SpaceCoastVol
Jacked up on moonshine and testosterone
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 55,754
- Likes
- 69,804
NoI think there's a difference between seeing what certain people believe vs what they espouse to do about their beliefs. For instance if X religion believes Y religion is wrong for Z reasons that's really not a surprise given the context. Nobody should believe harm should come to those that don't believe as they do. As long as Kirk's (though it could be anyone) beliefs are consistent with the source material what are you gonna do? You can disagree of course but that's about it. Now all that changes when whoever starts not just saying what they believe about X but negative things should happen to those on the wrong side of they're beliefs. Citing "look what Kirk believed that's consistent with his religion" really isn't a particularly big flex.
I didn't really keep up with Kirk. Did he ever actually condone harm coming to gays/trans/etc? That would have much more traction.
I honk the best thing I can say is to read the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. She was brought before Jesus and accused of committing an act that God‘s perfect law said was to me met with stoning. Jesus being God Himself in human form and therefore the author of the law turned the question on its head and invited anyone who had himself kept the perfect law to start the execution. It is the same today. Yes I can point out they deserved sentence of someone else breaking God‘s law; but am I willing to suffer the consequences of my own equivalent transgressions?No, that wasnt the point. The point he was making is you can't cherry pick parts of the Bible to fit your stance in response to quote from another celebrity in support of pride month.
What he was saying was if you're going to cherry pick the bible for a quote in support of pride month then you must also accept God's perfect law in it's dealing with gay people as written in the old testament.
It was a warning against using his groups Holy Book to advocate for behavior explicitly forbidden in that Holy Book. You'd have to be willingly obtuse or completely agenda driven to believe he was actually calling for the stoning of gay people.
Rancid. Interesting. Wonder if it was a family affair.This is from an article documenting the events of the shooter. This makes no sense! There HAD to be more than this kid involved with this!
Cox said Robinson's roommate showed investigators a number of Discord messages from the suspect, including ones that said he needed to get a rifle from a drop point and another about leaving that rifle in a bush.
“The content of these included messages affiliated with the contact Tyler, stating a need to retrieve a rifle from a drop point, leaving the rifle in a bush, messages related to visually watching the area where a rifle was left, and a message referring to having left the rifle wrapped in a towel,” Cox said.
Then, later in the article:
Cox said officials believe the suspect acted alone in the shooting and said they don’t have any information that would lead to any additional arrests, but added that the investigation is ongoing.
How does one message about plans to someone else and the action be described as one of which an individual acted alone?
Now, the next inconsistency:
“He was living, and had lived for a long time, with his family in Washington County,” Cox said.
If Tyler Robinson lived with his family, where does a "roommate" come into play?
Something really smells bad here.
I'm going to have to disagree with you, and I'm backing it up:I can't disagree with this, but Trump does it too. Check out Mike Lee's comments after the Hortman's were assassinated. Both sides have done nothing but exude hate towards the other. Recognizing that fact and quelling it is the only way we can heal as a nation.
Prove to me that he didn't exist.I grew up in the church and was a fervent believer for half of my life. It is precisely the complete lack of evidence of his existence that finally convinced me to stop believing. I still am open to the idea that, if compelling evidence becomes available, I will reconsider my position.
Until then, any argument invoking God is a big nothing burger for me.
honkyI honk the best thing I can say is to read the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. She was brought before Jesus and accused of committing an act that God‘s perfect law said was to me met with stoning. Jesus being God Himself in human form and therefore the author of the law turned the question on its head and invited anyone who had himself kept the perfect law to start the execution. It is the same today. Yes I can point out they deserved sentence of someone else breaking God‘s law; but am I willing to suffer the consequences of my own equivalent transgressions?
Hence Jesus saying „neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more“. He didn’t deny the sin but he offered a different way to live.
(Always found it telling that the Pharrasies only brought the woman before Jesus. Adultery usually requires two people. Where was „him“)?
Not really. She can lower than giving he*d to a midget on his knees in a post hole.