ComedyMusicHistory
-
Content count
2,912 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Recent Profile Visitors
.thumb.jpeg.5ae129bf542e4219f83b2d494c36c0c7.jpeg)
-
Women are also priests and kings!
ComedyMusicHistory replied to davida chi's topic in God, Church & Faith
I have yet to find theologian or "famous Christian" who's not dead, in many cases long dead, that I respect or even can take seriously that doesn't believe women should be able to be able to be pastors. Or at least any that devote any time to propagating that view. The only complementarian theologians I respect or take seriously are the ones who spent no or very little time writing theology of that view. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of well-meaning complementarian pastors who believe they're doing the right thing. I just think they're being taken advantage of by the wolves in sheep's clothing leaders of complementarianism. Even theologians who are a bit too conservative for me, but I still think have some good things to say and I can mostly respect, as they haven't been involved in scandals, abuse cover ups, or paling with people who have views that 99% of conservative evangelicals would consider extreme, are all egalitarians who believe women should be able to serve in any ministry position, including pastor. There are so many skeletons in the complementarian camp. It isn't even funny. There is deep, deep corruption among complementarian leaders the vast majority of complementarian leaders. It's a whole spiderweb of interconnected people (well, men) who are unwilling to call out bad behavior and extremism in their own camp. If anyone is interested in this I would love give you resources. Most leaders of the complementarian can with simple investigation can be proven to be wolves in sheep's clothing, and that's the honest to goodness truth if anyone's willing to listen. Well, those Christians who operated the underground railroad were "explicitly contradicting the Bible". After all "Slaves obey your masters" is pretty straightforward, and running away isn't obedience. Even Paul returned a runaway slave to his master. My point is not that not allowing women to be pastors is even remotely as awful as slavery, but that flat readings of the Bible don't get us anywhere. -
Unsettled thinking about eternity
ComedyMusicHistory replied to Echo12's topic in Introductions & Announcements
This is something I found unsettling, overwhelming, and even depressing when I was young too. I always found it mind-boggling how God could have always existed and never had a beginning. It's not that I didn't believe I just found and still find it hard to wrap my mind around. But I think part of the problem with difficultly understanding there never being an ending to eternal life is the way we talk about. Like the term "eternity", though technically true, I find unsettling because of often incorrect ideas that go along with it. "Eternal life" seems to bring a more accurate picture. There will be seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, seasons, years, decades, centuries, millenniums, etc. on the New Earth ("Heaven") it's just they will never end. I find it's easier to think of it as measurements of time, for example years, that will never end as opposed to a huge, unspecified block of endless time. I've found there were a lot of incorrect ideas I was taught both explicitly and implicitly about "Heaven" or as I'd now specify the Intermediate Heaven and New Earth. A really great book on the subject I'd suggest to anyone who's struggled with this, wondered about this, or really any Christian of any stripe is Heaven by Randy Alcorn. I hope you find this encouraging, Echo12! -
CTF's Finale For Me
ComedyMusicHistory replied to ComedyMusicHistory's topic in Introductions & Announcements
Thank you, Jazzy! Would it be alright if I sometimes emailed you (I got your email from your profile)? -
The last month and a half has been very important in my faith walk. Over these last almost two years God has really expanded my heart to truly have a love for humanity in a way that I could never have dreamed of before. Sadly because of others wrong beliefs I was taught, and my own sinful nature I didn't know what it was like to truly love. The love I got always from people in the past always felt very conditional. But God intervened nearly two years ago. None of it is a result of me, but all is because of Him. It's pretty amazing what He has done. It can be painful when God works on and refines your heart and mind, but the end result is so good that's it's worth it. I've also had to think over my life and remember things that I'd forgotten or pushed out of my mind. I'm still working through it, but God is in the process healing me of pain from when I was young and younger. Amazingly, I've felt a profound sense of forgiveness and love for people who've caused me to suffer lots of pain, even if the pain is still there. Which I know I could never have done that on my own. There's a lot more I could say, but basically I probably won't be on CTF much in the future. I'm not saying I'll never post anything again. But I can tell you I won't be getting in anymore CTF debates. I'll be on CTF little, if at all. God has used CTF to teach me many spiritual and practical things. Which has often involved me acting in a less than Christ-like way. In someways I wish I could go back with who I am today and be a better, though not perfect, person, but I don't really because God has used my experience on CTF to sanctify me and transform me into the person he wants me to be. My new goal is to try to only say and do things that will build others up, not tear them down, and to live a life that is filled with the Fruit of the Spirit. But the place that CTF played for about four years in my social, intellectual, and spiritual life has now ended. I've met a lot of amazing people who've challenged me, helped me understand others, and showed me kindness. It has taught me so much. It helped me learn a lot of book knowledge I needed to know, but there are other sorts of knowledge I know God wants to teach me. I'm also at the point in my life where I'm tired and worn out of debating, and researching all sorts of things. I've done tons of that, and excessive amounts in the last year (it was like my job, and more consuming than college), but now I feel like I've researched everything that's important to me or interesting and I need more real life experiences. But CTF has given me lots more confidence with stating my views in certain circumstances (in others I'm still chicken). And I need "real life" friends, which I am trusting God will bring the right ones into my life. I have casual friends, but no real life close or best friends currently. But CTF was significant and at times primary for my social life from when I was 15 and two months to 19 and four months (or if you count until right now 19 and a half/six months). I will always cherish those memories! I've gotten to the point where I want to tell people about how much Jesus loves them and has done for them, share God's love with people in smaller ways (like doing something little to brighten their day), and changing the world for better, and fighting against injustice. I just felt like I needed to tell you guys that after having been in my life for so long, though lots of people currently on CTF are pretty new and lots of people who were on CTF during my formative time on here are no longer regulars or on at all. Just if you'll pray that I'll have direction with where God is leading me I'd really appreciate it!
-
People Who say the bible preaches hate against homosexuals
ComedyMusicHistory replied to pbros_theredletter.org's topic in The Bible
It is in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 5:1 "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife." Even if incest wasn't addressed in the New Testament I still think it would be very easy to make a case for sinfulness regardless of Levitical laws. Some degrees of incest seemed to be allowed when there were less people, but parent-child incest has always been wrong on account of role confusion. Polygamy isn't directly condemned in the New Testament, though it is certainly viewed as less than ideal, but we can still conclude it's sinful based on the bad fruit (higher levels of violence, crime, poverty, child abuse, neglect, and homicide (much of it probably perpetrated by women), intra-sexual competition and violence, increased heart attack rates for men with plural wives) it bears in societies, families, and individuals, both from an empirical and anecdotal point of view. http://news.ubc.ca/2012/01/23/monogamy-reduces-major-social-problems-of-polygamist-cultures/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11570638/Polygamy-increases-the-risk-of-heart-disease-study-finds.html The most important question that Christians should ask for any behavior, not just sexual behavior, that involves other people is whether that behavior fulfills the law of loving, with God's agape love, your neighbor as yourself.This is something that God has really shown me. For so much of my life I've fallen very, very short of this, but God has and is transforming me to be more and more like Jesus. Sometimes what is the truly loving (aka right) action is not clear at first, but intentionally looking at the fruit that something bears should give an idea of its morality. Since God's laws are laws that will always promote human flourishing, and lead to life. And prohibitions are there to protect people from behavior that flows out of a lack of love. If something, spiritually or both spiritually and physically, leads to stealing, killing, and destroying than it's not of God. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad fruit tree cannot bear good fruit. Does something promote love, joy, peace, patience/forbearance/perseverance, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentlessness, and self-control? Or does it promote hate/animosity/contempt/malice/resentment/bitterness, despair/misery, aggression/antagonism/hostility/turmoil/belligerence, anger/impatience/agitation/irresolution/giving up, evilness/immorality/unwholesomeness/corruption, unkindness/cruelness/unsympathetic behavior, faithlessness/unfaithfulness/disloyalty/wavering-ness/fickleness, harshness/hardhearted-ness/heartlessness, rashness/instability/indiscretion/giving excessive vent to emotions/lack of willpower? I've started to try to ask myself before I say thing and do things, and with what theological beliefs I believe are true and what Christians I look up if its/their fruit looks more like the Fruit of the Spirit or the antonyms of the Fruit of the Spirit, but I certainly still fall short a lot. It's something that's been on my heart to share with others. But I'm not interested in getting on a debate in this if people don't find it whatever enough. I hope this can be encouragement to someone to build up their faith. -
I've already decided who I'm voting for, but I thought out of curiosity I'd take that iSideWithQuiz. Apparently I side with Gary Johnson at 86%, Darrell Castle at 80%, Donald Trump at 47%, Jill Stein at 28%, and Hillary Clinton at 23%. I'm glad I side with Hillary the least of anyone. Lol.
- Show previous comments 4 more
-
@ComedyMusicHistory We should compare results. If you don't want to post your link, you can PM it.
@PlasmaHam Those high scores on imperialism, toughness, and militarism are downright terrifying. Sounds like WWIII material.
I'm highest with Johnson, but only at 80%. 79% Castle, 74% McMullin, 63% Trump, 40% Stein, 27% Clinton. Out of this, I'd never vote Johnson for him being pro-choice, nor Castle because he's a conspiracy theorist, nor McMullin because he supports the abominable war on Yemen, nor Trump or Stein or Clinton for obvious reasons.
The scale shows me as a libertarian-leaning centrist. I'm 30 points to privacy over security, 62 to pacifism over militarism, 20 to protectionism over globalization, 16 to assimilation over multiculturalism, 54 to small government over big, 58 to capitalism over socialism, 8 to tender over tough, 62 to individualism over collectivism, 26 to deregulation over regulation, 18 to Laissez-faire over Keynesian, 88 to isolationism over imperialism, 4 to traditional over progressive (that one I don't quite understand), and 2 to either populism or elitism, but I can't actually see which side it lands on.
http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/752743279
-
I took it again, and got slightly different results. I got 88% for Gary Johnson, 69% for Darrell Castle, 48% Donald Trump, 35% for Jill Stein, and 24% Hillary Clinton. In the other points I didn't notice in this one, though I'm sure I got slightly different on the one I did before, I got 58 points on Anthropocentrism (in Anthropopcentrism vs. Enviromentalism), 8 points on Tender (in Tender vs. Tough), 78 points on Laissez-Faire (in Laissez-Faire vs. Keynesian), 80 points on Individualism (in Individualism vs. Collectivism), 8 points on Populism (in Populism vs. Elitism), 8 points on Assimilation (in Assimilation vs. Multiculturalism), 48 points on Isolationism (in Isolationism vs. Imperialism), and 70 points on Globalization (in Globalization vs. Protectionism).
-
-
Hey CMC,
To answer your question, yes, I'll respond to the videos when I have the opportunity. However, I have to go tonight.
Catch you another time o/
- Show previous comments 3 more
-
@ComedyMusicHistory I feel exactly the same about BLM. A bunch of violent black protesters are not convincing me that the black guy was innocent, its doing the opposite.
-
Yeah, there is so much that could be said about BLM. I could write a ton about every it's doing wrong. Ironically in the past, pre-BLM if someone called me a racist I'd be very, while now I would bother me less, depending why, and if someone called me a racist for not supporting BLM I really could care less. BLM, SJW stuff on colleges, and certain colleges starting racial segregation in norms and classrooms "the good kind of segregation" has made me much less racial sensitive (like trying to tiptoe around anything controversial relating to race in America) and highly made me question the underlying ideology. I guess I just don't like Regressivism. Cause according to them MLK's "I dream of a day when people will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" is sooo 20th Century. It really ticks me off that BLM compare their movement to the Civil Rights Movement of people like MLK, Rosa Parks, and others. They're nothing similar. And trigger happy police men shooting people, in some/many cases African American, who've committed crimes not by any means deserving of the death penalty is certainly an issue that needs. I do think that the police has gotten overly militarized. But to compare someone who committed armed robbery, resisted arrested, and attacked a police officer getting killed, even if unjust, to African American 14 year old boy being murdered for flirting with a European American a woman by that women and her husband (and them getting a way with) is ridiculous. We don't live in the 1950's, and we certainly don't live in the 1890's. Regardless of how much an issue racism or past racism plays these BLM supporters, of all ethnic groups, seem to wish to believe they live in the Jim Crow Segregation Era South. If they were like, "There still are issues of racism, but we've come a long way in the last 50-60 years" I might actually take them more seriously.
Anyway end of rant.
-
Also I've been learning about the Civil Rights movement in my Political Science so when you learn about how different things were it just puts things into perspective. My teacher even gave all of us Literacy Tests, which should be called Extremely, Difficult Quick Question Tests, from Jim Crow Era Louisiana that were given to African Americans to keep them from voting (they had a Grandfather Clause so anyone who's grandfather had voted before Reconstruction could vote). It is just so ridiculous that people compare people needing ID to vote to those Literacy Tests.
-
I actually agree with you on this. At least as far as hormones and sex change operations are concerned. It's way too big of a decision to make before around 16. Here's a transgender girl, who makes awesome videos showing the ridiculousness of SJW-ish, talking on this.
-
No, to the first question. Yes, to the second question. No, to the third question. There is absolutely no way I would be romantically interested in a trans person without a sex change operation. And even with a sex change operation I don't think so. There are enough pansexual and maybe bisexual for trans people to find that kind of love with. Transgender youth who's parents reject their gender identity are 13 times more likely to attempt suicide than transgender youth who's parents accept them. And trans people with a strong support system 82% less likely to attempt suicide. It's similar to how LGB teens from unaccepting families are 8 times more likely to attempt suicide than teens very accepting families. Or studies from the late 1980's-early 2000's found, that when everything relevant like personal socioeconomic factors, community socioeconomic factors, average age of the area, racial demographics of the area, and religiosity of the area were controlled for, LGB people living in areas where the surrounding population was least accepting of homosexuality died 12 years earlier than in areas where the general population was most accepting of homosexuality. In the most accepting areas 92% of the LGB people were still alive 20 years after the study started, while only 78% of the LGB people still alive in the least accepting areas. Which thankfully at least as far as LGB are concerned in the US this is increasingly a thing of the past. Here's a study that found on a 26-item scale that trans people who experience more discrimination are more likely to attempt suicide. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08964289.2015.1028322?journalCode=vbmd20 I'm not interested in getting in a debate, but anyone talking about this issue has to really take seriously the issue of 41% of transgendered have attempted suicide. And it's very strongly associated with discrimination and rejection, particularly by family. Many gay, and to lesser extent bisexual, people have been put through enough emotional and physiological abuse (some of it unintentional, and most of it from good intentions), and I'm sure it's way worse and more common for transgender people. And also FtM trans people have parts of their brain that are similar genetic men, and MtF have parts of their brain that are similar to genetic women. Though transgender people have brains in between genetic men and genetic women. That's a fact. Trans people's brains, and bodies don't match up. And yes, there is such a thing as a male and a female brain I'm very supportive of trans people, but I don't buy the whole non-binary gender thing. Yes, there are I'm sure people who don't 100% feel like either gender, but it's an exception, and doesn't mean that vast majority of people don't feel like one gender or the other. http://transascity.org/the-transgender-brain/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan/ I despise the Oppression Olympics that SJWs play, but in 2016 America transgender would be at the top in my opinion when it comes to who has it the on average the worse. Or at least who you're allowed to treat with the most contempt. Basically I care. I don't want to see more transgender people commit suicide or be murdered because of prejudice. I saw a really insulting and sexist Intersectional, Third Wave Feminist article that said "Masculinity is Killing Trans Women". Masculinity isn't killing trans women (or men), but bad ideas are. I probably shouldn't have said anything because I'm trying to hardly use the Internet at all, and don't want to get into a debate/long discussion or conversation. But I just felt guilty not saying anything. I wish people would try to get to know (even if not in real life because I don't as far as I know know any trans people IRL) and understand transgender people before saying they're mentally ill. Has anyone who says trans people are mentally ill even had casual friendship with one?
-
"Classes should not be indoctrination seminars." - John F. (Wesker) Thank you, John!
-
So long, farewell! It's sad to see you too go. I loved that time we had a couple page long conversation about Disney in the Forum Games section. Best wishes with life!
-
So long, farewell! It's so sad to see you go. You always had interesting and nuanced things to say on subjects. You are in the top two people who I found their CTF your posts most interesting to read. Best wishes for life!
-
Makes me think of Teal Deer. I just have to share this video.
-
People Who say the bible preaches hate against homosexuals
ComedyMusicHistory replied to pbros_theredletter.org's topic in The Bible
That verse, even interpreted the broadest way, is only about male same-sex acts, and prior to the Middle Ages has never been seen as having anything to do with female same-sex acts by anyone. Certainly it wasn't seen that way in ancient times. So that verse could only be said to preach hate against gay or bisexual men. But honestly by that reasoning could be said that the Bible preaches hate against most heterosexuals. Or at least against the sex that most heterosexuals engage in probably a 1/4 of the time. "If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her menstrual period, both of them must be cut off from the community, for together they have exposed the source of her blood flow." Leviticus 20:18 "He does not feast in the mountains before Israel's idols or worship them. He does not commit adultery or have intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period." Ezekiel 18:6 Those verses are in the Bible, and should be relevant to anyone who claims to take the Bible literally. And the first verse is in Holiness Code along with verses condemning child sacrifice, bestiality, adultery, incest, and male same-sex acts. And up until the 1700 and 1800's all Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) universally believed that that prohibition still applied to Christians. Clement of Alexandria, St Augustine, St. Jerome, John Chrysostom (who was about the only Early Church Father to view any sex positively), Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and John Wesley all wrote that sex during mensuration was a sin (though they varied with how seriously they viewed it). As did Matthew Poole's Commentary (nonconformist Protestant), Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (Baptist), Benson Commentary (Methodist), Pulpit Commentary (Anglican), and Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers (Anglican). I can't find any surviving writing prior to 1774 of any Christian leader/writer/denomination even considering the idea that it might not be a sin. Also prior either 1857 or 1858 the universal Christian believed that using primitive NFP/rhyme/charting was sinful, but then the Roman Catholic Church started to allow it in cases of grave maternal health. Though St. Augustine, one of the most significant figures of Sacred Tradition, had very clearly condemned primitive NFP. And of course of every church and all Christian leaders prior to 1930 condemned any usage of contraception and non-procreative heterosexual acts as grave sins. Those are the historical facts. I'm not interested in getting in a debate on sexuality, consistency on sexuality, how to interpret the Bible, or anything else. But modern conservative Christians would do well to seriously acknowledge that sex with a menstruating woman is talked about alongside what are considered serious sins, like adultery and idolatry. -
If you guys would pray that I would do well on an in class presentation I'm putting together for my Sociology class I'd really appreciate it. It's on a topic that's very important to me that I want to do justice to.
