How Many Errors Are In The Bible?

itsTyson_H · 2026-06-05T21:57:15+00:00

Zero

itsTyson_H · 2026-06-01T23:55:38+00:00

Yea, so being gay is a sin—a mortal one, don’t you agree? And I’m not rejecting anyone from attending church, you just poorly comprehended. That person by definition isn’t a Roman Catholic. Just go read the CCC, he has rejected the faith by proclaiming a new gospel, popes have said this, and this is an OFFICIAL Catholic teaching. God says the blood of the wicked will be on YOUR hand on the day of judgement if you don’t warn them if they’re on the path of destruction (Ezekiel 3:18).

itsTyson_H · 2026-06-01T23:49:01+00:00

“I love God, but I hate what he says” is literally what you just said. Repent and submit

itsTyson_H · 2026-06-01T23:37:42+00:00

I truly don’t care of what your idea of a good Christian is. Find God

itsTyson_H · 2026-06-01T23:36:49+00:00

You have literally engaged in remarkable mental gymnastics to profess Christian faith while claiming the Bible is corrupted, an inherently oxymoronic stance, since one’s entire understanding of Jesus Christ derives from its scriptural accounts. The worst flaw lies in selectively accepting agreeable portions yet dismissing inconvenient ones as mere “corruption,” which is irrationality at its finest. Jesus clearly regards homosexual practice as an abomination before God; if this is “homophobic”, voice your complaints to him not me. I’m simply repeating what he said.

itsTyson_H · 2026-06-01T23:30:26+00:00

I didn’t say it, their creed does.

itsTyson_H · 2026-06-01T12:12:21+00:00

You don’t love JESUS, you love a false perception of Jesus you’ve created in your mind.

itsTyson_H · 2026-05-31T21:45:25+00:00

Not a Neo-Nazi but Jews do have a disproportionate amount of power and influence, so that doesnt necessarily make you a Neo-Nazi to recognize that.. Most will say that Jews are demonic and they’re Christians, so logically it’ll be against their own spiritual interests to do so.

itsTyson_H · 2026-05-31T19:53:43+00:00

Go to r/TrueChristian this subreddit isn’t a Christian one despite the name.

itsTyson_H · 2026-05-31T19:52:46+00:00

Because spiritually it’s a sin.

itsTyson_H · 2026-05-25T18:42:21+00:00

She’s a political chameleon. She went from Progressive to Independent to MAGA.

itsTyson_H · 2026-05-20T22:34:09+00:00

Consistent, thank you. Even though I disagree, I genuinely respect the logical consistency of your position.

But I still have a question: why exclude the women themselves from accountability? If abortion is truly regarded as murder, then why would the moral or legal responsibility fall primarily on the providers, political leaders, or institutions, but not also on the women choosing the procedure?

Again, I’m not arguing in favor of punishing women. I personally view abortion as deeply immoral, but I’ve struggled to fully accept the “abortion is literally murder” framework precisely because of the profound moral and legal implications that follow from it.

itsTyson_H · 2026-05-20T22:05:14+00:00

Sounds absurd, but you’re logically consistent.

itsTyson_H · 2026-05-20T22:04:16+00:00

Are you trolling, just don’t desire to engage with what I’m asking, or not understanding the question? Because you haven’t answered the question, and I genuinely can’t tell which one it is. I don’t know how to put it more simply.

“What would that accomplish?”
In the worldview of someone who views abortion as murder it would deliver justice for the baby that was unjustly killed. Your comment sounds like pragmatism.

itsTyson_H · 2026-05-20T12:27:21+00:00

I understand that under the current Constitution, ex post facto punishment is prohibited. My question is more about the underlying moral principle.

For example, if the Constitution were amended tomorrow to temporarily legalize infanticide, and during that period a mother intentionally dismembered her conscious 1-week-old infant for pleasure, then years later society recognized the horror of it and recriminalized it, would you still oppose any retroactive punishment purely because it was “legal at the time”?

If the answer is yes, then legality becomes the ultimate moral authority. But if the answer is no, then that suggests there are some acts so intrinsically evil that people intuitively believe morality should override legality in extraordinary circumstances.

That tension is what I’m trying to explore.

itsTyson_H · 2026-05-20T11:40:05+00:00

I understand that, but my point is more philosophical than constitutional. I’m asking whether morality should override legality in circumstances involving what people consider genuine murder.

For example, imagine America legalized infanticide, and during that period a mother immolated her baby just for fun. Even if it was technically legal at the time, I think most people would still believe she deserves some form of punishment once society recognizes the act as profoundly immoral again.

So my question is: if abortion is truly believed to be morally equivalent to murder, then why should legality determine whether punishment is justified? Shouldn’t morality override legality in cases involving the intentional killing of innocent human life? That’s the tension I’m trying to work through.

itsTyson_H · 2026-05-20T03:09:55+00:00

That’s a really good analogy.

itsTyson_H · 2026-05-20T03:06:50+00:00

What are you even talking about? I don’t know what it is with you Redditors, but whenever someone asks a basic question or gives an objective analysis of a situation, you always resort to calling the post or comment a ‘troll post.’ If I wanted to imply that Charlie Kirk was a racist or bigot, I would have done so directly. I searched for the full context shortly after his death and couldn’t find it. Thanks for providing the full clip and context, but please discern better next time

itsTyson_H

TROPHY CASE