So much wrong in one post. Let's begin:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redmancometh
Wow you almost made me forget we lived in America for a second! A true American would fight for that right, as it IS a right...
|
These people are True Christians™ first, Americans second. Why do you think so many Christians are fighting against the rights of gays?
Quote:
...Furthermore, a true Christian would NOT judge. Cast the first stone, judge not lest you be judged, etc. Romans 2:1 is the best example I can think of though...
|
Let's look at what Romans 2:1 actually says, shall we?
Romans 2:1 "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for
thou that judgest doest the same things."
It's not a proscription on judging at all. It's a continuation of the theme of Matthew 7:1-5 (the ever-misunderstood "Judge not..." passage) which says to not judge hypocritically. If you do something, you cannot judge someone else for doing the same thing. If, however, you are truly Saved™, Jesus has removed all sin from you, and as you now without sin, you can throw as many rocks as you like.
Quote:
...You can't say I'm wrong either, because if you quote something to the contrary you are saying the word of god is false insofar as the bible IS the inerrant word of god...
|
Guess what? YOU'RE WRONG. You may quote the Scriptures all you like, but if you take them out of context (like you've done above) or misunderstand them, you are wrong.
Quote:
...It's a good thing societal perception, and more specifically your opinion isn't tantamount to the laws of god. Do you know why that's a good thing? Because MOST of OUR culture believes in pre-marital sex, drinking, smoking, and partying...
|
That's an appeal to majority, which is a fallacy. You're wrong, again.
Quote:
...So if societal perception determined what is and isn't holy premarital sex would be ok...
|
So what do you think is right? "Societal perception" or the Word of God? As little as 70 years ago, lynching black people for the crime of being black people was accepted in many areas of the United States. Do you think it was right?
Quote:
...The only other thing left to condemn those who chew tobacco is *huh* science! Except even science fails in this endeavor, as it does in many others...
|
Wrong again. Chaw has been proven to cause oral and esophageal cancer.
Quote:
...I am not here to argue with you...
|
HA! What other point is there to your post, but arguing?
Quote:
... You are committing several sins with this post:
A) You are trying to pass YOUR and societie's opinion as the word of god. That is one of the most egregious transgressions possible!...
|
Egregious transgression of what? Your opinion? What value does your opinion have, when it's not backed up by either the Bible or science?
Quote:
...B) What you have said is slander towards any woman who does choose to use chewing tobacco. Peter, James, and Matthew all contain references to those who slander. You should find them rather illuminating...
|
You should check the definition of the word slander before you accuse someone of it.
Quote:
slan·der [slan-der] Show IPA
noun
1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law . defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander
|
If it's the truth, it's not slander.
Quote:
...C) Do you have any proof of Michelle Obama's chewing tobacco habit? If not this is yet more slander, and even more dishonest...
|
Do you have proof she doesn't?
Quote:
...Think of the lord before you speak lest your pride lead to your fall.
|
Back atcha.