Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

You have a flair for ignoring context. The question, as posed, was asking whether a person who was moral by Christian standards (the asker made reference to Bible reading and church attendance) would be made immoral by one little sin that didn't appear to hurt anybody. I answered it as it was asked, not as I decided to construe it. You seem to read everything I write as a stand-alone, self-serving, senf-righteous declaration that stomps all over anyone's personal taste or views. That is not what I do: I go to threads where questions are asked and try to give the asker an answer and some reasoning, then bring more thought in to challenge the asker to think forward and onward. If I just wanted to argue, I'd go write in more threads; but I don't. Instead I avoid the threads in which I'd only argue. I care about people like evin290 who asked for perspective, and I go where I'm wanted.


I did not mean to lump them together as you perceived. Allow me to clarify: I used them as examples in which the sinfulness was clear to the asker. In your case, as a reader, you even recognized the wrongfulness. The lump I truly use includes "little white lies," "selling a female slave to a foreigner," and "divorcing your wife." I didn't mention everything in the lump because not every one was necessary or useful to make my point.

The point I made, which I don't expect you personally to understand, but I do expect evin to understand, is that you can't mix good and bad together and come out with good. This is the forest you missed while obsessing with the trees.


I will not argue homosexuality here, or anywhere on this forum. There are children present. Please don't ask me to.


First, there's lots to life and living richly other than sin. Lots of good stuff. And I know you've been hurt by other people who have done wrong, but neither you nor humanity in general need to continue the cycle.

Second, the Bible itself says that all of humans (even Christians) have sinned. That implies that... yes, every single person on the Earth is hell-bound. You spoke a truth that I bet you didn't think I'd agree with. Being a human with fallen human nature is sinful, just as you suggest.

I do not get out of hell's grasp by stopping the sins, nor by making up for them with good deeds. Neither way works. Neither way is practicable or within human reach. There is only one sin-free party, and it's his sinlessness (not mine) and life in trade for my sinfullness and death that gets me into heaven. That's Christianity 101, the most basic fact of the Bible's Gospel, the reason Jesus died, and one fact I am glad I got to mention since you brought it up. Thank you.

Anything else you want to corner me into saying? You may force me to blurt out all the wonderful things of God and Christianity if you keep pushing

_________________

You're at about an 8 on the ole' tension scale there, Buz. Debate the issue(s), not each others misperceptions. Although I know I'm the perfect person to take that adive from . . . .

Actually, I've got much bigger problems than what some guy on the internet says or thinks, if any tension is showing through it's probably fallout from bigger things.

But also I try to have a target audience in mind when I write. When Upsilon makes a post and I reply, I write slowly over weeks with lots of references and elaborate logic. When Dr. Zaius rushes in with a short and incindiary post, I bring the full force of his comments back if I can. I still try to be a conduit of grace, but I let the previous person set the momentum.

Many subcultures have extra baggage when communicating, evolutionists would say it's a leftover from when proto-homonids determined rank in the pack by who could howl the loudest. Whatever the reason, sometimes people need to know you're not going to back down just 'cause they're being belligerent. Those people won't respect you until you prove you're not a wussy. And I am not.

On the other hand, some people are belligerent to weed out other belligerent people, and those people are waiting for someone kind to come along and surprise them. Only then will they listen to the person who's earned their trust.

So which one is Dr. Zaius? Which one is fossilize_apostle? I can't be sure on the internet, so I took a risk. Plus, it's about impossible to be the trusted confidant with listening ears and attentive eyes over the internet, that person will have to be someone they meet in person. And I'm not just speaking to these and other belligerent users, I'm on display for the whole English-speaking world. So boldness was my choice for today.

Needless to say, after the post I relax on the couch and watch an episode of Babylon 5 without so much as a bulging vein on the forehead, hoping that I'm doing what's best for Dr. Zaius but getting into the Whitestar battles more.

_________________

Very well said, Buz, I agree with the origins of your thoughts on this.



You refernce my kind of talk! Are you much into biology/evolution?

No, but I know that you are and I'm doing the "knowing my audience" just like I said

I really do like the study of biology and value the lessons from it. I don't mind studying evolution as a theory, but there's so much political and emotional baggage on the theory that when someone says "I don't buy it" then everyone gets mad. If I said "I don't think pulsars are black dwarf stars, I think they're hydrogen around a brown dwarf," no one would care. If I said "I think that omega-3 fatty acids are bad for your prostate," people may professionally disagree, but I wouldn't suffer for it. If I say "I simply don't think evolution happened," I get attacked by rabid were-scientists and their brainwashed students. It's really not worth it.

I haven't posted a lot in the evolution thread because I don't have a lot to say. If someone is pushing theistic evolution and a non-Christian asks me what I think as a Christian, I will not argue the point. The only people I argue the point with are Christians.

Why did the "Church" persecute Galileo? Because the church "bought into" Plato's (or was it Ptolemy's?) theory of the geocentric sphere universe. The religious people got all emotional and believed it and later said it was consistent with their beliefs, and it finally got canonized for no good reason. The same thing could possibly happen here: Christians start supporting theistic evolution, the Pope says it's what happens, and in 100 years all official Christendom says humans evolved. Then a scientist may prove (or propose as a theory) that evolution didn't happen. That person would then be persecuted by the church for his scientific beliefs like Galileo. So, I am cool with Christians learning evolution, but when they start saying they "believe it really happened" and "buy into it," and that "the church should endorse and teach it," they are sadly mistaken and about to repeat one of the stupidest things in history.

Similarly, politicans should forget about pretending they understand science. That's how we get stuff like "global warming." Other people who should quit pretending they know a ton about science: news anchors, infomercial presenters, political activists, movie authors, and kids without a college degree in a science.

Anyway, back to the point, I like learning, but I don't buy everything.

_________________