Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Luminesa]

I have a question. Would the song "Hallelujah" be considered as a Christian song as it talks about David and Solomon?

Leonard Cohen (may he Rest in Peace) was Jewish, one of the last members of the Cohen priestly family as well. He had a very good understanding of Biblical tropes, however, both old and new. While it's more of a folk song, it certainly does have Christian and Jewish elements. It can almost be called a "secular" hymn, if such a thing exists.

[Luminesa]

Bullshit, you said "The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty" and then went on a nice rant about why putting these people to death is for their own benefit. It's right there. We can read it over and over again..

Woman, I suggest you read it over and over again if that what it takes to see what I really wrote -

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.

The fact is you didn't read it properly in the first place, and, having realised your mistake after you denounced me, refuse to admit it. You're frustrated, and aggression is the only defence which you have left. That's why you're getting angry and using profanity, and stonewalling, which isn't very Christian.

I...I'm pretty sure that Tars is a guy. I'm a girl though!

The death penalty is a complicated matter in the OT. For some, it's believed the rules of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were meant primarily for the priests of Levi (hence the name 'Leviticus'). It could imply all of the Jewish people, however, but the priests of Levi were held to very high standards. However, since Christ has superceded such ceremonial laws by becoming the ultimate high priest, we do not need to look back and to support the death penalty any longer. Christ has opened the gates for us, and has asked for us to love one another. The death penalty has no place among us anymore, as Christ Himself did not let the people stone an adultress in John 8. We should not call for it on such Biblical grounds.

[The Blaatschapen]

On a musical note, I adore Johnny Cash. Now, I do not listen often to his gospel albums, but damn, do I like his version of God's Gonna Cut You Down.

(also, I like the ballad of Ira Hayes, but that would be off topic)

[The New California Republic]

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.
People who commit these crimes are depraved, and can't be saved. They haven't the Holy Spirit working in them. They are the worst of reprobates.They're outside of God's grace, and must be killed judicially to spare the rest of society their corrupting influence. An evil person is never happy, and death is a release from the suffering which they inflict upon themselves. What is kinder than that? If you spare the reprobate criminal's life, and give him his freedom, you are, in effect, protracting his suffering and eventual self-destruction and guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity.
If they were in God's grace, they would either be intimidated by the rule of law sufficiently to refrain from temptation to do these unholy acts or, having the Holy Spirit working in them, would be regenerated from that natural depravity whence springs all Evil.

What are these unnatural sexual acts?

He's talking about the LGBs

Tbh this is not the first time that Turelisa has advocated that the likes of LGBT people be killed, so it's no surprise.

[Turelisa-]

I might have sworn that in a previous interaction you implied you were a woman. My mistake. I was wrong.

That's a politicians defense. "I might have sworn that I might have, on this one occasion, maybe misunderstood something that was said to me, and it's possible this misunderstanding may have grown and manifested into me having an incorrect perception. It's not that I fell back on personal biases and accidentally said the quiet part out loud. "

Why else would I call you 'woman?' I vaguely remember discussing abortion with you sometime ago, and getting the, wrong, impression from your ambiguous reply to my point about married women that you yourself were a woman.
Your argument that I thought you were a woman based on your belief that correcting my lie that I hadn't implied or explicity stated the faithless to be worthy of death was typical of a woman and therefore jumped right to the conclusion you were a woman is utter nonsense in itself. And it also a lie - I described quite explicitly without equivocation the crimes that the Bible states are to be punished by death.

I've had to disabuse you twice, now, yet still you refuse to acknowledge or admit your glaring misnotions, instead making desperate recourse to aggressive disingenuousness.

That would be because your disabuse is disingenuous, and in truth, I read your post very closely

Correcting your erroneous and non-literal interpretation of a post is disingenuous, is it? That's easy to say, given that's neither verifiable nor falsifiable.

Now, you're claiming that you clearly didn't mean all the faithless, just Muderers(sic), Adulterers, people who have sex with family members, people who have sex with children, the criminally insane, and well, we all know "Certain unnatural sexual acts" is code for Gays. Because those are all clearly, equally offensive and equally worthy of death. (Nevermind, that scripture doesn't say that (quite the opposite really) and that you're trying to distill the entirety of the Law into a single idiom so devoid of context and meaning that it becomes completely wrong.)

I'm not claiming that, chum. The proof is in the post, which I copy here, with the relevant passage higlighted in bold and italics so you can make them out. Do you see the phrase 'the faithless' included in it ? Do you?

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.
People who commit these crimes are depraved, and can't be saved. They haven't the Holy Spirit working in them. They are the worst of reprobates.They're outside of God's grace, and must be killed judicially to spare the rest of society their corrupting influence. An evil person is never happy, and death is a release from the suffering which they inflict upon themselves. What is kinder than that? If you spare the reprobate criminal's life, and give him his freedom, you are, in effect, protracting his suffering and eventual self-destruction and guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity.
If they were in God's grace, they would either be intimidated by the rule of law sufficiently to refrain from temptation to do these unholy acts or, having the Holy Spirit working in them, would be regenerated from that natural depravity whence springs all Evil.

You then proceed to give a somewhat cogent reasoning, at least cogent in that it echoes traditional justifications for capital punishment:Lex Taliones and all that. Though let it not go unnoticed that you're saying Gays need to be put to death to save them from corrupting society.

I didn't say gays need to be put to death. I said individuals who commit certain unnatural sexual acts are worthy of death. You're wrong, once again.

But then you go quite into the realm of vaudevillian villain, (I assume you're a fan of Vaudeville given your use of an outdated syntax in an attempt to make yourself sound smarter than you actually are.):

Outdated syntax to impress you? I write the way I do because I'm an old fashioned fellow. You and what you think about it don't come into it.

Hell replace "reprobate criminal" with "Jew" and you could headline Nuremberg, 1934.

Oh, dear. This is beyond desperation.

But then you give the game away:

Oh?

But of course. They do these things because humans are naturally evil, and only the Holy Spirit, keeps them from going full Reaver. Thus, anyone who commits these crimes means they have no connection to the Holy Spirit. And by your reasoning, they must be killed to protect society from their corrupting influence, but also "future victims of their depravity." Because without the Holy Spirit they really just can't help themselves.So in effect, you've argued for the termination of the faithless.

Er, no. Only the people in the post.
You know, the one I quoted above several time because you have trouble understanding it. -


The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.

Because by Calvin's own definition, the Faithless are faithless specifically because they don't have the Holy Spirit working in them, they weren't elect. And since without the Holy Spirit, they really can't help themselves from yielding to these depravities, then it's only a matter of time before they do. Thus, in order to protect society all the faithless should be killed, otherwise you're "guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity."

Excellent! You've managed to grasp Calvinist theology!

And if that weren't vile enough, you have the gall to put God's decree on it.

It's not vile. It's God's will.

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

But it's true, nonetheless. Your reactionary behaviour - lying, disingenuousness, and vulgar language has been unChristian.

But if I did that then we'd both be liars.

Only you and God know whether you're a liar. A God who I worder whether you really believe in, given your deceit.

[Turelisa-]

He's talking about the LGBs

Tbh this is not the first time that Turelisa has advocated that the likes of LGBT people be killed, so it's no surprise.

Snakes are not welcome in this thread, nor is the poison that they pour into the ears of those who will listen tolerated.

[Tarsonis]

Tbh this is not the first time that Turelisa has advocated that the likes of LGBT people be killed, so it's no surprise.

Snakes are not welcome in this thread, nor is the poison that they pour into the ears of those who will listen tolerated.

And yet, here you are.

[Benuty]

Snakes are not welcome in this thread, nor is the poison that they pour into the ears of those who will listen tolerated.

And yet, here you are.

Well, this is perhaps the greatest example of a burn I have seen in a while. I would recommend some immediate third-degree burn surgery at the hospital.

[Senkaku]

You then proceed to give a somewhat cogent reasoning, at least cogent in that it echoes traditional justifications for capital punishment:Lex Taliones and all that. Though let it not go unnoticed that you're saying Gays need to be put to death to save them from corrupting society.

I didn't say gays need to be put to death. I said individuals who commit certain unnatural sexual acts are worthy of death. You're wrong, once again.

Perhaps you should clarify the distinction between these statements for everyone

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Snakes are not welcome in this thread, nor is the poison that they pour into the ears of those who will listen tolerated.

And yet, here you are.

This isn't just a burn, it's an Old Testament burn.

[Tarsonis]

That's a politicians defense. "I might have sworn that I might have, on this one occasion, maybe misunderstood something that was said to me, and it's possible this misunderstanding may have grown and manifested into me having an incorrect perception. It's not that I fell back on personal biases and accidentally said the quiet part out loud. "

Why else would I call you 'woman?' I vaguely remember discussing abortion with you sometime ago, and getting the, wrong, impression from your ambiguous reply to my point about married women that you yourself were a woman.
Your argument that I thought you were a woman based on your belief that correcting my lie that I hadn't implied or explicity stated the faithless to be worthy of death was typical of a woman and therefore jumped right to the conclusion you were a woman is utter nonsense in itself. And it also a lie - I described quite explicitly without equivocation the crimes that the Bible states are to be punished by death.

You quite explicitly ignored half the scriptures to peddle your bigoted nonsense. Because the grand total of crimes the bible, taken in its totality, states are to be punishable by death is Zero.

That would be because your disabuse is disingenuous, and in truth, I read your post very closely

Correcting your erroneous and non-literal interpretation of a post is disingenuous, is it? That's easy to say, given that's neither verifiable nor falsifiable.

Much like you trying to claim you meant one thing, while saying another. What you, and so many of your ilk fail to recognize is that literalism, in and of itself, is a fallacious method of interpretation. Nothing is devoid of context, everything you say is contextualized by your personal idiom. You use literalism as a shield for when someone calls bullshit on your carefully worded statement, you can feign innocence. Not only are your beliefs abhorrent and contrary to the Gospel, and not only do you lack the good sense to abandon them, you lack the spine to defend them honestly.

Now, you're claiming that you clearly didn't mean all the faithless, just Muderers(sic), Adulterers, people who have sex with family members, people who have sex with children, the criminally insane, and well, we all know "Certain unnatural sexual acts" is code for Gays. Because those are all clearly, equally offensive and equally worthy of death. (Nevermind, that scripture doesn't say that (quite the opposite really) and that you're trying to distill the entirety of the Law into a single idiom so devoid of context and meaning that it becomes completely wrong.)

I'm not claiming that, chum. The proof is in the post, which I copy here, with the relevant passage higlighted in bold and italics so you can make them out. Do you see the phrase 'the faithless' included in it ? Do you?

Oh but you are. As I demonstrated. You want to continue to play coy, and that's you're prerogative. Mines to make sure nobody mistakes your insipid lies for honesty.

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.
People who commit these crimes are depraved, and can't be saved. They haven't the Holy Spirit working in them. They are the worst of reprobates.They're outside of God's grace, and must be killed judicially to spare the rest of society their corrupting influence. An evil person is never happy, and death is a release from the suffering which they inflict upon themselves. What is kinder than that? If you spare the reprobate criminal's life, and give him his freedom, you are, in effect, protracting his suffering and eventual self-destruction and guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity.
If they were in God's grace, they would either be intimidated by the rule of law sufficiently to refrain from temptation to do these unholy acts or, having the Holy Spirit working in them, would be regenerated from that natural depravity whence springs all Evil.

You then proceed to give a somewhat cogent reasoning, at least cogent in that it echoes traditional justifications for capital punishment:Lex Taliones and all that. Though let it not go unnoticed that you're saying Gays need to be put to death to save them from corrupting society.

I didn't say gays need to be put to death. I said individuals who commit certain unnatural sexual acts are worthy of death. You're wrong, once again.

Yeah, we know what coded language is. We know "certin unnatural sexual acts" means. Which is why you use that euphemistic phrase instead of being specific.

"26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

FFS, you're not even good at this.

But then you go quite into the realm of vaudevillian villain, (I assume you're a fan of Vaudeville given your use of an outdated syntax in an attempt to make yourself sound smarter than you actually are.):

Outdated syntax to impress you? I write the way I do because I'm an old fashioned fellow. You and what you think about it don't come into it.

You speak this way, because you've concocted a fantasy that this somehow makes you interesting or cool. Honestly, I could empathize with someone trying to match wits above his station, but instead you somehow found a worse option and decided to declare yourself a hipster.

Hell replace "reprobate criminal" with "Jew" and you could headline Nuremberg, 1934.

Oh, dear. This is beyond desperation.

That's not a denial. The fact that your theology is completely indistinguishable from Nazi ideology beyond the group there in mentioned is an issue for you, not for me. (Though Imagine for you those groups overlap.)

But then you give the game away:

Oh?

But of course. They do these things because humans are naturally evil, and only the Holy Spirit, keeps them from going full Reaver. Thus, anyone who commits these crimes means they have no connection to the Holy Spirit. And by your reasoning, they must be killed to protect society from their corrupting influence, but also "future victims of their depravity." Because without the Holy Spirit they really just can't help themselves.So in effect, you've argued for the termination of the faithless.

Er, no. Only the people in the post.
You know, the one I quoted above several time because you have trouble understanding it. -

Yes, You've lied repeatedly, that is apparent.

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.

Because by Calvin's own definition, the Faithless are faithless specifically because they don't have the Holy Spirit working in them, they weren't elect. And since without the Holy Spirit, they really can't help themselves from yielding to these depravities, then it's only a matter of time before they do. Thus, in order to protect society all the faithless should be killed, otherwise you're "guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity."

Excellent! You've managed to grasp Calvinist theology!

A six year old can grasp the totality of his blasphemy. It's neither novel or clever.

And if that weren't vile enough, you have the gall to put God's decree on it.

It's not vile. It's God's will.

No, it's your will. It's your insipid bigotry. Bigotry which you have twisted the scriptures to suit.

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

But it's true, nonetheless. Your reactionary behaviour - lying, disingenuousness, and vulgar language has been unChristian.

Once again, vulgar language isn't a thing, and nothing here is reactionary. Christ didn't guard his tongue when chastizing the scribes and pharisess, so I certainly won't guard my tongue with the likes of you. And you can toss your smears all you want, but your inability to read the room, is palpable, as nobody here has bought what you're selling. Thank, God. You might be a lost cause, but they aren't. And the proof really is available who the liar is, by the simple fact is that I've fully demonstrated what you said, and you didn't even have the sense to deny it. No counter argument, no treatise on why I might be misinterpreted Calvin. No poking holes in the logion fleshing out the implications of your beliefs. No your only response was to scoff and wax sarcastic.

But if I did that then we'd both be liars.

Only you and God know whether you're a liar. A God who I worder whether you really believe in, given your deceit.

See, now that is desperate.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.

Because by Calvin's own definition, the Faithless are faithless specifically because they don't have the Holy Spirit working in them, they weren't elect. And since without the Holy Spirit, they really can't help themselves from yielding to these depravities, then it's only a matter of time before they do. Thus, in order to protect society all the faithless should be killed, otherwise you're "guaranteeing the destruction of future victims of his depravity."

Excellent! You've managed to grasp Calvinist theology!

A six year old can understand the grasp the totality of his blasphemy. It's neither novel or clever.

Wait, is that what Calvinists actually believe? That adulterers, gays, pedophiles, the incestuous, murderers, and whatever-the-fuck "criminally insane" is supposed mean should be executed? Like, this is actually what John Calvin himself preached? Because that's pretty monstrous.

[Tarsonis]

The Bible tells us to 'put away evil from among you' by inflicting the death penalty upon people who commit the most heinous crimes - murder, adultery, incest, paedophilia, criminal insanity and certain unnatural sexual acts.



Excellent! You've managed to grasp Calvinist theology!

A six year old can understand the grasp the totality of his blasphemy. It's neither novel or clever.

Wait, is that what Calvinists actually believe? That adulterers, gays, pedophiles, the incestuous, murderers, and whatever-the-fuck "criminally insane" is supposed mean should be executed? Like, this is actually what John Calvin himself preached? Because that's pretty monstrous.

Turelisa is taking Calvin's view to the extreme, though Calvin wasn't above killing people he didn't think were elect.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Wait, is that what Calvinists actually believe? That adulterers, gays, pedophiles, the incestuous, murderers, and whatever-the-fuck "criminally insane" is supposed mean should be executed? Like, this is actually what John Calvin himself preached? Because that's pretty monstrous.

Turelisa is taking Calvin's view to the extreme, though Calvin wasn't above killing people he didn't think were elect.

Define "elect".

[Punished UMN]

Turelisa is taking Calvin's view to the extreme, though Calvin wasn't above killing people he didn't think were elect.

Define "elect".

So, in Calvinism, the elect are those chosen before all time to be saved. Technically, in all of Christianity, that's true, but in Christianity, the elect includes all of humanity, one has to decide to reject your election to eternal life by God. Calvin says that those who are damned were chosen by God before all time to be damned.

[Tarsonis]

Define "elect".

So, in Calvinism, the elect are those chosen before all time to be saved. Technically, in all of Christianity, that's true, but in Christianity, the elect includes all of humanity, one has to decide to reject your election to eternal life by God. Calvin says that those who are damned were chosen by God before all time to be damned.

Eh to be fair, double election is a criticism of Calvin's theology, and not one he overtly espoused. Though the fact that he didn't think the implications through of what he was saying is telling.

[Luminesa]

Tbh this is not the first time that Turelisa has advocated that the likes of LGBT people be killed, so it's no surprise.

Snakes are not welcome in this thread, nor is the poison that they pour into the ears of those who will listen tolerated.

Anyone is allowed to come talk in this thread as long as they want to contribute something positive, or any sort of conversation. NCR and some of us may have our disagreements, but he hasn't made toxic statements twisting the Bible to say killing gay people is okay. We've had far better Calvinists in this thread who haven't come to poison the well. I don't like what I've seen from you. Please leave.

[Tarsonis]

Snakes are not welcome in this thread, nor is the poison that they pour into the ears of those who will listen tolerated.

Anyone is allowed to come talk in this thread as long as they want to contribute something positive, or any sort of conversation. NCR and some of us may have our disagreements, but he hasn't made toxic statements twisting the Bible to say killing gay people is okay. We've had far better Calvinists in this thread who haven't come to poison the well. I don't like what I've seen from you. Please leave.

Not gonna lie, you're such a delightful person that there is something absolutely blood chilling when you get stern.

[Luminesa]

Anyone is allowed to come talk in this thread as long as they want to contribute something positive, or any sort of conversation. NCR and some of us may have our disagreements, but he hasn't made toxic statements twisting the Bible to say killing gay people is okay. We've had far better Calvinists in this thread who haven't come to poison the well. I don't like what I've seen from you. Please leave.

Not gonna lie, you're such a delightful person that there is something absolutely blood chilling when you get stern.

There was a Tumblr text post once that said, "I want children to think I'm a fairy but I want grown men to fear me," and I always thought, "Gee, you know that's not the worst goal."

[Aeritai]

You know things get serious when Lumi gets angry.

Anyway, to stay on topic I have a question for you guys. Should Church sermons be comfortable or uncomfortable? What I mean by this is that should a sermon be lighthearted or should it tug at your heart strings to make you feel guilty for what you have done that might've upset God?

[Luminesa]

You know things get serious when Lumi gets angry.

Anyway, to stay on topic I have a question for you guys. Should Church sermons be comfortable or uncomfortable? What I mean by this is that should a sermon be lighthearted or should it tug at your heart strings to make you feel guilty for what you have done that might've upset God?

I think it's fine to shake-up a congregation a little, as long as it's not solely for the purpose of shock. Some flocks are very lax and should be told what's up. Some who DO know what's up probably need something that will help them to continue their growth. It really comes down to knowing your congregation and their spiritual needs. I have heard my pastor give some incredibly heart-wrenching sermons, and some very funny ones, and some quieter ones. It's definitely a skill that requires a pretty good understanding of your audience, which is often very vast and diverse.

[Sundiata]

My friend enjoyed the updated answer about purgatory but I'm still having trouble conveying what heaven is "like," so to speak. I'm not sure if this is a limitation of being alive or a theological misunderstanding upon my part.

She's still enthusiastic about the progression it takes for a soul to get to heaven, the virtues, the commitment. Where I'm losing her I think, is conveying the sensory experience of heaven. When I use words like "love" to describe communion with God she responds, "Well, I can't get love on earth."

She's having a very difficult time understanding the distinction of God's love from others. She's also struggling to comprehend that heaven isn't like an amusement park or her favorite movie, or hanging out with your best friend. It's incomprehensibly better.

Tl;dr: how do I describe heaven to someone who's walking back into her faith?

[Tarsonis]

My friend enjoyed the updated answer about purgatory but I'm still having trouble conveying what heaven is "like," so to speak I'm not sure if this is a limitation of being alive or a theological misunderstanding upon my part.

She's still enthusiastic about the progression it takes for a soul to get to heaven, the virtues, the commitment. Where I'm losing her I think, is conveying the sensory experience of heaven. When I use words like "love" to describe communion with God she responds, "Well, I can't get love on earth."

She's having a very difficult time understanding the distinction of God's love from others. She's also struggling to comprehend that heaven isn't like an amusement park or her favorite movie, or hanging out with your best friend. It's incomprehensibly better.

Tl;dr: how do I describe heaven to someone who's walking back into her faith?

We actually don't know what heaven will be like. We have some allegorical portrayals, but all we really have is Christ told us it won't be like earth. What we do know, is that whatever heaven turns out to be like, it will be bliss, because it is the natural ordination of the soul. The soul is supposed to be in heaven, thus being in heaven is the complete absence of any conflict, it is perfect harmony.


I dunno, if she's a rick and morty fan tell her it's sort of like "True Level."

[Sundiata]

I dunno, if she's a rick and morty fan tell her it's sort of like "True Level."

As tempting as that would be, I don't want to risk offending her any further.

I already compared Superman to Joseph of Cupertino in our last conversation pertaining to theology (they both fly). I am on very thin ice with respect to pop-culture references.

[Sundiata]

We actually don't know what heaven will be like. We have some allegorical portrayals, but all we really have is Christ told us it won't be like earth.

That's a little unfortunate, I looked over Dante's Paradiso earlier in the week to get a sense of one idealized conception of heaven and I was hit hard by the beauty of Dante's words. He was right to ultimately have his most beautiful love unmask herself as theology. It makes sense, no? After all, it was Beatrice who brought him more and more close to God.

Because, as you have seen, my loveliness which, even as we climb the steps of this eternal palace, blazes with more brightness.

Were it not tempered here, would be so brilliant that, as it flashed, your mortal faculty would seem a branch a lightning bolt has cracked.

In any other context, this surely would be an extremely vain statement for anyone to make. But epitomizing theology itself, it's a sensible notion because our mortal faculties do have their limits as they pertain to knowledge.