This "believe in Jesus" ok... who is Jesus. That is kind of pivotal if you want to believe in him.

Sig Figs.... technically the 30 years war lasted 30 years, 5 months and 1 day.

By the pricking of my thumbs something wicked this way comes.

As any Canadian soldier can tell you: it's not a war crime if you're the first to do it.

Did anyone watch this and realize how good a job Star Wars did showing Han working on his Falcon? Same energy.

A crying woman could also be a loon.

That's an apple and there'd better be a worm driving

Best case scenario they're married and it's an in-law grandma.

You also can't possibly know what they want so there's no use investing them with more of what we want. You are literally inventing people that don't exist. At least with the dead you can discern their desires.

The difference here is those people who believe in God in this instance aren't literally throwing around 4,000 lbs of metal in unexpected directions simply cause they can't follow directions for one second longer than the government forces them to. But they're the psychotic ones waiting their turn and behaving responsibly behind the wheel...

That's psychotic.

So you literally make an intersection more dangerous for all involved?

Because Reddit hates the Church in all Christian forms and any excuse no matter how flimsy is enough to justify a condemnation and revoking of the church/state divide in their own favor.

By that same token, any major change to a democracy violates the rights of the voting public that have already passed...

Tradition is the democracy of the dead.

G.K. Chesterton

If your mother had wheels would she be a bike?

Were you under the impression this subreddit was a scholarly source? Or that what was said here is ex cathedra and binding on all of Christendom?

Haha when someone actually pins you down and doesn't let you spin words it's not so fun anymore is it? That's fine you don't need to believe based on what I say.

I also never said Jesus was selfless... I have been entirely mute on the topic. You're the one that keeps trying to corner everyone into using a word that you can twist in a way none of them ever intended.

I believe Jesus was altruistic and that his death on the cross was charitable. This in no way implies any sort of actual self denial in any ontological or teleological sense, anymore than my claim that I denied my self chocolate cake for lunch is in any way denying my existence.

You may also agree that we should be charitable or altruistic, or you may agree that Jesus was altruistic, neither implies any sort of rejection of the Gospel.

Clearly not everyone here thinks Jesus' selflessness is compelling, cause OP said he didn't. You tried to claim it's a no true Scotsman, but rejecting your definition is not the No True Scotsman fallacy. You desperately want these words to mean whatever is convenient at the time.

I never said Jesus wasn't selfless, you projected that on me. I said the person you were talking to was not using no true Scotsman logic. Your assertion of what everyone in this thread thinks is just like your assertion that countless Christians find Jesus' selflessness compelling: hearsay, especially because I just proved your assertion wrong by providing evidence of someone who didn't, thus disproving any "everyone" claims.

You are twisting words worse than Donald Trump.

I never said Jesus on the cross is hearsay.

ive been told by countless Christians that....

Anything that follows in this sentence is, by definition, hearsay.

Jesus selflessness is what they find so compelling.

This is a personal statement of what an individual finds compelling, not the fact of Jesus on the Cross.

Your words are on record, and they aren't what you claim them to be.

Things you are telling us you've heard other people say is the definition of hearsay.

Nature is going to have two meanings:

1) the physical things that happen in the universe around us that are outside of human influence. (Bonobos and their actions belong to this definition)

2) the basic or inherent features of something, (In Christian thought) the divinely intended purpose of something

The confusion comes in English between its two meanings. You example of the worms and the apes pertain to the first definition, but the proposed "unnaturalness" of homosexuality is using the second definition. To those who hold this aspect of Christian thought, Homosexuality is against what sex was designed to do: i.e., procreation and to bond a man and his wife. Homosexuality achieves neither of these goals and thus is outside the purpose of human sexuality Aka against human nature.

I hope that clears up why people are rejecting your examples of animal behavior.

Your entire argument relies on the pedantic turn of phrase "to deny oneself" this has a specific meaning in Christian discourse and cannot be used to mean any sort of denial of anything in particular. Go find an argument that doesn't hang of twisting the word "denail" into whatever negation you find convenient.

I wish I had a quarter for everyone who appealed to the no truescottmans fallacy

Not being willing to let you, a define Christianity for him based on hearsay is not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Christian theology does have doctrine and "what people find compelling" is not a standard of recognized dogma.

The lawyers they called Ursula ok, they literally, they called her and had her come to my office and they stole my voice. She said, when she came to steal my voice she said to me she said

"I love your voice Mr President,"

she did she called me Mr. President

"I love your voice Mr. president, it's the best voice to ever have been in office, and I know I'm a collector, It's the best voice that's ever been in office, but your lawyers want me to take it, and they paid me a lit of money so that's what I'm gonna do."