Calling out the "Christian" liars and hypocrites on this forum

[rsc2a]

Does someone think the fish and bird painting are pornographic now? ???

 

[ALAYMAN]

Does someone think the fish and bird painting are pornographic now? ???

No, but to give credit where it is due, even though I thought you and TRTs give and take was patronizing to Tim, your rendering of the picture was humorous, as I could see that stuff in the pic too.

 

[rsc2a]

My art analysis was patronizing?

 

[ALAYMAN]

My art analysis was patronizing?

SQUIRREL!



Focus ratboy, focus.  


Funny rendering.


You can do it.

I believe in you.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

This whole thing was started by your constant flaunting the liberty you so enjoy to watch rated R movies.

When did I ever say I enjoy watching R rated movies?  I enjoyed Deapool.  Deadpool is R rated.  It does not follow that I enjoy watching R rated movies.

Perhaps you should take a class in logic, because you don't seem to be able to recognize a non-sequitur.

That is a degree of trolling also I might add. You even changed your avatar to remind everyone of your so called liberty.

I changed my avatar to rub noses in their self-righteousness.  Self-righteousness, like what you are exhibiting now, is probably the most dangerous cancer in Christendom. It goes against the very foundation Christianity, which is that our righteousness comes only from HIM, not anything we do, or avoid doing. 

To whom did Jesus say "woe to you"?  Tax collectors?  Sinners?  No, he said it to self-righteous Pharisees like yourself.  Maybe you should be scared. 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

This whole thing was started by your constant flaunting the liberty you so enjoy to watch rated R movies.

When did I ever say I enjoy watching R rated movies?  I enjoyed Deapool.  Deadpool is R rated.  It does not follow that I enjoy watching R rated movies.

Perhaps you should take a class in logic, because you don't seem to be able to recognize a non-sequitur.

That is a degree of trolling also I might add. You even changed your avatar to remind everyone of your so called liberty.

I changed my avatar to rub noses in their self-righteousness.  Self-righteousness, like what you are exhibiting now, is probably the most dangerous cancer in Christendom. It goes against the very foundation Christianity, which is that our righteousness comes only from HIM, not anything we do, or avoid doing. 

To whom did Jesus say "woe to you"?  Tax collectors?  Sinners?  No, he said it to self-righteous Pharisees like yourself.  Maybe you should be scared.

Your moral implications are what I am having a hard time agreeing with - has nothing to do with self-righteousness.

You clearly don't understand what self-righteousness means.  Here you go:

self-right?eous

adjective

having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior.

"self-righteous indignation and complacency"

synonyms: sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, self-satisfied, smug, priggish, complacent, pious, moralizing, preachy, superior, hypocritical;

In the context of Christianity and Pharisees, self-righteousness is the belief that what you do (or avoid) contributes to your righteousness.

 

[rsc2a]

And, on the movie screen, sex scenes and nudity come dangerously close to allowing millions to committed adultery in their heart.

Krispy Kreme. Burger King. Taco Bell. Little Debbie. Betty Crocker.....

 

[FSSL]

I changed my avatar to rub noses in their self-righteousness.

He also posted nudity (against common decency) to rub our noses in self-righteousness.
He is apparently "morally superior" and has his own definition of "righteousness."

YET!!! He is allowed to post on FFF by those he calls liars and hypocrites. Imagine that!

 

[ALAYMAN]

I changed my avatar to rub noses in their self-righteousness.

He also posted nudity (against common decency) to rub our noses in self-righteousness.
He is apparently "morally superior" and has his own definition of "righteousness."

YET!!! He is allowed to post on FFF by those he calls liars and hypocrites. Imagine that!

But he won't respond to such clear charges to his smugness because as a good self-righteous little Pharisee he is currently practicing the doctrine of separation so he doesn't have to be confronted with his own weak-minded arguments.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Viewing the naked body is clearly a controversial subject when brought up with you (The Rogue Tomato) since you  make a claim that it doesn't cause you to lust or sin. I don't know what to fully say about that - but - I do know what Jesus said, he said "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

He used that example to show just how sinful humanity really is. And, on the movie screen, sex scenes and nudity come dangerously close to allowing millions to committed adultery in their heart. Is this the only sin that can some from viewing a movie? Hardly. But, showing sexual immorality in a movie isn't make-believe, it is real, and as I said before, it is obscene.

As I said in a thread Ransom locked before anyone could discuss it -- the amount of nudity in Deadpool is VERY VERY limited.  There's one brief scene in a strip bar.  If you can't handle a movie with a brief strip bar scene, then don't go to that movie. 

I'm not criticizing.  I see nothing wrong with admitting you can't handle it and therefore won't see it. But that doesn't make you morally superior.  I can handle it - I hardly even notice the nudity.  That doesn't make me morally superior, either.  And there are things in movies I can't handle, so I don't see those movies.

This all started with Peter Piper sez!  "Good Christians Shouldn't Watch Deadpool":

The problem with that article is that it starts with a false premise.  "Seeing naked women on the screen ? or naked men ? causes a man, or woman, to sin with their minds and their desires, and often with their bodies."

Causes?  Seriously?  Didn't we just have a whole thread dedicated to the fact that you can't blame lust on women's clothing (or lack thereof)?  I must have Low-T or something because seeing a naked women doesn't cause me to do anything. 

Again, if it causes YOU to do something, don't watch it.  But Peter Piper can take his false premise and shove it somewhere you wouldn't want to see in a movie.  And don't imply I'm any less of a Christian because I DID watch the movie and I DID enjoy it. 

 

[FSSL]

... he is currently practicing the doctrine of separation so he doesn't have to be confronted with his own weak-minded arguments.

I have always viewed the "ignore feature" as a gimmick. You can have real fun with it. I already did with the "I'm sorry" thread. I had real fun with Steven Avery on the .com version. He got punked a few times until his friends started to warn him through PMs.

Some people don't have the discipline to just "let it go" and need a piece of software to help them ignore the discussion.

 

[ALAYMAN]

The problem with that article is that it starts with a false premise.  "Seeing naked women on the screen ? or naked men ? causes a man, or woman, to sin with their minds and their desires, and often with their bodies."

I would assume you (The Rogue Tomato) are one of the few that can look at a naked person and not be bothered on any level. I wonder if the bulk of humanity would agree?

Some look at a naked body glamorized in a movie and are addicted to pornography for life. Others desire that naked body over their spouse. Others wish their own body looked that good. Many will lust and commit adultery.

I think lust is a real issue and that is why Jesus used it as an example of how sinful we are, and I believe as Christians we should be careful what we watch and promote for others to freely watch.

Tim, that "false premise" may be true for some superty-duperty men like the pious TRT, but that was only part of the article.  TRT NEVER did acknowledge whether he'd want his wife or daughter to be one of those women who were being exploited for entertainment purposes.  And that's just two things that make stuff the Deadpool wrong for Christians to support.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The problem with that article is that it starts with a false premise.  "Seeing naked women on the screen ? or naked men ? causes a man, or woman, to sin with their minds and their desires, and often with their bodies."

I would assume you (The Rogue Tomato) are one of the few that can look at a naked person and not be bothered on any level. I wonder if the bulk of humanity would agree?

Some look at a naked body glamorized in a movie and are addicted to pornography for life. Others desire that naked body over their spouse. Others wish their own body looked that good.

I think lust is a real issue and that is why Jesus used it as an example of how sinful we are, and I believe as Christians we should be careful what we watch and promote for others to freely watch.

Jesus said that if you lust after a woman, you've committed adultery, etc.  He didn't say that if you look at a naked woman you've committed adultery.  Sorry, a naked woman doesn't cause me to lust.  Am I unusual?  I don't know.  I don't care. 

A better premise for that article might have been, "If seeing a brief strip bar scene causes you to lust in your heart, then I recommend that don't watch Deadpool, or wait for a PG rated version to come out (not likely to happen)." 

But then he'd have had to watch the movie to be able to say that.  And most of these articles are written by people who haven't even seen the movie.

 

[ALAYMAN]

... he is currently practicing the doctrine of separation so he doesn't have to be confronted with his own weak-minded arguments.

I have always viewed the "ignore feature" as a gimmick. You can have real fun with it. I already did with the "I'm sorry" thread. I had real fun with Steven Avery on the .com version. He got punked a few times until his friends started to warn him through PMs.

Some people don't have the discipline to just "let it go" and need a piece of software to help them ignore the discussion.

As much as I can see the appropriate kind of gamesmanship that goes on round here, including the "ignore" stuff, my post about his motives was mostly meant to be taken in truth.  I made the observation long ago that he doesn't deal well with people who confront him in his arguments.  He quickly turns to sarcasm and ignoring whole chunks of arguments.  It's a pattern, and much like the fundy hyper-separatists, makes it easier on his mind to not be challenged.

 

[FSSL]

Sorry, a naked woman doesn't cause me to lust.  Am I unusual?  I don't know.  I don't care.

Not unusual... Just 100% dishonest.

You really should care for the sake of other men (and possibly some women) on this board.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The problem with that article is that it starts with a false premise.  "Seeing naked women on the screen ? or naked men ? causes a man, or woman, to sin with their minds and their desires, and often with their bodies."

I would assume you (The Rogue Tomato) are one of the few that can look at a naked person and not be bothered on any level. I wonder if the bulk of humanity would agree?

Some look at a naked body glamorized in a movie and are addicted to pornography for life. Others desire that naked body over their spouse. Others wish their own body looked that good. Many will lust and commit adultery.

I think lust is a real issue and that is why Jesus used it as an example of how sinful we are, and I believe as Christians we should be careful what we watch and promote for others to freely watch.

Tim, that "false premise" may be true for some superty-duperty men like the pious TRT, but that was only part of the article.  TRT NEVER did acknowledge whether he'd want his wife or daughter to be one of those women who were being exploited for entertainment purposes.  And that's just two things that make stuff the Deadpool wrong for Christians to support.

I agree.  But perhaps TRT believes it is okay for a Christian lady to pose naked. I think Piper hits an important aspect regarding what we watch - the moral aspect of the other side of the camera.

Learn to read.  I already said that the fact that I don't get hot and bothered over a naked lady doesn't make me morally superior.  And, as I said before, didn't we already cover this ground?  Didn't we already establish that lust originates in your heart, not in what you see? 

 

[ALAYMAN]

But then he'd have had to watch the movie to be able to say that.  And most of these articles are written by people who haven't even seen the movie.

Another na?ve thought.  Christianity Today as well as Plugged In does (2 evangelical publications) do reviews of R-rated movies, including those like Deadpool.  Deadpool was given poor ratings and Christians advised to avoid it based on its moral content, but they did say the story was actually pretty good and the humor (other than the rauchy type) pretty good.

 

[FSSL]

It's a pattern, and much like the fundy hyper-separatists, makes it easier on his mind to not be challenged.

Yep!! hyper fundys are humans. Human beings don't like to be challenged and we all develop our own set of reactions.

While hyper-funnies get bashed (and rightly so) for their demagoguery tactics, we are witnessing a non-fundie doing the same.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

... he is currently practicing the doctrine of separation so he doesn't have to be confronted with his own weak-minded arguments.

I have always viewed the "ignore feature" as a gimmick. You can have real fun with it. I already did with the "I'm sorry" thread. I had real fun with Steven Avery on the .com version. He got punked a few times until his friends started to warn him through PMs.

Some people don't have the discipline to just "let it go" and need a piece of software to help them ignore the discussion.

I have learned thru experience that you are exactly right.
I have some posters on ignore without putting them on ignore....

 

[ALAYMAN]

The problem with that article is that it starts with a false premise.  "Seeing naked women on the screen ? or naked men ? causes a man, or woman, to sin with their minds and their desires, and often with their bodies."

I would assume you (The Rogue Tomato) are one of the few that can look at a naked person and not be bothered on any level. I wonder if the bulk of humanity would agree?

Some look at a naked body glamorized in a movie and are addicted to pornography for life. Others desire that naked body over their spouse. Others wish their own body looked that good. Many will lust and commit adultery.

I think lust is a real issue and that is why Jesus used it as an example of how sinful we are, and I believe as Christians we should be careful what we watch and promote for others to freely watch.

Tim, that "false premise" may be true for some superty-duperty men like the pious TRT, but that was only part of the article.  TRT NEVER did acknowledge whether he'd want his wife or daughter to be one of those women who were being exploited for entertainment purposes.  And that's just two things that make stuff the Deadpool wrong for Christians to support.

I agree.  But perhaps TRT believes it is okay for a Christian lady to pose naked. I think Piper hits an important aspect regarding what we watch - the moral aspect of the other side of the camera.

Learn to read.  I already said that the fact that I don't get hot and bothered over a naked lady doesn't make me morally superior.  And, as I said before, didn't we already cover this ground?  Didn't we already establish that lust originates in your heart, not in what you see?

Tim, do you see how he avoided the salient question there?  It's not the more innocuous "does he mind nudity", nor is it "would he mind his wife/daughter posing nude", but rather would he like them to be exploited (the right word for the context of Deadpool) in such an obvious manner?