Untitled

I cut my lip up well tonight, so I guess it's a good thing I like the taste of blood. Right about now, I'm going to get some more. Yesterday, I had a debate in English over homosexual marriages and then I received Heath's words, which I have awaited for a week and a half. Between all the arguments, I'm remembering why I loved debate so much (of course, re-reading some of my flows from last year helped too. The literary value of my flows is at least on par with tabloids).

I'll start with Heath's amazing attempt at not stating anything I've never heard before. The biggest complaint I have about his reply is it follows the structure of the Bible too well in the sense that he clearly provides logic gaps in his own rebuttal. Towards the end he implies I do not understand how to interpret Biblical verse when he explains the belief that the Bible supports a flat Earth. A few times he then only gives a line from the Bible in argument. He acknowledges openly that I may not know how to read Scripture, but then expects me to understand "his arguments". However, there is more to this obvious problem. The line he puts at the end of the flat Earth refutation is, "You have to understand the Bible was written in a different language." This one quote destroys everything he says because he tells us there could be screw-ups in the translation, and if one part of the text is obviously mistranslated or badly worded, then it is possible all other parts are. So the whole Bible is destroyed because no one can say with proof which parts are accurately written exactly as God intended, and which parts got screwed up in translation.

It is correct no one has ever gone to Jesus because they lost an argument, or at least might be correct. However, I've won a lot of arguments over religion, meaning someone lost. And occasionally those losers walk away from Jesus. So winning arguments is important to keep members, even if it doesn't mean shit to gain them.

Now it's time to play games with Scripture. "Love the God your father with all your heart and your mind and your soul." Since you've already said I don't know how to read the Bible, I'll read it how I wish and just assume you'll tell me I'm wrong. But remember, other people who do believe in the Bible may have an interpretation like mine, so by saying I'm wrong, you are also saying your homies are wrong too. However, this line is obviously full of shit. I can understand loving God with heart and soul, but adding in mind is stupid. Love is irrational, and the mind is the housing for rational thought. They cannot go together well. Telling people they should is a lot like a poor chick trying to get a fiancé to not sign a pre-nupt. If God truly wants his followers to believe but not believe blindly, then he would not want love clouding their minds. Of course, God is a lot more cunning than Christians like to believe, and what God is really doing is tricking everyone to love with their mind, causing them to have blind faith. Since blind faith is my #1A hatred (#1 hatred being stupidity, and blind faith is a subdivision of stupidity), I don't accept this manipulative statement.

Now the glory argument is entirely dependent on which definition we want to use for the word "glory". The definition I was basing it on is "something worth praise" whereas you use the definition of "praise of something." By my definition, God making the world means his glory is spread globally because what he did that was worth praise is globally spread. By your definition, God becomes a politician. Let me demonstrate with an equation: God's Glory = Praise of the People. Therefore, God's Glory is entirely dependent on us, and if we don't give him praise, God HAS NO glory. All the glory does not go to God, it goes to us.

I never mentioned the word "foreign" anywhere. I implied it because all of the missionaries I know of go to other countries to mission people. I could really care less though, because it is a stupid idea. Everyone knows by now; no sense in bugging them. How often do you listen to the Jehovah Witness's that come to your door? You say this is a bias opinion, but I must point out, so is yours. You have hundreds of examples, but I have a very nice fact. Christianity is followed by roughly 33% of the world, and has stayed at that percentage for decades. If so many people are changing because of missions, this statistic would go up, but it doesn't, so "hundreds of examples" or not, missions are not working. As for your argument stating people don't mind dying for Christ, you should do a little research. These tribes didn't die because of Christ; they died because missionaries decided that teaching Christ wasn't enough, and they needed to teach culture as well. So, in the middle of Africa, during blazing heats, they taught Africans to dress like Europeans from head to toe. This overheated everyone causing death. They didn't die for Christ; they died because some people are ignorant. And even if they had died for Christ, is it really acceptable to go kill off entire cultures to teach them about Jesus? Do missionaries do it for the people or for themselves? (And I really think on your quote of Matthew, you forgot to end quotes. Maybe I'm arguing your ideas or I'm arguing the Bible. Then again, I've never feared committing blasphemy.)

Just a quick technicality, "lust" is an unrestrained sexual desire. Thinking about sex is a sin from a fundamentalist standpoint.

"Thou shalt not lay with another man." This is all you can give me in support of your anti-homosexual viewpoint. You're a fucking debater; you should know you need harm. It's part of debating, and yet you base EVERYTHING on one line from the Bible. I don't buy it; furthermore, I offer my interpretation of the line. It means everyone should do his own work. "Lay" is used to imply "laying brick" so to speak. Actually, any type of building involves laying of some raw material. Therefore, the quote you use simply says no one should ask for help in building his house. People should not expect help from others, but do their own shit. And don't refer to other parts of the verse, because you didn't find them important enough to include when you made the argument. Considering it was your WHOLE argument.

My favorite subject in the whole debate: sex. Yes, very few Christian marriages (there's an "i" in the word) fail when both partners wait until marriage to have sex. But this fact is useless because it fails to recognize the biasness of the statistic. If Christianity says sex before marriage is wrong, and people wait until after marriage to have sex, than obviously both are very good Christians. Christianity also says divorce is bad, so it is most likely these marriages work simply because these two are so intoned to their Christianity that they refuse to quit, and it's not because they waited to have sex. Saying you will appreciate the sex more and respect the person you have it with more if you wait until marriage is bullshit too. I agree that a virgin would be nice, but that's not because I want to wait until marriage, it's because I'm not confident enough in my sexual prowess yet to sleep with woman that have had sex before. It turns sex into a competition instead of making love or simply shooting off a load depending on the form of payment used to get the sex (gifts or cold, hard cash respectively). But logically, pun intended, what's it fucking matter? Nothing, and the only reason you may say that I'd respect it more is for 3 reasons: 1) that's what your girlfriend told you to keep you from asking for sex, 2)you had sex with your girlfriend and then got an STD, causing you to wish it back, 3)you are fucking all the time with your girlfriend and want to hide it by pretending to be super-Christian. I'm going to pick number three, because I've had far more experiences with people in that boat than either of the other two. Hope it's a good piece of ass, though, which is probably another thing your hiding with your religion.

Actually the Bible does support slavery: Exodus 21. Read it over and over again. If the Bible didn't support slavery, why did it describe the proper method of slavery and not condemn it? As for the killing of unruly children, try reading Deuteronomy 21:18-21. I should point out here that is seems you know of all the everlasting love parts of the Bible, and I know of all the cruel parts of it. It seems you ignore the cruel parts because the everlasting love is so good, and I think the cruelty is enough to throw the whole book out. Not an argument, but a revelation.

As for who does and does not know the answers, you definitely fall into the "doesn't" category. You don't seem to have read the whole Bible (read above paragraph) suggesting you can't possibly know it all. The fact that you didn't recognize the claims of slavery and stoning children suggests I was right that you are hiding behind Christianity to have lots and lots of sex. I would think a real Christian would at least faintly know of these.

You say equal love and then give the verse, "Teach your children in the way they should go and they shall stay to it." Which is it? If the teaching idea is correct, children would never have apostasies so there would definitely be equal love because no one in the family would ever stop believing. However, I was taught in the way of the Lord and I gave it up, meaning teaching children is preposterous. If this is true, then is there still equal love?

Hope everyone enjoyed my attempt to rape Heath, since I love to piss all over people.

Freakin-Jenius.com
(c)Ralston, Bruffet, Rice 2001-2002. Site design (c)A. Allen 2002.		News for (date) by X [All X's articles][About X]
	Rants Some Rant by X Reviews Some Review by X Previews Some Preview by X Home	I cut my lip up well tonight, so I guess it's a good thing I like the taste of blood. Right about now, I'm going to get some more. Yesterday, I had a debate in English over homosexual marriages and then I received Heath's words, which I have awaited for a week and a half. Between all the arguments, I'm remembering why I loved debate so much (of course, re-reading some of my flows from last year helped too. The literary value of my flows is at least on par with tabloids). I'll start with Heath's amazing attempt at not stating anything I've never heard before. The biggest complaint I have about his reply is it follows the structure of the Bible too well in the sense that he clearly provides logic gaps in his own rebuttal. Towards the end he implies I do not understand how to interpret Biblical verse when he explains the belief that the Bible supports a flat Earth. A few times he then only gives a line from the Bible in argument. He acknowledges openly that I may not know how to read Scripture, but then expects me to understand "his arguments". However, there is more to this obvious problem. The line he puts at the end of the flat Earth refutation is, "You have to understand the Bible was written in a different language." This one quote destroys everything he says because he tells us there could be screw-ups in the translation, and if one part of the text is obviously mistranslated or badly worded, then it is possible all other parts are. So the whole Bible is destroyed because no one can say with proof which parts are accurately written exactly as God intended, and which parts got screwed up in translation. It is correct no one has ever gone to Jesus because they lost an argument, or at least might be correct. However, I've won a lot of arguments over religion, meaning someone lost. And occasionally those losers walk away from Jesus. So winning arguments is important to keep members, even if it doesn't mean shit to gain them. Now it's time to play games with Scripture. "Love the God your father with all your heart and your mind and your soul." Since you've already said I don't know how to read the Bible, I'll read it how I wish and just assume you'll tell me I'm wrong. But remember, other people who do believe in the Bible may have an interpretation like mine, so by saying I'm wrong, you are also saying your homies are wrong too. However, this line is obviously full of shit. I can understand loving God with heart and soul, but adding in mind is stupid. Love is irrational, and the mind is the housing for rational thought. They cannot go together well. Telling people they should is a lot like a poor chick trying to get a fiancé to not sign a pre-nupt. If God truly wants his followers to believe but not believe blindly, then he would not want love clouding their minds. Of course, God is a lot more cunning than Christians like to believe, and what God is really doing is tricking everyone to love with their mind, causing them to have blind faith. Since blind faith is my #1A hatred (#1 hatred being stupidity, and blind faith is a subdivision of stupidity), I don't accept this manipulative statement. Now the glory argument is entirely dependent on which definition we want to use for the word "glory". The definition I was basing it on is "something worth praise" whereas you use the definition of "praise of something." By my definition, God making the world means his glory is spread globally because what he did that was worth praise is globally spread. By your definition, God becomes a politician. Let me demonstrate with an equation: God's Glory = Praise of the People. Therefore, God's Glory is entirely dependent on us, and if we don't give him praise, God HAS NO glory. All the glory does not go to God, it goes to us. I never mentioned the word "foreign" anywhere. I implied it because all of the missionaries I know of go to other countries to mission people. I could really care less though, because it is a stupid idea. Everyone knows by now; no sense in bugging them. How often do you listen to the Jehovah Witness's that come to your door? You say this is a bias opinion, but I must point out, so is yours. You have hundreds of examples, but I have a very nice fact. Christianity is followed by roughly 33% of the world, and has stayed at that percentage for decades. If so many people are changing because of missions, this statistic would go up, but it doesn't, so "hundreds of examples" or not, missions are not working. As for your argument stating people don't mind dying for Christ, you should do a little research. These tribes didn't die because of Christ; they died because missionaries decided that teaching Christ wasn't enough, and they needed to teach culture as well. So, in the middle of Africa, during blazing heats, they taught Africans to dress like Europeans from head to toe. This overheated everyone causing death. They didn't die for Christ; they died because some people are ignorant. And even if they had died for Christ, is it really acceptable to go kill off entire cultures to teach them about Jesus? Do missionaries do it for the people or for themselves? (And I really think on your quote of Matthew, you forgot to end quotes. Maybe I'm arguing your ideas or I'm arguing the Bible. Then again, I've never feared committing blasphemy.) Just a quick technicality, "lust" is an unrestrained sexual desire. Thinking about sex is a sin from a fundamentalist standpoint. "Thou shalt not lay with another man." This is all you can give me in support of your anti-homosexual viewpoint. You're a fucking debater; you should know you need harm. It's part of debating, and yet you base EVERYTHING on one line from the Bible. I don't buy it; furthermore, I offer my interpretation of the line. It means everyone should do his own work. "Lay" is used to imply "laying brick" so to speak. Actually, any type of building involves laying of some raw material. Therefore, the quote you use simply says no one should ask for help in building his house. People should not expect help from others, but do their own shit. And don't refer to other parts of the verse, because you didn't find them important enough to include when you made the argument. Considering it was your WHOLE argument. My favorite subject in the whole debate: sex. Yes, very few Christian marriages (there's an "i" in the word) fail when both partners wait until marriage to have sex. But this fact is useless because it fails to recognize the biasness of the statistic. If Christianity says sex before marriage is wrong, and people wait until after marriage to have sex, than obviously both are very good Christians. Christianity also says divorce is bad, so it is most likely these marriages work simply because these two are so intoned to their Christianity that they refuse to quit, and it's not because they waited to have sex. Saying you will appreciate the sex more and respect the person you have it with more if you wait until marriage is bullshit too. I agree that a virgin would be nice, but that's not because I want to wait until marriage, it's because I'm not confident enough in my sexual prowess yet to sleep with woman that have had sex before. It turns sex into a competition instead of making love or simply shooting off a load depending on the form of payment used to get the sex (gifts or cold, hard cash respectively). But logically, pun intended, what's it fucking matter? Nothing, and the only reason you may say that I'd respect it more is for 3 reasons: 1) that's what your girlfriend told you to keep you from asking for sex, 2)you had sex with your girlfriend and then got an STD, causing you to wish it back, 3)you are fucking all the time with your girlfriend and want to hide it by pretending to be super-Christian. I'm going to pick number three, because I've had far more experiences with people in that boat than either of the other two. Hope it's a good piece of ass, though, which is probably another thing your hiding with your religion. Actually the Bible does support slavery: Exodus 21. Read it over and over again. If the Bible didn't support slavery, why did it describe the proper method of slavery and not condemn it? As for the killing of unruly children, try reading Deuteronomy 21:18-21. I should point out here that is seems you know of all the everlasting love parts of the Bible, and I know of all the cruel parts of it. It seems you ignore the cruel parts because the everlasting love is so good, and I think the cruelty is enough to throw the whole book out. Not an argument, but a revelation. As for who does and does not know the answers, you definitely fall into the "doesn't" category. You don't seem to have read the whole Bible (read above paragraph) suggesting you can't possibly know it all. The fact that you didn't recognize the claims of slavery and stoning children suggests I was right that you are hiding behind Christianity to have lots and lots of sex. I would think a real Christian would at least faintly know of these. You say equal love and then give the verse, "Teach your children in the way they should go and they shall stay to it." Which is it? If the teaching idea is correct, children would never have apostasies so there would definitely be equal love because no one in the family would ever stop believing. However, I was taught in the way of the Lord and I gave it up, meaning teaching children is preposterous. If this is true, then is there still equal love? Hope everyone enjoyed my attempt to rape Heath, since I love to piss all over people.