@Android Raptor Love Thread

[Billy Bob Dick]

• 2/3 teaspoon salt
• 1/2 teaspoon thyme
• 1/2 teaspoon basil
• 1/3 teaspoon oregano
• 1 teaspoon celery salt
• 1 teaspoon black pepper
• 1 teaspoon dried mustard
• 4 teaspoons paprika
• 2 teaspoons garlic salt
• 1 teaspoon ground ginger
• 3 teaspoons white pepper

black, not "blackened"

 

[Meiwaku]

@Android raptor x @SSj_Ness forever

 

[Pooner]

@SSj_Ness @Billy Bob Dick now kiss

 

[Bargain Bin Laden]

View attachment 5652904

@Android raptor x @SSj_Ness forever

Can we make it a threesome?

@SSj_Ness @Billy Bob Dick now kiss

Can we make it a threesome?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Can we make it a threesome?

Can we make it a threesome?

Dibs on the cuck chair.

 

[Android raptor]

Dibs on the cuck chair.

Nah you're getting impregnated

 

[Bargain Bin Laden]

Nah you're getting impregnated

You both are.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I'm not getting an abortion.

 

[Bargain Bin Laden]

I'm not getting an abortion.

Neither of you are.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Again, I never suggested otherwise, you simply seem to be conflating sacrilege with blasphemy, they're not interchangeable.

Paul is not sacred, and pointing out he was a mortal, flawed man is not sacrilege.

It's not an excuse, it's a reality.

That's what I said.

Even Christians are capable of sin.

I put challenge to you as to whether your behavior here is Christ-like, and you replied by quoting Roman's 3:23. That read like a "I am only human/I can't claim perfection" response. That means either a "yes, I suck" or a "hey, it's cool because God knows we are imperfect so I can be however and it's still good" response. Which one did you mean?

Point: yes, per the Bible, everyone (Christian or not) is inherently flawed and sinful. That's not a defense for behaving that way. Persisting in sin is an additional offense, and I'd suggest that having knowledge of what is sin and choosing to continue it is a greater sin than ignorance or disagreement.

If I completely misunderstood your point, then what was your point in responding to my comment with that verse?

"To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." - Titus 2:5

Lol, another missive from Paul, who definitely did not have disproportionate representation in the New Testament. How about something from someone else, since we agree Paul was just a mortal man, and all mortals are fallible and flawed.

...

In that same chapter, Paul also said slaves should be "submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity." Titus 2:9-10.
Nope, no historical context or mutable/situational social values at play here at all.

And lol, that direction you quoted was addressed only to what older women should teach younger women. As for me & my cohort, all we have to do is "to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink [and] to teach what is good" -Titus 2:3. Yay!

I'll also note that this book also says that people should

• "be subject to rulers and authorities,"
• "be obedient,"
• "be peaceable and considerate," and
• "always to be gentle toward everyone."

Titus 3:1-2.

Just putting it out there.

You've not articulated a contradiction, but if one existed, obviously Jesus.

I did, though. Jesus treated women as equal, and equally capable and worthy of being his disciple and his representative. Paul said women aren't qualified/appropriate for being church leaders. Either that is a contradiction (yes, analogized, but errrrthing jn the Bible is interpreted by analogy, as I pointed out in my prior comment, which points you didn't take up), or Paul's words should be understood in quality, correctness, and authority as limited to and by his existence as a mortal man in a certain time and society.

And I'm pleased you agree that Jesus wins on this point.

 

[Billy Bob Dick]

Paul is not sacred, and pointing out he was a mortal, flawed man is not sacrilege.

I feel like Paul is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too important to the modern church. Most churches elevate the words of Paul above the words of Jesus himself, which is just pure lunacy in a religion literally called "Chrsitianity."

 

[Bargain Bin Laden]

And throwing a kid onto the street for being gay is abuse

Not when they turn 18.

That's a she?

I'm nondenominational, and I rarely go, usually just on Christmas.

Some Christian you are. Why don’t you stop arguing with people on the computer and go to church.

 

[Billy Bob Dick]

Some Christian you are. Why don’t you stop arguing with people on the computer and go to church.

see, that's what I'M saying

 

[Bargain Bin Laden]

@SSj_Ness should stick to what he’s good at.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Paul is not sacred, and pointing out he was a mortal, flawed man is not sacrilege.

The Holy Bible is; you are not reading the writings of a random man you found on a bathroom stall. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

That's what I said.

Then what do you think we're disagreeing about?

put challenge to you as to whether your behavior here is Christ-like

My attitude isn't, but even an Atheist familiar with the Christianity could make these same correct arguments. You have a problem with the messenger, but focus on the message.

Which one did you mean?

Clearly the former, I find this question disingenuous.

I'd suggest that having knowledge of what is sin and choosing to continue it is a greater sin than ignorance or disagreement.

It's not just what you'd suggest, that's exactly what the Bible says.

Lol, another missive from Paul

You're free to ignore everything in the Bible except the actual recorded words and actions of Jesus Christ if you want, but even then you are relying on humans.

This is to say, either you believe what others in the Bible say (including Paul, who said all scripture is inspired by God) or you don't (and thus can't even trust what is recorded about Jesus Christ). You can't have it both ways, choose one.

In that same chapter, Paul also said slaves should be "submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity." Titus 2:9-10.
Nope, no historical context or mutable/situational social values at play here at all.

I'm willing to debate but I'm not here to educate you. Here's a start for you to rectify your ignorance on the subject, if you so desire:

Translations of the Bible intended for popular and liturgical use rather than merely scholarly use have to contend with readers not knowing the details of ancient slavery and its points of differences with the modern harshly negative implications of the term "slave." The Hebrew term `ebed is usually used for slave or bondsman (fellow Jews controlled for a period of time in a state closer to indentured servitude), but it can also refer to servants. Naaman the Aramean is referred to as an `ebed, for example, yet is clearly a person of high status and rank. The Greek term doulos (δοῦλος) more directly refers to slaves (diakonos is a separate word for "servant"); however, the Septuagint frequently translates the Hebrew `ebed to Greek doulos in senses where the original meant "servant", leaving it not entirely clear. More generally, favored slaves in antiquity could receive some of the status of their owners, could accumulate wealth and property, hold their own slaves, and so on. Thus, the slave of someone sufficiently exalted such as a king or emperor could well have a social status higher than a common free man; Paul's introduction of himself in Romans 1:1 as a doulos of Jesus Christ was probably not meant to be as humbly as a modern English sense of "slave" would be. These considerations mean that most translations tend to favor using "servant" and equivalents in other languages, although some translations will have a footnote that the Greek is literally "slave".[110]

that direction you quoted was addressed only to what older women should teach younger women.

Which constitutes gender roles. You haven't denied you want them abolished as I accused you of, so therefore I can only conclude that you do, which is why you take issue with this.

Just putting it out there.

I'll do my best, thanks.

Jesus treated women as equal, and equally capable and worthy of being his disciple and his representative.

Where did Jesus Christ specifically advocate for them to act in the role of a pastor?

errrrthing jn the Bible is interpreted by analogy, as I pointed out in my prior comment, which points you didn't take up

Extraneous pontification will be ignored.

And I'm pleased you agree that Jesus wins on this point.

He certainly would if there were any inconsistency, which you've failed to adequately indicate.

I feel like Paul is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too important to the modern church. Most churches elevate the words of Paul above the words of Jesus himself, which is just pure lunacy in a religion literally called "Chrsitianity."

Catholics do that with all sorts of Biblical figures, especially Mary for some reason. I don't, however.

Why don’t you stop arguing with people on the computer and go to church.

I should, I'm too distracted by the furry rape roleplay thread. Or was it the scat roleplay thread? I get them mixed up.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

The Holy Bible is; you are not reading the writings of a random man you found on a bathroom stall. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Ugh. You've turned back into the circle. Was expecting better.

But whatever; The Bible was assembled by man/humans. Men/humans are fallible. Therefore there is a possibility that the Bible was imperfectly assembled.

EVEN IF God bothered to get into the weeds and micromanage what made the final cut, give it the divine imprimatur. the nature of man/humanity is that he will inject his personal view, regardless of receipt of clear words from God Himself. So again: imperfect.

Moreover, even in the Bible (NT), there is a distinction between the words of Jesus and the words of others, believers or not. Paul was a human man.

But (and I mean this in a not-bitchy way) I understand that - especially in matters of faith - sometimes the answer is just "I can't make it square or resolve everything; it just is."

I gave some opportunities for flex by acknowledging Paul's humanity and what that may mean (by his own words, even).

You want to sidestep, for purposes of adhering to the literal, cherry-picked words that happened to be included in a couple of letters cherry-picked for inclusion in the Biblical anthology, the possibilities both/ either of Paul's being influenced by any societal or other then-current standard/ framework, and/or his innate fallibility.

OK. But I do believe God would like you to use the brain and discernment He gave you to think all of that through very carefully.

Then what do you think we're disagreeing about?

Idk about you, but I am trying to have a discussion, one I hope is ultimately useful and engaging for everyone involved.

But on the micro-point, whether Paul, a mortal man and believer, was possibly the least tiny bit influenced by the human expectations/norms at the time he wrote. I think it is highly likely that he - like every other person in the history of the world - was. You disagree?

My attitude isn't, but even an Atheist familiar with the Christianity could make these same correct arguments. You have a problem with the messenger, but focus on the message.

The messenger? You mean you? Some months back, I had semi-concluded that you were an irrationally angry and nastily mean person/persona with whom no conversation or debate could be had. Because I am how I am, though, I have read your comments neutrally when they appear in places I read, with rational optimism/interest. So in this thread, I chose to engage with you. I would not have done so if I thought "the messenger" was completely unworthy or had no basis for what they said or was impossible to engage with. So, if you're suggesting I'm blinded by the fact it's you/r username, I am not.

If you mean Paul: I have been reading his messages within the human boundaries of the time and place this clearly devoted man existed. I have a vague sense that there are hardcore critics of Paul, but I don't know their arguments or sign on to any anti-Paulite threads if thought, if they exist.

The focus, from a philosophical standpoint should 100% be the message, and that is why the quotidian gender dynamics of first-century Middle East, and the related side commentary embedded in some of Paul's exhortations, is irrelevant and should be down-tiered accordingly.

And give me rainbows, but I just cannot believe that good, smart, and thoughtful Christians cannot make distinctions between Jesus and [anyone else], between higher principles and petty self-preservation.

even an Atheist

And I am not an atheist, nor have I ever said I was. So not sure what that reference was.

It's not just what you'd suggest, that's exactly what the Bible says.

Yes, it is. As I said. But I left that to you to connect with, according to your own understanding and belief.

This is to say, either you believe what others in the Bible say (including Paul, who said all scripture is inspired by God) or you don't (and thus can't even trust what is recorded about Jesus Christ). You can't have it both ways, choose one.

Disagree. It is possible to believe in God/have faith in God and Jesus/ embrace the Trinity, etc - be Christian - and yet still use the intellects we were gifted to think both positively and critically about human-written texts created 2000 years ago that were written, transcribed, translated, retranslated, retranslated, and selected for inclusion from a vaster pool at least in part by fallible humans subject to a variety of very present and life-alteringly-important influences. I've not suggested that anything or everything from Paul or otherwise should be dismissed or trashed; rather that beyond some huge universal principles, most things (wherever written) have a context that is human and societal. And as a personal perspective - I have to believe that we are expected and hoped by God to utilize our granted intellect to engage in exactly that kind of analysis - otherwise, what was our brain/intellect created for?

I'm willing to debate but I'm not here to educate you. Here's a start for you to rectify your ignorance on the subject, if you so desire:

Yeah, don't be a twit. "Slaves" is used in earlier translations (kjv); it's softened to "servants" in more contemporary ones. Regardless, calling out slaves or servants as a class unto themselves is reflective of a human history point and perspective. So the observation about societal context stands.

Which constitutes gender roles. You haven't denied you want them abolished as I accused you of, so therefore I can only conclude that you do, which is why you take issue with this.

Wut? This discussion is me challenging you. Don't lose the plot.

And ffs, I was playing around about Paul's list of rules for older women, Francis.

Where did Jesus Christ specifically advocate for them to act in the role of a pastor?

What rule says he had to do so explicitly?

Does everything Jesus did not say explicitly imply Jesus had a negative orientation toward something?

His actions tell us what he valued. And the man Jesus also lived in a human world at a point in human history. He pushed the standard expectations of that time (sex-related and otherwise). His efforts on that regard should be respected, not limited.

Further, the writers of the works that were considered for inclusion in the Bible did not actually have 2000-year-ahead visionary powers. Their choices of what to highlight, what was important, might or might not be universal. But whatever was discussed, it clearly wasn't exhaustive and wasn't intended as an immutable list for forever: there are no stories featuring Jesus talking Shota or csam or meth or family annihilation or whatever-the-fuck.

Extraneous pontification will be ignored.

Weak.

He certainly would if there were any inconsistency, which you've failed to adequately indicate.

See above.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

The Bible was assembled by man/humans. Men/humans are fallible. Therefore there is a possibility that the Bible was imperfectly assembled.

If one accepts that premise then one must also accept that what it says about Jesus Christ may also not be true, notions which I refuse to entertain as I have faith. You are free to believe as you will, but there is zero chance of me budging on this particular element of our debate.

whether Paul, a mortal man and believer, was possibly the least tiny bit influenced by the human expectations/norms at the time he wrote. I think it is highly likely that he - like every other person in the history of the world - was. You disagree?

I do entirely disagree for the reasons above.

Some months back, I had semi-concluded that you were an irrationally angry and nastily mean person/persona with whom no conversation or debate could be had.

At what, pray tell, is my anger unjustified to the degree that it is "irrational"? Provide a specific subject. Forgive me if I seem "nastily mean", I shouldn't be, but I do at least reserve it for those who earn it--even if it should be withheld.

Also, I prioritize civility in debate until someone else breeches that manner of conduct first, or unless I deem it justified (rare).

I am not an atheist, nor have I ever said I was.

Nor did I, this is a reading comprehension matter on your part.

I've not suggested that anything or everything from Paul or otherwise should be dismissed or trashed; rather that beyond some huge universal principles, most things (wherever written) have a context that is human and societal.

That's merely your opinion. I believe God used men for the Bible, and God doesn't make mistakes, which tainting it with human error would constitute.

Yeah, don't be a twit.

I do think this marks the first instance of name calling in our exchange, I will note, which is important considering how you've characterized me thus far.

Regardless, calling out slaves or servants as a class unto themselves is reflective of a human history point and perspective.

We don't have servants anymore? Hell, we still have slaves, especially depending on how it's defined. But again, this is getting away from the crux of the issue.

He pushed the standard expectations of that time (sex-related and otherwise).

True generally, but not to the extent you claim, and not in this manner you argue in particular.

Further, the writers of the works that were considered for inclusion in the Bible did not actually have 2000-year-ahead visionary powers. Their choices of what to highlight, what was important, might or might not be universal.

They were guided by God, which is better than having 2000-year-ahead visionary powers.

Are you sure you're a Christian? Answer me this directly now, are you a feminist who favors abolition of gender roles & norms?

Weak.

The feeling is mutual.

 

[Android raptor]

They were guided by God, which is better than having 2000-year-ahead visionary powers

Shitty god if it thinks I should be a submissive broodsow to some dude

 

[Waifu Days]

FYI - The Bronx Zoo is offering a one-of-a-kind Valentine’s Day gift -- naming a gigantic hissing cockroach after a loved one. https://bronxzoo.com/roach

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

If one accepts that premise then one must also accept that what it says about Jesus Christ may also not be true, notions which I refuse to entertain as I have faith. You are free to believe as you will, but there is zero chance of me budging on this particular element of our debate.

Well, sure, but there was a reason I didn't go that far. I am willing to accept, at least for debate/ discussion premises, that what is the Bible in red or ascribed to God is the actual Word. I recognize mine is not a fully rationalist/ skeptical position, but that's because I'm not an atheist or someone looking for cheap BOOM! online wins (and if your starting point is "none of it has any validity," then what's to debate? I wouldn't bother.) So I give a lot of bandwidth to self-described believers, because faith has an illogical quality to it, definitionally. And I don't say that as a denigration. That's simply what faith means. It's not a silver bullet...though believers might have more credibility if they just said, "I can't defend it in traditional ways but I believe it with everything.".

Back to point of societal context: a strong faith should be able to allow it has has some aspects that are reflective of the time of its inception - or may reflect compromises or limitations of the day of its origin, particularly on matters that are not true "core" tenets. Because of course every comment isn't a core tenet....nor should every word be weighed equally.

At what, pray tell, is my anger unjustified to the degree that it is "irrational"? Provide a specific subject. Forgive me if I seem "nastily mean", I shouldn't be, but I do at least reserve it for those who earn it--even if it should be withheld.

If you were to go back and review all your comments on this platform, do you think they would all - as expressed - be what Christ would say and how he would say it?

We don't have servants anymore? Hell, we still have slaves, especially depending on how it's defined. But again, this is getting away from the crux of the issue.

Do you think that societally we have the same concept and view of slaves and servants as existed in 1 A.D.?

True generally, but not to the extent you claim, and not in this manner you argue in particular.

As mentioned a couple comments back, Jesus engaged with women in ways his contemporary society did not.

Are you sure you're a Christian? Answer me this directly now, are you a feminist who favors abolition of gender roles & norms?

I gave a sermon on Youth Sunday to an old-school Southern Baptist congregation when I was 15 or 16 (if you're unfamiliar, youth Sunday is when engaged youth in the church take on the roles of church leaders - music, admin, etc.; I was given the pastor/preacher role, which meant I delivered the Sunday sermon for the main service [idr at this point if we did both the early and the main services, just remember the main service and my pastor passing me a kind complimentary note after I'd finished] - so I've been deeply steeped in Christianity for a long time, and challenged to be somewhat thoughtful about it. I changed churches as an adult, but still within the mainline Christian framework.

I don't favor abolition of gender. And my lived life has certainly aligned to basic gender roles - I am a dedicated mother whose greatest aim and hope has been the development of my children into good, wise, and thoughtful adults. They were christened, baptised and confirmed.

But is the thoughtful, loving, and focused rearing of my children the limit of my life as a woman and a person? Absolutely not. I'm a highly capable person. I have goals and aims that exist outside of 1st century (or fantastical 21st century) societal expectations for women.

Much like the women disciples of Christ who also bankrolled his tour/life, I also bring more to the table than birthing hips, great ta-tas, and a supplicating and pleasing demeanor (though I have or can do those, too).

Bottom line: if modern Christianity is aligned with Jesus Christ's model and demonstrated values, then it should be able - as Jesus did of everyone and everything - to think broadly and rationally about what is a universal truth and what was formed of injected human ego and conditioning, both of which are temporal, not universal, and therefore not godly.

Micromanaging people's home lives and roles seems...small.

The feeling is mutual.

This is telling, perhaps. I was referring to a specific and narrow point where your effort was so weak as not to need much of a response, not an overall characterization. Absent some specificity, your "feeling is mutual" suggests a general petty dismissal. Vying for petty and negative with "begone."