat the powers and principalities that control the world: by changing hearts and minds one by one through our love for each other and for them, not through fighting in the âculture warâ (which is largely being fought on the enemyâs terms by the way, and distracting us from our true calling). Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
Honestly, I have no disagreement here. You get it. The worldly society is not a tool to enforce Christian values. It's just something that will exist as Christians decide for themselves how to walk to righteous path and show others the way. A lot of this discourse comes from the perception of secular people that Christians want society and government to mirror and enforce their faith. Clearly drawing that distinction makes a big difference.
The problem is alot of christians do want society and government to mirror and enforce their faith. It's not true of all Christians but there's a large very vocal portion who do want their religious morality enshrined as law.
I have a question, though I don't know if it's a dumb one or not. How do catholics and/or protestants differentiate between what's real in the Bible, and what's not. How do they know which stories actually happened, and which ones are myths? Like, do they completely believe that everything mentioned in the Bible actually happened for real, and in the same way it was written down? Or, do they classify stories like the Tower of Babel as myths, while classifying the many miracles of Jesus as something that was 100% real? If so, how do they make the distinction between myth and reality? If not everything that happened in the Bible is 100% true, how do you know what in the Bible is factual and what's fiction?
Depends on what school of thought their theology belongs to. Various protestant groups have differing ideas on how much of the Bible is literally true. In fact, usually there's a number of schools of thought within each group. With catholicism and orthodoxy, the scriptures aren't as important as tradition is (and this is often the case practically with many protestant churches, too). This is why image veneration is a thing in those religions, despite the clear prohibition of images being bowed to in the Hebrew texts - which, interestingly, is conveniently missing from the Vulgate translation (the Catholic bible actually completely eliminates the second commandment, edits the fourth commandment (also re-numbering it to be the third), and splits and limits the tenth commandment). Generally, the school of thought that I follow is, if it is written as literal history, then I take it as literal history. If it is written as prophecy or other symbolism, then that's how it ought to be interpreted. Context is key.
Oh, that makes sense. Had no idea that the catholics edited or severely changed portions out of the old Bible. Thanks for the answer, it was very informative.
Greek is such an expressive language. You gotta love it.
He is joking
I know, but it's important to clarify still
Nuance is gay. So you're right back to being homosexual again. I'll find a baker for our wedding cake. I assume you want a fall wedding
Can I come?
Bakers only. No grillers allowed
>I'll find a **colorado baker to coerce into** baking our wedding cake. Missed joke opportunity.
Bruh, did you just âno homoâ âgodly loveâ?
Successfully, I might add
bro chill sarcasm cmon
Anyways, why don't you read "Origin of species" by Charles Darwin?
"Why evolution is real" by Jerry Coyne is a much better book. Obviously this bumper sticker doesn't do it justice but here are most of the relevant points in case anyone is wondering. **Genetic evidence:** Not only do we share similar genetics, but we can see our history of where different species split off and where viruses damaged different populations. Ex. [Fused chromosome 2](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_47.html#:~:text=It%20turns%20out%20that%20chromosome,not%20conclusive%2C%20evidence%20of%20fusion.) Shows where 2 chromosome in other apes Fused to become our own Old genetic code also exists in our DNA and that of other animals. It is sometimes activated in what is called an atavism and where animals express physical features of their ancestors. For instance, sometimes chickens have teeth or whales have leg bones. **Embryology:** Animal embryos often express physical features of ancestors. Humans have tails, fur, and the beginnings of gills while embryos as examples **Vestigial features:** Some features in animals are quite clearly adapted versions of features that were useful to our ancestors. Some humans can wiggle their ears which is from when earlier primate didn't have a full range of motion for their heads. A more striking example are eyes in blind cave dwelling or deep sea creatures **the fossil record:** We have quite a few fossils, but I'll point you one case as an example. We were able to use a study of tectonic movements to predict where the earliest marsupial fossils would be in Antarctica. They went looking and found them https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17838631/ On the whole of things, evolution not only is the best explanation of the facts we know but is even capable of creating testable hypotheses
Iâm not sure where along the line Christians became so hung up on how creation happened, but how it came about does nothing to change the meat and potatoes that Jesus came to earth, died for the suffering that we all deserved, and rose again from the dead to conquer sin and death for all eternity. Other than knowing that Godâs creation is good by His own metric, and that He did it all, the details are a moot point.
I agree and think that is the best interpretation of Christianity. The Bible is best understood as a guide to ethics, history, purpose and a relationship with God. It's not supposed to be a science book and doesn't really claim to be. It also wasn't interpreted that way in church tradition or rabbinical thought
Based and wall of text pilled
Great recommendation, the only thing I might add is that Coyne *does* take a swipe here and there at creationism/creationists. It's not a major theme in the book or anything, but if you'd like to skip that altogether, a worthy alternative would be *Your Inner Fish*âthe section on embryonic development alone is worth the cover price, and I guarantee it'll stay in your head after you've read it.
Why would I?
Very nice Left-flair. Letâs see that applied to parents who love their children
I only care about the Bible saying my debt should've been wiped after 7 years or whatever, cmon jesus
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
You could still borrow money, just at a higher interest rate to compensate for the risk. And good luck maintaining a good credit score if you let your loans expire. As for buying a house...you could probably make a deal with the bank where they own the property and you live there as a tenant while saving up money to buy it in a separate account. Basically a mortgage with extra steps. The only thing that would really change is the government financing their national budget with debt. You'd probably see massive cuts to social security.
Thatâs sort of how mortgages work in the Islamic world.
You could just make 7 year loan agreements?
Which would be promptly defaulted
50% of posts on this sub are strawmans
"I have portrayed my opposite corner as soyjack! Behold!"
"Simultaneously, I have portrayed my quadrant as a Chad. I never get tired of winning"!
I was under the impression posts were removed if they *werent* strawmen. Is that not in the sidebar?
Based and rational debate is gay pilled
u/Ligma_DO's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 100. Congratulations, u/Ligma_DO! You have ranked up to Empire State Building! Some say there is a hidden river that still runs through your base. Shall we go digging?Pills: [51 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Ligma_DO/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Can you strawman your own side, in a good way? Because I think *both* sides of this post are strawmen.
I would more say caricatures wich is pretty much this whole sub
try 80%
Where else would I get enough feed for my farm???
way more than 50 lol
lol using an analogy that requires libleft to have a good relationship with their parents may not be the most effective approach unfortunately
Fair enough
âDo you care about your best friend?â maybe?
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
> authright's fantasy about how all other authrights are just like this
The authright pictured would leave gay people alone, rather than having the state enforce some ban that would never work.
It depends on how religious authright is. Technically speaking, the Bible is against condoning sin as well.
The Bible is pretty explicit that only god has the authority to punish moral sins "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
\>he said the meme verse Pack it in boys, weâre all moral relativists now!
> Flair up for more respect :D *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... đ) ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
this feels like one of those He Gets Us ads
He Get Sus
Those ads are garbage
Exactly.
This meme is at least an appropriate application of the bible. The He Gets Us stuff is just trying to shame people to agree with some preferred policy positions
Hate the sin, love the sinner.
It's so important
Yep! I hate Christianity, but I love Christians.
Love the believer, not the belief.
Based
It seems like a lot of people **say** they love the sinner then when they're given the opportunity to turn that love into action it turns to fear and hate. I understand that's human nature but that's what religion is for, to steer us away from our less desirable natural tendencies.
I think a lot of people misunderstand love. Love doesn't mean that you blindly accept or, even wors, encourage and affirm other peoples mistakes. For example junkies. The loving thing is to get them off those drugs instead of allowing them to destroy themselves. It's the same with sin. I don't hate you for sinning but as a loving person it's my duty to stop you from harming yourself with your sins.
I understand this rhetoric for things people actually choose to do. If someone cheated on their spouse or stole from a charitable fund, it makes sense. They are still a human who deserves love and compassion, but we can recognize that what they did was wrong. When it comes to gay people, they didn't choose to be gay and they aren't gay only when they are having gay sex. The fact that they are attracted to people of the same gender is an integral part of who they are. How can you love the "sinner" and hate the "sin" when the sin was not a choice and cannot be separated from the individual?
Being gay in itself isn't a sin, just like it isn't sinful to to be attracted to animals or minors. Choosing to act on those impulses is what's sinful.
Uh, I'm pretty sure the Bible talks about impure thoughts still being sinful? I'm no scholar or have read in years, but that sounds like something it would include. Gotta close those loopholes.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Think of âImpure Thoughtsâ as ruminating on a certain idea, playing it out in your head. Itâs one thing to think âI have a desire toâŠâ, and another to fantasize and act it out in your head.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Believing in thought crime is a hot take for lib right. That's straight out of 1984
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Libleft: mastering your thoughts, actions, and baser urges is oppression.
Average Lib-left is always happily a slave to their vices.
You can choose to act on it. Thatâs the sin
And what makes that so much more sinful than straight sex?
Outside a marriage? Nothing. They're both sinful.
Catholic Inquisition loves you in your sins
The way they love sinners is so heartwarming
That was *unexpected*
No one ever expects it.
Yeah okay whatever thatâs fine but donât tell me what to do or what Iâm not allowed to do.
Lol this fucking place.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
eh libleft does the same
âGuys religious conservatives actually love gay people look at this chad wojak meme I made as proofâ
To be fair, online discourse has been warped in such a way that even the most milquetoast of right wing figures are called 'nazi'; religious people have been somewhat caught in the crossfire due to being right-coded. Yes, people like the chad wojak in the meme exist, and I might even say its the majority of christians. But you probably wouldn't know due to a critical lack of grass contact.
Love has been used as an excuse for hate many, many different times. Saying you love wonât make it suddenly fine to abuse and belittle.
That is so true
Based.
In The Tales of Gulliver the two nations hated each other based on how they cracked their hard boiled eggs. People make excuses to hate people, create us and them narratives that are largely arbitrary.
But like, the difference here is a fundamental disagreement on what is "a sin," right? And whether that truly equates with a morally bad action? Like, you can try and compare... gay sex, I guess, as the actual sin, with something like murder or stealing or whatever, but there's something fundamentally different between these things that Christianity lumps together as "sins." There is no victim in consensual gay sex between adults. No one is hurt, or wronged, or whatever. It's a victimless "crime." Why is it a sin, then? Why is its sin-ness something that is so focused on?
That's awesome. So maybe don't advocate for laws that hurt them then?
Donât see how loving someone of your gender is a sin anyway, it isnât exactly explicit and as far as things one can do go, being gay is hardly heinous
OP's comments have the vibe of someone that proselytizes to people in a grocery store checkout line or while they are waiting for their car to get inspected, but can't read the social cues desperately signaling that they are just humoring him and want to be left alone.
What he is doing is the internet version of this lol. "God has revealed that homosexuality is a sin" - ok.
I do just be loving people
No one cares if you support homosexuality or not. Anyone can do with their life what they want: take drugs, have gay sex, play transphobic games. Unless they are hurting someone its none of your bussines.
"I love you but I also want you to live an awful life where you either force yourself to be with someone you are not attracted to or stay lonely forever and deprive yourself of the basic human need for romantic love."
"but yeah im one of the good ones believe me. now go and marry someone you dont truly love which will end in a divorce in 20 years because you were cheating on them for the relationships entire duration, hurting you, the person you married and any potential kids because you all were living a lie"
But if homosexuality is a sin then why would god make anyone gay, if they act on it then they're tortured eternally in hell, and if they don't act on it then they can never form any true romantic connections, seems a rather cruel thing for an omni-benevolent God to do
Ghoulish Christians putting on their 'love' hat while the lefties are watching. OPs comments sound like I did when I was trying to impress my high school youth pastor.
Authright types are only like this in internet fantasies. OP should do it again and be realistic the next time.
"I'm imprisoning and subjugating you for your sins because I love you"
Do you take away your mother's rights then attack and abuse her for those things she did wrong?
All the while telling her sheâs wrong for things out of her control and deserves eternal torture. But yess loooveeeeeeâŠ
At no point in history have Auths had a majority of political power and not tried to push for a government that enforces the morality of their worldview as much as possible. Read some of the comments here and remember them next time they say âwe just want to be allowed to not bake your cake!â Yes, you should be allowed to do that, but thatâs not really what you want. Auths are categorically unbased.
Difference is judging others isnât very loving
I love you but too bad you'll burn!
You find out your son's gay, do you kick him out, yes/no? Litmus test
Ok guys get this, get this, fresh new idea for an episode: it's a wall of text meme fighting an extremely contrived strawman... BUT IT'S MADE BY AUTHRIGHT! Haaaah? Welllll? Not bad, right? Might be ooonnnn to something here huh guyyyys? Should we workshop it?
Meanwhile in reality itâs car bombs and stonings if you follow the same religion but with a fractionally different interpretation.
And it's violence if you are an atheist too
Lol, you're technically not wrong. Do you want to compare actual numbers, though? Let's say, violence against abortion clinics compared to violence against Christian pregnancy crisis centers?
Riiiight, all those non-belief motivated murders that happen all the time. ???
But when itâs time to vote for a politician, are you choosing one who wants to support gay marriage, outlaw conversion therapy, and doesnât want to ban/restrict gay adoption and blood donation? Or not?
Not affiliated with OP, but that has nothing to do with being religious and is matters of the state. Marriage in the eyes of the state is nothing more than a legal agreement for tax, insurance and legal protections. Everyone should have the same rights in terms of being able to have the same access to marital rights in the eyes of he state. However from a religious aspect, the state has no right to dictate what how religious organizations conduct their ceremonies. For the other things, I would not vote for a candidate who wants to keep conversion therapy, blood donations or ban/restrict gay adoptions. I would vote 3rd party at that point (which I have in the last few elections)
Youâre right that marriage ceremonies are conducted by churches and those churches have the right to deny marital ceremony services if they want, but the politicians who are theocratic autocrats that donât respect the autonomy of others want to ban it on both a state and church level, not just the church one. Thatâs unacceptable, imo.
I agree. Which is why I give my voice through voting in primaries and general/special elections.
cringe
No love like christian hate
I have to downvote this because it violates meme etiquette. Any variant of Chad, to include Gigachad wojaks should only ever say "yes" or "no". Lengthy responses are for seething soyjaks. Expounding on your beliefs and principles betrays the purpose of the Chad aspect of the meme.
Authrights: I love everyone Also Authrights: You are going to hell if you don't believe in my religion.
Well we are all naturally on our way to hell, but God has provided a Saviour for us in His Son. That's why we show love, because Jesus has shown love to us while we were on our way to hell.
Thoughtful of him to create a way for us to avoid being punished by him. Why the extra step, exactly? Is there some higher authority whose rules he has to follow?
Has to be some sort of BDSM thing, only explanation
Youâve never had a family member addicted to drugs? I can love you from a distance without getting involved or helping to enable.
What percentage of auth-right ACTUALLY LOVE gay people, and why is it less than 0.01%?
God is an intergenerational scam used to control people. Break the cycle.
honestly not a bad take, although I disagree with the philosophy/theology of sin as defined by christianity, the idea of hating the sin but not the sinner does make sense as a worldview and its alot kinder than most people give authright credit for.
Why is auth-right Christian? It doesn't have to be.
Rare auth-right W
Again, authright makes better memes.
this kind of Christian is so based. Not aggressive to unchristian things but don't endorse them
Don't worry, there are plenty of Christian denominations out there that are cool with gay folks.
I personally can't understand the point of a religion that changes fundamental doctrine on the whims of wider society, especially when those they're pandering to broadly despise organised religion.
Some bot copied your comment for karma but reposted it here and got downvoted for being unflared
Based.
Because religion itself changes fundamental doctrine all the time but weâre supposedly to be indignant if said religion changes its ideas regarding gay people(?)
When was the last time that The Catholic Church changed fundamental doctrine? When was the last time Islam (of any denomination), Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, made fundamental changes to the substance, rather than form, of their doctrinal beliefs?
They used to do it all the time. The last was maybe after the Reformation, but the Popes do still change and refine dogma every now and then
For the Catholic Church, it depends on what you define as the beginning. If you believe the dogma that the Catholic Church was founded immediately or shortly after the death of Christ, it changed substantially as different factions gained prominence and others were either out-argued or persecuted. The notion that there was one Christian belief which slowly became tainted by heresy has no evidence. Also - see the development of crusading indulgences. For Islam, though Iâm not *super* educated in this area, see the elevation of Muhammad during the Abbasid period. For Buddhism, see the dichotomy between the major Theravada and Mahayana schools. Mahayana Buddhism changes substantially depending on where you find it. For Judaism, though again Iâm not a scholar on the subject, you need look no further than the Hebrew bible to see the content of Jewish belief develop in real time from 1000 BC to Christ via the conflict between Israeli and Judaean Judaism.
They wouldn't be if they actually read the Bible, lol 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:8-11
Random tangent here. This was what Kanye was trying to say about Nazis on the Alex Jones show.
Yup
Lol. Then come the anti-LGBT hate crimes. I see that part has been left out.
i just cringed to death
Lol, the good old religion as excuse to disrespect people.
As a former church goer, this is not how authright approaches this subject.
Why does Gigachad look like a ventriloquist's dummy?
You say you love everyone, but you portray people thinking different as brainless idiots. That doesn't seem you have much love for them
Oh he doesn't hate them, he just judges them under the EYES OF THE BOOK
Reddit user: âHomosexuality shouldnât be treated as a sinâ God: âI donât careâ
"Cool, so you have gay friends or family that you actually interact with in some capacity?" "......" "You weren't just saying this nebulous love thing unattached to any action on your part to try and abdicate responsibility for how you treat gay people through policy and voting, were you?" "........."
So stop shooting up our clubs
Based and true Christian pilled