Beware of Gay Music, Is your favourite band on the list?

[blm]

religion is all about interpretation.. "rules" are vague. so who are you to tell the next guy how he interprets something is wrong?

Either way, the farther from church and religion that you get the closer to God you will be. :evil:

[dna9488]

Thats funny.

[Bouncer]

Well, for one I am me.

Nah, seriously. In respect to Cahltholocism, the church didctates what makes you Catholic. Thus, they are the one who can tell you.

In the case of chrisiltians as a whole... I agree, you are right. I cannot define the true meaning. However, the "rules" these Christians folloow are often counter other "rules" the Bible teaches. The common theme of Christianity, or the idea there-in that I was taught was the love God has for us. Christians who use the His name for hate are generally missing the point of every biblical story, IMO.

In this case Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because their societies did not follow the direct spoken will of the Lord, not because he hated the people. Personally, I haven't seen God direct Avtions towards anyone in this manner for centuries and even if I had, it is not our place to out judgement (hate) in Gods mouth.

So, as always I am right. Bite me :)

fuck the rules. rules made by agendas. fuck you and your religion. lol

[Bouncer]

Either way, the farther from church and religion that you get the closer to God you will be. :evil:

agreed

[Shibby]

No, that are not. Christians don't treat others like that. They may call themselves Christians, but like Catholics who don't follow the churches rules...they are sadly mistaken about themselves.

Again, I would like to give reference to the No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia fallacy.

[Bouncer]

Again, I would like to give reference to the No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia fallacy.

and fuck you and your references too.

[Shibby]

I assume you don't get it, but I will explain it too you if you like :D

[Bouncer]

i assume you don't get me. to many people taking to much shit seriously. live life mother fuckers. :P

[NewbieChris]

Again, I would like to give reference to the No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia fallacy.

You're assuming my definition of Christian is the same as the people I am talking about. Your link doesn't pertain in this instance. Hence the comment about Catholics...

[Shibby]

No that's the whole point. People will always say what a christian is or isn't. If it was that clear cut, you wouldn't have so many sects.

[Bouncer]

chris, your definition is shit.

[Shibby]

i assume you don't get me. to many people taking to much shit seriously. live life mother fuckers. :P

I know you have no intention on debating the subject so I'm simply saying this as a statement. I didn't realize how much religion impacts how we live our everyday lives until I started studying it.

[NewbieChris]

No that's the whole point. People will always say what a christian is or isn't. If it was that clear cut, you wouldn't have so many sects.

That example was not very good then. The point I gathered was that he redefined what a Scotsman was, giving it multiple characteristics. I was not redefining the term Christian (it was held constant in my mind -- and I am always right). The example also cited one persons views, not multiple. It could be that I am too stupid, or it could be that Philosophers are just always trying to be smarter than they are...

Either way, I did not redefine the term to give it multiple characteristics which was the point made by wikipedia. If there is a broader example, let me know. Otherwise, that link doesn't support your statement, IMO. Not that I agree with it anyway because logic is the beginning of an attempt to justify things we don't know about on a scale that we believe we can judge.

[NewbieChris]

chris, your definition is shit.

You face is shit. :)

[Shibby]

That example was not very good then. The point I gathered was that he redefined what a Scotsman was, giving it multiple characteristics. I was not redefining the term Christian (it was held constant in my mind -- and I am always right). The example also cited one persons views, not multiple. It could be that I am too stupid, or it could be that Philosophers are just always trying to be smarter than they are...

Either way, I did not redefine the term to give it multiple characteristics which was the point made by wikipedia. If there is a broader example, let me know. Otherwise, that link doesn't support your statement, IMO. Not that I agree with it anyway because logic is the beginning of an attempt to justify things we don't know about on a scale that we believe we can judge.

The term Christian is redefined by each person. Although you may not be changing it in your mind, your mind isn't the absolute. As with the story of the Scotsman, the man reading the paper has a definition of a Scotsman. As soon as someone doesn't act in the manner he feels is Scotsman like, that Scotsman is no longer a Scotsman to him. So how can anyone say what it is to be a Christian and that others definition is wrong. I don't remember the name of the doctor, but an abortion doctor was killed by a man saying he was doing gods work. Up until that day everyone that knew him, considered him a to be a christian. After that day everyone claimed that no christian would do such a thing. But the fact is, a christian did do such a thing; he just sinned.