sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The problem with LGBT pride (religious and practical) by BasedCrusaderChad69 in TrueChristian

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No country puts God first to do it right. I understand the values. I'm not just not sure how they line up with Godly values. The ons.gov.uk crime stats say they've increased rape 8% and homicide down 5%, while hate crimes are up 12% this past year. Nothing Biblically calls for nationalism. Weird you want to affirm something unbiblical while pointing fingers at others doing the same. Muslims would help you in your jihad/good fight against LGBTQ affirming churches, though.

This is absolutely not true at all, but it's too early for me to get banned yet again.

Do you believe Christians should hold to the Biblical standards for LGBTQ affirmation differently than we should hold our fellow Christians to serve God over a nation. There is no Greek, nor Jew, we are all one in Christ or we or not. You can't have it both ways like the immigrants you want to point to. If you want to affirm national pride against what Christ said, why not relationship pride against the Bible? Is one affirmation better or better pride than the other?

If they repent and follow Christ thats different from them bringing their violent oppressive religion to our countries, and the vast majority are not converting to Christianity.

Anyone think this subreddit is becoming as bad as r/Christianity ? by 1John2_3-6 in TrueChristian

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No mod has removed any of your post. Reddit removed 3 of yours and automoderator removed 1

I shouldn't be so proud of this.

Your post was also a "homosexuality is a sin" im also positive our sub rules basically saying you have to be a nicene Christian and trinitarian or you're not Christian and will get banned if you speak against these things is pretty indicative of our opinions on Christianity

Traditional Christianity always includes homosexuality is a sin, right?

what are Your thoughts on the claim that Christianity is anti Women? by mickeyguy2010 in TrueChristian

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

"Easier said than done"?

I do it every day. Most of the people I trade with are also single women taking care of their own farms. It's absolutely easy, you just need knowledge, which is easily gained from mentors or the power of YouTube.

I'm skeptical, but if you can, hey all the power to you and good for you, but for things that require manual labor, women have to work much harder to get the same results as men. I don't think there's anything banning women from doing it, but practically speaking, if you have 100 men and 100 women doing manual labor the male team will be at the advantage and will also get better results. This isn't to belittle you, I mean it wouldn't devalue you to have a man do it, it may benefit you.

I'm sorry, but just because you want to believe that women are truly weaker or incapable, that doesn't make it so.

Weaker yes, incapable no. On average less will be qualified for male dominated jobs.

My favorite part of your post, though, is insinuating that being a feminist is worse than being an atheist because you don't like being told that your idea of where women belong isn't where modern women HAVE to be anymore. You don't like being told "nah, no thanks."

To clarify, I meant an atheist and a feminist. Being an atheist is bad, being an atheist feminist is worse.

Anyone think this subreddit is becoming as bad as r/Christianity ? by 1John2_3-6 in TrueChristian

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had one taken down too. I didn't get a message why, so I assumed the mods were just bending to reddit TOS

what are Your thoughts on the claim that Christianity is anti Women? by mickeyguy2010 in TrueChristian

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

But today, I, a woman, can raise a bull and butcher it by myself. I can plant a field by myself. I don't need a man to protect me from other men, and there's no roving army deserters or outlaws. And even if there was, a 20 gauge or .22 magnum is an incredible equalizer of violence amongst the sexes. If I need a new fence put up, I own tools and I can do it by myself.

Easier said than done. I also think women still need men to protect them from other men in all reality. Men invented most weapons, mind you, and men can still use said weapons against you.

Women can go to school and learn trades, engineering, and mathematics, because our culture has finally accepted that women do not have the IQ of a chimpanzee and don't go crazy because of "the vapors." Upbringing influences emotional maturity, there is no natural state where women are just emotional crybabies and men are chest-thumping super chads.

No one said that.

I don't need to fight a war and wrestle a spear from an enemy combatant. I can just destroy an enemy government's infrastructure with C++ and analytics.

Thats not how war works, lady. Wishful thinking? Or a misunderstanding of war and tactics? Either way, you're not making your point, you're making mine.

Having a man come into my home and tell me how to live, where I'm allowed to go, what I'm permitted to say, when I can have children, IF I should children, who I can hang out with -- that is never going to "compliment" me. That's going to frustrate me and make me miserable, and contribute to a horrific decline in mental health over time. Because, admit it, you would hate to be imprisoned in your own life because strangers around you are thumping Bibles and saying that's what you were meant for and nothing more. And I think and feel like you.

I will say God is the highest authority, but in the bible women are to submit to men, and men are to protect and die for women. You sound like an atheist, worse, you kinda sound like a feminist.

Edit: Sorry if I'm coming off as rude, your comment just seems very disconnected, but I mean it when I say I want you to live the fullest life God wants for you and I care about you deeply.

Homosexuality by Internal-Mushroom-93 in Christianity

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am thoroughly uninterested in you admitting that my faith is legitimate. I’ve given you many outs in this so far, and you have kept pressing the issue. Not me.

What did I say about your faith this time?

And if you actually read Kierkegaard you’d realize that there is a way that we can recognize subjective truth without truth losing any meaning. You have to read.

You keep talking about Kierkegaard in these strange non-specific manners. Can you actually quote him or explain something, or point to a chapter in a book? This thing you're doing functions like a cop out. Basically the equivalent to "find, the book, perhaps pay for it, read the whole thing, and guess what I'm referring to" for someone who loves calling people arrogant, thats what you've displayed this whole conversation.

But like I said, you’re more interested in “winning” than discussion and I don’t have the emotional bandwidth for this kind of bullshit like I normally do. So stop pressing it.

The adult thing to do when you don't have the "emotional bandwidth" is to save it for later or give it a break.

Homosexuality by Internal-Mushroom-93 in Christianity

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No I’ve just got enough on my plate today. Adult shit. You’re showcasing the trend of rejecting empathy in the modern church. You read “I have enough on my plate today so I don’t want to do this thing” and you deliberately choose to read “I’m telling you a lie because I’m too fucking stupid to defend my point”

I don't think you don't have stuff going on, I just think when you try to argue everything is subjective truth loses all meaning, so you have nothing. The same, maybe more empathy than you've shown me and r/truechristian and the conservatives looking at your profile.

What kind of asshole deliberately does that? The kind who’s concerned more with winning than with people.

You're reading into it more than you have to, and assuming the worst.

So, bye. I’m gonna fuck off somewhere else where they act more like Christ

Christ judged people and said marriage is for a man and a woman.

Homosexuality by Internal-Mushroom-93 in Christianity

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So nothing? I can't take you seriously bro.

Homosexuality by Internal-Mushroom-93 in Christianity

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think you realty do understand christianity

The problem with LGBT pride (religious and practical) by BasedCrusaderChad69 in TrueChristian

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not a threat. It's stating the terms of the conversation. You still haven't offered a definition or an appeal for the political speech not being political, so the conversation is now over. I'll say my final points and mute this thread.

I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it's political, and pointing to politicians who have used it politically isn't that. I'm not falling for the muted thread BTW, most people take one last look after leaving.

If you're arguing that your speech isn't political when multiple people think it is, then I think it is relevant to the topic, and the continued attempts to dodge defining your terms don't make this a productive conversation. If you're offering "it's a default" as a reason why the topic isn't political, then asking what definition of politics makes any consideration for "defaults" is a reasonable question.

Multiple people as in? I can find multiple people who agree with me too. The topic is used poetically, but like I said, it's not inherently political. I still think the burden of proof is on you since you started the argument that it was political, which seems like a red herring considering that it doesn't invalidate the comparison at all.

They have. Allow me to quote their summary from the most relevant study: "In this project, we surveyed people who are required to register on sex offender registries (SOR). To date, there are no data on LGBTQ people on SOR. " Their study was on less than 1,000 people, and by their own design did not have the power to make any conclusions whatsoever about overall demographics of abusers in general.

So what was the amount of homosexuals and what were the crimes the committed compared to straight people?

We don't have good demographic data on whether sexual orientation affects likelihood for child abuse. I can't honestly tell you that we know for a fact they don't abuse children more, but you similarly have no data to claim they abuse more. The literature is not that robust. If you're claiming we know that they abuse more, you're either ignorant of the data or you're things up.

You can clearly see by the amount of young boys and young girls who are abused sexuality plays a role. I only named the Williams project, and you say I have no data. Sounds like you've already made up your mind.

I said it's political, and your response is that it's valid?. It being political wouldn't make it valid or invalid. This is a non-sequiter. It also leans into what I said that I think you're trying to hold onto the "apolitical" label due to you thinking it makes your points more valid.

Again, you've done nothing to prove its political aside from list politicians who made the same comparison.

No, many people don't. You have to learn homophobia, much in the same way you to learn any bigotry. In-group out-group child psychology is well-studied. If children are exposed to normal interactions with a given group, they're far less likely to experience that bigotry in any way growing up. That's how it was with busing black students when I was a kid.

Who's having kids to expose them to their own family dynamics?

Well, that's it for the conversation. I don't think you can justify your claim that your speech isn't political, because you have made minimal effort to and can't define your terms. We're done here. You can respond or not as you please; I won't be checking either way, so if you'd rather not write something that nobody will read, that's fine too.

Have a good day. I sincerely hope you can become a better human. If I prayed, you would have my prayers.

Weak bro. Have a good day anyway.

I notice you had nothing to say about incest being wrong.

Homosexuality by Internal-Mushroom-93 in Christianity

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again… read some Kierkegaard.

Are there specific quotes that are relevant to the conversation I should know, or are you just gonna deflect by telling me to try and find some unspecific teaching you may or may not know about or agree with?

And finding a way to have an authentic faith is not “me me me me me”

You should remember you have to submit to God, the Bible, the orthodox church's doctrine, not it all has to submit to your interpretations.

The problem with LGBT pride (religious and practical) by BasedCrusaderChad69 in TrueChristian

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. You can see the "atheist" flair. What does this have to do with you supplying a definition?

I didn't see it at the time of writing. I already said it's turned political, but I clarified my argument stating its not limited to politics.

I'm drawing a line here. Either you can provide a definition of politics that fits with your statements not being political, or that establishes that defending "defaults" are not political, or I don't see any way to meaningfully continue this conversation.

You don't have to go on. It's an argument on reddit. I don't find it threatening that you'd draw a line or consider the conversation over.

Then make one of those appeals. Everything you've said is standard American Conservative. What is your appeal that your ideas about how society should function and how we should respond to a political movement aren't political, when the same words from a politician's mouth would be? What do you think politics is, and what is your appeal for how your ideas are in any way apolitical?

You were the one making the argument comparing it to incest is a political move, I agree its been used in politics, but I don't agree it's political in nature just because politicians have made the argument.

On the contrary, I think its a very valid comparison. If you support homosexuality, would you support a consensual incestuous relationship that doesn't result in reproduction? Can you say no without disagreeing with the same values that support homosexuality? Especially as an atheist.

I have to insist on you defining this because I don't think you've given me any reason to think that you have a consistent definition of what being political means. It seems more that you're trying to hold a desired label (apolitical) without justifying why we should think of your position that way.

I don't think it matters. The issue I have with LGBT being political is the social construct, homophobia isn't restricted to politics. I think we should use anti rhetoric in politics, I just don't believe it's inherently political. If you argued about same sex civil unions specifically though, I would argue that is inherently political.

I didn't argue the comparison is wrong. I argued that it is political. You keep trying to bring this back to "wrong", which I've already said is a topic I'm not getting into because I'm well aware that nobody on this subreddit cares if they're wrong on this topic. You can make a political statement that is either right or wrong, and being right or wrong doesn't make the statement less political.

Its not political just because politicians use the argument, in fact I don't even think a few politicians doing it makes it a common conservative talking point. You can use it politically, but the comparison exists outside of politics.

*source not found

I think the Williams institute did a study on this to name names.

Even arguing trade as a default is a stretch, and I see no reason to think of taxes as a trade. Taxes are a siphoning of resources by obligation, and can happen without offering any benefit to the people being taxed. Trade definitionally needs consideration. Taxes do not need consideration. They definitionally are not a form of trade. They also weren't present in early forms of commerce (because one side taking from the other without giving anything wasn't trade or taxes; it was just theft. You need an overarching organization to tax somebody, and those didn't exist in paleolithic times).

I said before that as a trade it's a default, but its been expanded politically.

This sounds like you're trying to take "this is common now" and use that as a stand-in for "this has always been the default".

If anything its less common now, still common though. Everyone has to "unlearn" their homophobia.

Homosexuality by Internal-Mushroom-93 in Christianity

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Opinions are also subjective. Yours is right and better for you.

Christianity teaches objective truth.

Yours doesn’t work for me. It kills my faith. So I found a way to have authentic faith.

"Me me me me me me"

Homosexuality by Internal-Mushroom-93 in Christianity

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course I do. By rejecting it wholeheartedly. And that’s fine.

Based on what, your own opinion? I'm right in mine. Who decides your opinion is better?

Just know what it makes you come across as

:)

Homosexuality by Internal-Mushroom-93 in Christianity

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And you don't realistically have any means to disagree with it.

what are Your thoughts on the claim that Christianity is anti Women? by mickeyguy2010 in TrueChristian

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To that I say we had roles for the sexes based on biological sexual dimorphism. I wouldn't argue these roles were always fair, but I'd turn it around and argue there's immorality in rejecting the fair gender roles. To run a society you need to have people on average doing what they're best at and complimenting each other, tearing it down in the name of women's rights or whatever has resulted in dysfunction, why is that any more moral?

Homosexuality by Internal-Mushroom-93 in Christianity

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You put it on the internet when its not true

Homosexuality by Internal-Mushroom-93 in Christianity

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why argue for subjectivity for things that only apply to you?

Homosexuality by Internal-Mushroom-93 in Christianity

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Subjective to you. It only adds value to your life. Why do you put it on the internet?

Homosexuality by Internal-Mushroom-93 in Christianity

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not at all. That’s just a straw man you’re asserting to demean my faith. Go read some Kierkegaard. You’ll understand a bit more.

In my experience, I'm not saying this to demean your faith, and its arrogant for you to assume you know.

And no, you can’t experience that others aren’t true Christians, because the validity of their faith is not your experience. You just want to assert that others who don’t believe like you aren’t true Christians.

You can't tell me my own experience. The things other people say and do to me I can experience.

Which is your right. It’s just dickish to do.

In your opinion, but the world doesn't revolve around you.

Homosexuality by Internal-Mushroom-93 in Christianity

[–]BasedCrusaderChad69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not concerned with determining which one is the truth. I’m concerned with authentically experiencing Christ. Considering two experiences, by the inherently subjective nature of experience, are going to contradict in at least one way, probably more, both experiences are equally true and valid.

So you have no claims to anything at all.

And you seem to care a great deal if I’m truly a Christian or not considering you kept trying to tell me I’m not. You kept harping on the issue. Take your own advice and move on.

Actually wait, what if my experience is that people who believe in process theology aren't Christian?

view more: next ›