Sotuanduso @ Sotuanduso @lemm.ee

Posts

2

Comments

1,122

Joined

2 yr. ago

You seem to be putting words in my mouth. People I know that talk to me about these sorts of things know that this isn't how I think at all.

I never claim to have all the answers, and there's a lot I don't know about the Bible. In fact, if you talk to me about the biblical stance of abortion in particular, I'll say that I don't know at what point someone becomes a person, and the Bible doesn't give a clear answer - if anything, it implies that you're a person before you're even conceived, which could mean that not having kids is murder, but that's ridiculous and obviously wrong.

I also never push for controlling others. As I said in another thread here, it has to be a choice, otherwise God might as well control us all directly. And I definitely never try to use the law as a tool to make others moral. If the law were capable of making people moral, there would be no need for Jesus.

By the way, there are people out there who think Christians are evil for believing others should think the same way they do even if they agree it's optional. I've met them. I'm not lumping you in with them, just contradicting your claim that nobody cares.

EDIT: By the way, you didn't define evangelical. If it's not too much trouble, I would like to know how you define it.

Here I thought the joke was going to be "The Earth is actually a complete sphere without having any slices or cross-sections taken out of it like that."

Double quarter pounder cheeseburger.

It's a paradox because if you count it as a mistake, then there are two mistakes, so it's not a mistake, so there's only one mistake, so it is a mistake.

True. Invoking a paradox is a mistake.

Pick a lane? I think you're assuming others' actions are mine. I don't force others to follow the Bible at all, because that's not the biblical way. It has to be a choice, otherwise God might as well force us all directly.

I'd like to know what you meant by evangelical. I'd consider myself evangelical in that I believe in evangelism (telling people about Jesus) and in the evangel (the Gospel,) but every time I hear the word used by non-Christians, it's regarded like it's a flavor of fascism or something.

Can't argue with that logic. I can disagree, but I can't really argue because there's nothing there to argue with, and asking for clarification might sound like sealioning. I'm not really in a sealioning mood, so have a nice day.

Hi, Christian here. I agree that a lot of this is quite fishy. There are a couple things I want to contest though:

Violent prayer. I never heard of it before, but I looked it up. It's a misnomer, and the definition provided here is incorrect. It simply refers to persistent and fervent prayer.

Prayerwalking. Its inclusion implies that there's something creepy or dangerous about it, but it's actually harmless. It's literally just people going for a walk and praying as they go (not making a show of it.)

Hi, Christian here. I can't speak for all Christians, but this isn't accurate to my behaviors or perceptions.

I generally save the "conversion process" as you call it until after I already know someone because there's more trust from a friend. So it's not my immediate action (and also not something I'm trying to force on them.) Also, if they're not my "personal brand" of Christian, I don't feel a need to convert them, because what matters is following Christ earnestly, not checking all the right answers to unclear questions. Unless it's like the World Mission Society Church of God or something.

I don't assume that other religions and ideologies are full of aggressive evangelicals. I do think there are some aggressive evangelicals, but most of the time the pushing of other religions is a slow and passive thing, and the pushing of ideologies is a thing of culture as a whole, not specific agents.

Hi, Christian here. No, we are not called upon to kill our family members for not being Christians. Hope this helps.

And if you'd like to dispute by pointing out verses that imply we should be killing people, please save us both some time and check the context of the verse. Some of them are in parables, and others are of the old law back before there was hope for salvation in Christ. If you find any that are neither, I'd be surprised, but please let me know.

Until the third paragraph, it sounded like something you might think was reasonable for lefties to do. Then I got to the bits about cutting regulations to promote fossil fuels and, according to an "anonymous source" (which I frankly don't trust because it's from a biased newspaper,) weaponizing the DOJ and national guard against critics.

I like "yet" as a past tense because it sounds needlessly confusing.

Yeah, he specifically doesn't like guns, and it's because his parents were shot. Other weapons are fine. Even a grappling gun is fine. A gun that shoots bullets is not fine because it reminds him of how his parents died.

Not here, that's for sure, but keep in mind the community you're asking.

He doesn't use guns because he specifically doesn't like them. If it were just about killing, he'd use nonlethal bullets. The no killing rule is a separate but related phenomenon.

As for explosives, he generally only uses flash bangs, but when he's fighting someone who can clearly take it (like Superman or Darkseid) or a robot that it's okay to kill, then he uses more lethal bombs.

It's a little bit cool, but not nearly as cool as I thought it was. Granted, a pistol to rifle adapter wouldn't be very practical either.

Incorrect, the game ends when a king cannot avoid capture. As such, your statement is wrong and I feel betrayed.

Am I seeing this right? Is this a pistol to rifle adapter?

Hmm, intuition implies the inverse. I would have guessed men's liberation means "liberation from women" and thus misogyny. I guess unintuitive terminology is just the way things go.