WTF is the point to being a Christian??

Well, that's more annoying for the reader than you. If anyone relies on the altered quote then all you have to do is point them towards the correct one.

But there a flip side to your request. You have demonstrated a history of substantially editing old posts. What's to stop you going back to edit your original post and then reporting the quoted post as false? After all you like to use the rules against people.

No, that just demonstrates that the conscious recognition takes place after the subconscious.

I was thinking that was kind of old for him. We're talking about Ed, right? He's a lecherous perv.

In theory my 53 year old self having sex with a hot 20 year old is disgusting and wrong. Now in reality I'd be crazy to turn that down! Of course I'm married so it's a moot point. But I still cozy up to that eye candy every chance I get - a man can dream, can't he?

Ya know, if someone has fiddled with my reply in a post of theirs, and it was important to me that people know what I really said... I'd quote my original post, so as to show those cursory viewers what I really said. Simple.

What I wouldn't do, is whine at the other poster to take it back; whine to the mods to ban the other poster for not taking it back; whine to the administrators for a change of rules to prevent it from happening in the future; and most certainly wouldn't whine about the injustice of it all, in one unrelated thread after another.

Hey, give me some credit here. I am trying to be less lecherous and pervy.

And more than likely, people wouldn't bother to do it to Chardman again, since their shenanigans would have proven ineffectual.

Or fight back with some unexpected comedy kung-fu, but that takes wit, and well...

Although, Dayton does surprise me, and crack a genuine funny now and then.
Wish we could see more of that guy, but the fundie/ideologue/troll side of Dayton gobbles him up like a frog down the gullet of Jabba.

Heck with being less of a perv....double down and go for it! Get a windowless van and you're halfway there.

Younger sons who did not stand to inherit unless they murdered their older brothers. They were the leaders. The foot soldiers were the excess peasants.

If they want to limit the ability to edit your old posts I'm okay with that as well.

That's stupid. How would we then go back and correct spelling or grammar?

Depending on where you are you might have to be Christian in order to get food, shelter or clothing (if there is no government aid and you are poor) or school.

Even in the developed world, there are places where it's kinda a prerequisite for being part of society. Also as many of our secular institutions have crumbled, mega churches have stepped in to provide that sort of community.

Some were but most of them were just common folk drawn by the promise of free land and the Pope's claim that anyone who went on Crusade and made it to the Holy Land automatically was granted a free pass into heaven. The Byzantines and Arabs saw it as just another barbarian migration and it really was.

Christians, by and large, are hypocrites. They pick and choose what laws and/or rules they want to follow or obey right now. It may change later as circumstances warrant or feelings change. The Old Testament is filled with what to do and what not to do, eat, sleep with, etc. Much like the Qur'an and Torah. But Christians give the old standby 'Jesus changed that or fixed that'. It appears that a lot of people don't want to follow ANY rules anymore.

Not everyone who claims to be a Christian actually is a Christian.

I have never seen anything from Dayton3 that would lead me to believe that he's actually a Christian.

Luke 6:43-45 New King James Version (NKJV)

“For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks."

So "no true Scotsman", then?

God could have fixed so much of this by being a better writer.
You'd think the creator of the universe could manage that, but Aesop kicks his ass, Homer kicks his ass, nevermind Shakespeare.
Shakespeare hooks him up to a motorized ass kicking machine for an hour.

Why John Oliver Has Started His Own Church

Its hard for me to take any of the current churches seriously as we grow to understand them in a historical context. I mean, we have the letter that Paul wrote asking to void circumcision for the gentiles, not because god wished it, but becuase it was too hard to get converts if you had to mutilate your penis. Seems like that wasn't a popular thing, even back in 40 AD. Or the Messiah stuff - at the time it meant King of the Jews, not the Son of God. That came later, as people tried to out righteous each other. But that really changes the context of "I have come to fulfill the law of the prophets", especially considering we know right after in the Church they considered the law binding, and it was a POLITICAL act that changed that.

Or how exactly did divorce become OK? It wasn't Jesus - he said that the only reason divorce was OK was due to sexual infedility, otherwise you are being an adulterer if you get divorced or marry a divorced woman. Catholics still uphold that to some extent, but the Protestants? Hell, they might as well be Henry the VIIIth.

Oh, and Wordforge is an instrument of damnation:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Matthew 5:22 KJV

Speaking of Paul, second Thessalonians is a cartoonishly obvious forgery, it's like "this me, Paul speaking, it really is, this is how I speak, I'm really Paul. I am SO Paul right now".
Like, that bad.
Any Asyncritus clone out there that tries to play the "you haven't read all the SERIOUS religious scholorship! ", card on you, you can just laugh at 'em.
If you don't know second Thessalonians is fake, and don't admit it up front, you're no scholar.
End of.
Done.

Churches are were the conmen find their marks. If you don't know who the marks are you are probably one of them and the conman is the guy in the pew.

Have to disagree with that slightly. I'd say you'd make a pretty piss poor scientist in that case - but a scholar isn't necessarily someone following the scientific method. A scholar can start from the POV that 'the bible is the word of god' and inspect it within that framework. Which most of them do.

Its just if you go in with the skepticism necessary for scientific inquiry you'll get an enormously different set of conclusions.

Scholar

noun
1.
a learned or erudite person, especially one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.

Someone who misses the bit about Thessalonians doesn't have a profound knowledge.
They might be a scholar in the vaguest murkiest sense, but they sure as hell aren't a good one.

No. It's not a "no true Scotsman" situation.

It's more like, "all squares have four sides". "Oh yeah? Well, I have a three-sided square here." "Umm... no, all squares have four sides."

This is, quite simply, one of the absolutely stupidest things I have heard in the last four or five years.

Well done.

I had heard that First Thessalonians was less likely to have been written by Paul while Second is in fact obviously his work due to vast stylistic differences between First Thessalonians and the remainder of Pauls writings.

Your sect would, because second is the one that says to give the poor a boot in the ass.

http://www.theonion.com/article/god-announces-plans-slowly-wean-humans-religion-51104

About time.