Another day.
Another bread where you morans were manipulated by this faggot tranny to spend the whole bread talking about its sexual proclivities…
It enjoys the attention. It knows what it's doing. And I'm embarrassed to say it is playing you like a fiddle.
>what are some of the highlights of said sexual proclivities?
Bread is still young.
Search by ID and you shall find.
>Plenty of queer weirdos around here to.
Difference here being the queer weirdos are discouraged from advertising their "queerness" and ridiculed when making demands.
Unless they post cartoon children "reactions" all the time, and keep talking about how gay and trans they are, throw in a pic of their micro-penis for good measure… then we promote them to bakers…
The only sane people in this insane world are those that know they are insane.
>I got no problem with cock-sucking dudes or carpet-munching gals
I do. If they feel the need to tell me about it.
>If this country doesn’t return to Christ there is no making it great again.
>Normalizing sexual deviancy does nothing good.
You think there are no gay Christians ? kek
>They do not accurately reflect the faith
They do no accurately reflect your interpretation of the faith*
There I fixed it for you.
>Living a life of unrepentant sin does not bode well for one’s future.
Seeing as homosexuality is detrimental to the survival of the race, I agree practicing homosexuality does not bode well for ones future.
However, using vague term like "sin" to convey this is both lacking in description and an argument from authority with no merit.
So… desiring my neighbors wife is a sine wave?
>Perhaps if you think in terms of original Sine
Oh I do get the metaphor. I just think it's BS.
>So you reveal that you’re not a believer,
Dang! My cover is blown.
>claiming to know more about the faith than me
Never claimed anything of the sort.
>regardless of Biblical merit.
You have to convince that the Bible has any merit first.
>I’d suggest you think more critically before taking up an uninformed position again.
I suggest you follow your own advice.
>I sure hope Elon is drilling this Italian Prime Minister
You got some weird fetishes anon.
But to each their own I guess…
>correcting my position as merely an interpretation, equal to that of liberal Christians
Because it is. It's an interpretation of a work of fiction.
There are many interpretations, many that doesn't fit with your. Those holding those interpretations consider themselves just as much Christian as you do.
>I actually do not in the context of this discussion.
If you want me to take into regard the merits of the Bible, you have to convince of it having merit in the first place. And you said:
>regardless of Biblical merit.
Therefore, yes. You actually do.
>Do you have to believe Harry Potter is literally true to have a discussion about what it contains?
No.
>If somebody says that the main character of Harry Potter is actually Dobby, that would certainly be an interpretation, but would it be an interpretation supported by the text?
Interpretations can be wrong.
My statement said nothing of the validity of any interpretation, except to downplay the validity of any that claims the Bible is any thing more than fiction due to personal beliefs or lack there of.
Your interpretation could be right. It's still an interpretation.
I don't think your interpretation is right though. If I did it would be my interpretation too.
>If you continue to struggle with this you’re either not mentally equipped to handle this or worse
The irony :D
>The claim was that liberal Christianity wasn’t an accurate portrayal of the faith, you disagreed,
Yes.
>and reduced the two perspectives into interpretive equivalence
Yes. Because they are.
>had you not spoken for my faith
I didn't. I corrected your statement that was made as factual while really being faith based.
>Can you back up the internal consistency for a biblical case for unrepentant sin? Or would you rather argue from scripture why sodomy/homosexual acts are not a sin?
Why don't you start by giving me a reason why I should take anything your ancient pixi-book says serious in any way?
>Butpeople here don't bash on atheists all day
No one bashes on theists either. On the contrary. WTF?
kek
You you want me to argue from a specific interpretation that is not mine, from a book that I don't care about.
What part of, your book is only significant to your cult doesn't you get?
The liberal Christian cult has a different interpretation from yours, I have said nothing about it's validity because I consider no interpretation valid. All I said was that the liberal Christians (as well as any other denomination of Christianity) consider themselves just as Christian as you do.
You keep wanting me play on your field without giving me a reason why. I am not going to argue from "scripture" to defend a position that is not mine.
>The other side praises their god too. Satan.
Good thing I don't believe in Satan either then?
>You made a claim as to the internal logic of The Bible,
The fuck I didn't? KEK
I have kept telling you that I don't care about your ancient book…
>the atheistic position is at least grounded in its own logic and is defensible
I'm glad you think that. So… If I'm not Atheist, what do you propose that I am?
>But they do.
Just like people believe in all sorts of Gods.
Good for them.
>They hate Christians and fight Christians.
>They are here, on this board, fighting Christians.
I will not deny that.
Two factions fighting doesn't validate the beliefs of either side.
Fun fact. I never engaged with you Harry Potter analogy.
Because it was and still is irrelevant.
What are we even arguing at this point.
I made my point, clearly, multiple times.
You keep telling me I said something I didn't…
Don't you have some coir boys to inappropriately touch?
>I’ll accept that as a closer if you do.
You can claim victory if you want. It always seem to get you morans in a frensy.
>Upset enough to speak out against Christians.
Speaking out against illogical dogma doesn't require me to be upset. Wat?
I'm here because I believe in the concept of Free Thought (as described by Q):
>"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
>This country is Christian faith.
8Kun country? Wat? You think only Americans come here? Kek.
>Calls me freemason for quoting Q
>It reflects on Q too.
It does. If that is the conclusion that you draw, then why are you here?
(pic)
>Law Dog