Homosexuality Is NOT A Sin: What Christ Said And More

[Vashfan1600]

Gho the Girl

Vashfan1600

Gho the Girl

Vashfan1600

Gho the Girl

Funny, but I don't see a quantifier in
"Oh well, adventists are nuts anyway."

Tell me, honestly, where in there does it say Isaac was specifically talking about the ones Isaac knew?

Please, point it out where Isaac specified that the ones Isaac said were nuts were the ones that Isaac specifically knew.

I don't know how to quote in the middle of a post, so I'll do with what I can

"So what? I think I'd know something about them since I had the unfortunate experience of being one (in a way) for three years because of my dad. My friends are also SDA and I still think the lot of them are nuts."

From that point, let alone the beginning of that post, stating why she had that perspective, was showing that she was aiming it at the adventists she knew.

Yes, because it is NEVER the case that someone can start with a personal experience and then use that to justify a generalisation of a group.

People NEVER do that. Ever. In the History of Universe. Nope.

For instance, I couldn't, for example, say

"I knew this Jew once who shorted me on a tip. Jews are such misers."

Or could I?

Given that no specifier was given within the remark regardin SDA sanity, it grammatically applies to all SDA's, just as grammatically, my comment regarding Jewish miserliness applies to all Jews.

Quote:

Plus, calling someone 'nuts' these days is like calling them silly, it's not serious enough to be taken as an insult, like crazy, or bat sh*t insane. ninja That was limited to being aimed directly at that mother. So please, quote in context, it means a lot to the meaning of words.

The meaning and relative insultingness of a term depends on the context of how it's used, and who's listening. How you view the term "nuts" is not how I view it. Why do you think sexual harassment is based not so much upon what is being said as much as whether people find it offensive? The offensiveness of a term depends upon who's saying it and who's listening. For instance, the offensiveness of the N word not only matters for who's using it and how it's being used, but also on who's listening. Some people will universally find it offensive, while others will find it offensive only in certain circumstances.

Offense is relative to the audience.

Of course it was your choice to assume that she was generalizing the entire group instead of talking about the people that she had been previously in her post, because context never has any importance, right?

Grammatically and contextually, there is nothing to indicate that the statement "Oh well, Adventists are nuts" was directed specifically at the ones she knew, just as my analogy with Jews contextually nor grammatically indicates I am only speaking of the Jew who shorted me on the tip.

Quote:

And the last part was kinda just a joke, hence the ninja face.

Nonetheless, you posted it, and I responded. Just because I don't laugh doesn't mean I don't recognize the joke, it probably just means I didn't find it funny.

Exactly, it's up to the reader to decide how they perceive it, you took it as a generalization, so you acted to defend your friend. So I came in to correct you and defend my friend. We are both doing this for the same reason, so I say we just let it go, call shenanigans on the whole issue, and let people more (or less, considering these trolls) intelligent than me debate on the appropriate subject matter at hand. I would hate to be a part of the thread de-railing that gets it shut down.

[Gho the Girl]

Vashfan1600

Exactly, it's up to the reader to decide how they perceive it, you took it as a generalization, so you acted to defend your friend.

Not entirely. Going from an objective, grammatical and contextual standpoint, there is no qualifier or specifier to implicate what you percieved.

So, yes, my take was my personal take, but it is also supported through the grammar, context, and structure of the post.

Quote:

So I came in to correct you and defend my friend. We are both doing this for the same reason, so I say we just let it go, call shenanigans on the whole issue, and let people more (or less, considering these trolls) intelligent than me debate on the appropriate subject matter at hand. I would hate to be a part of the thread de-railing that gets it shut down.

We are not doing this for the same reason. Don't dare assume you know my intentions.

I've presented a topic that is within the context of the thread, feel free to participate, start your own contextualized line of discussion, or not.

[linaloki]

Gho the Girl

On topic:

Has anyone else read the Gospel of the Infancy of Thomas? If so, why do you all think it wasn't included within the orthodoxy?

I've heard of the Gospel of Thomas... I don't know if anything about infancy was added in...

Most likely, if it's the same thing, it'd be because Thomas was a doubter. Or something. neutral I think there was a Gospel of Peter that didn't make it either, so...

[JesusSonOfGod]

I don't know why people keep making such a big deal about this.

Yeah, getting married kinda complicates the whole don't-adulterate-but-have-lots-of-kids thing but Dad put us here with free will and if buttsex is your gravest sin then to be honest you'll probably be one of the first in line.

[Yeshua Xristo]

JesusSonOfGod

I don't know why people keep making such a big deal about this.

Yeah, getting married kinda complicates the whole don't-adulterate-but-have-lots-of-kids thing but Dad put us here with free will and if buttsex is your gravest sin then to be honest you'll probably be one of the first in line.

...

And just what do you think you're doing? stare

[JesusSonOfGod]

Yeshua Xristo

JesusSonOfGod

I don't know why people keep making such a big deal about this.

Yeah, getting married kinda complicates the whole don't-adulterate-but-have-lots-of-kids thing but Dad put us here with free will and if buttsex is your gravest sin then to be honest you'll probably be one of the first in line.

...

And just what do you think you're doing? stare

Oh, no, an imposter! I guess the only solution is to crucify us both blaugh

Seriously, though, that must be a rhetorical question because I'm just doing what I've always done. You're trying to invalidate me with your fancy dress and cross and all that, but it doesn't really matter because what's real is real and that's God's domain, not yours.

[Yeshua Xristo]

JesusSonOfGod

Yeshua Xristo

JesusSonOfGod

I don't know why people keep making such a big deal about this.

Yeah, getting married kinda complicates the whole don't-adulterate-but-have-lots-of-kids thing but Dad put us here with free will and if buttsex is your gravest sin then to be honest you'll probably be one of the first in line.

...

And just what do you think you're doing? stare

Oh, no, an imposter! I guess the only solution is to crucify us both blaugh

Seriously, though, that must be a rhetorical question because I'm just doing what I've always done. You're trying to invalidate me with your fancy dress and cross and all that, but it doesn't really matter because what's real is real and that's God's domain, not yours.

I know what's my Dad's domain and what's not. I also know that I said more than just one true thing in what people today call the Bible. You, it seems, do not. So out with you, demon and tempter.

[John Calvin]

Oh stop, you two. None of you are Jesus, and I'm not joking about this.

[Isaac488]

I smell scorched blasphemers >.>

[Inscriven]

John Calvin

Oh stop, you two. None of you are Jesus, and I'm not joking about this.

I know a Jesus who works at the Taqueria down the street. He's legit.

[linaloki]

John Calvin

Oh stop, you two. None of you are Jesus, and I'm not joking about this.

They're not coming back, don't worry.

[BlairVoyant]

Yeshua Xristo

JesusSonOfGod

Yeshua Xristo

JesusSonOfGod

I don't know why people keep making such a big deal about this.

Yeah, getting married kinda complicates the whole don't-adulterate-but-have-lots-of-kids thing but Dad put us here with free will and if buttsex is your gravest sin then to be honest you'll probably be one of the first in line.

...

And just what do you think you're doing? stare

Oh, no, an imposter! I guess the only solution is to crucify us both blaugh

Seriously, though, that must be a rhetorical question because I'm just doing what I've always done. You're trying to invalidate me with your fancy dress and cross and all that, but it doesn't really matter because what's real is real and that's God's domain, not yours.

I know what's my Dad's domain and what's not. I also know that I said more than just one true thing in what people today call the Bible. You, it seems, do not. So out with you, demon and tempter.

Apparently, this thread is your domain wink

[Crystal Dragon Jesus]

Gays are cool! Go Jesus! HOORAY!

[Gho the Girl]

linaloki

Gho the Girl

On topic:

Has anyone else read the Gospel of the Infancy of Thomas? If so, why do you all think it wasn't included within the orthodoxy?

I've heard of the Gospel of Thomas... I don't know if anything about infancy was added in...

Most likely, if it's the same thing, it'd be because Thomas was a doubter. Or something. neutral I think there was a Gospel of Peter that didn't make it either, so...

Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings that Jesus said, if you accept the gnostic perspective. (although some of the sayings were added in later)

The Gospel of Infancy Thomas is a collection of stories about the child Christ. It basically "fills in" the years of Jesus's life that the Bible doesn't cover, i.e. his childhood and adolescence. It's interesting mythos.