![You are never too much of a depraved degenerate to be saved. It’s never too late. [1125x1106 - 240KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/xGwyEI.jpg){kind=link}
He has many names and titles. I just don't see why I should refer to him in anything other than my lengua materna.
Was just talking to a spanish speaking couple. They thought the author of the book that comes after "Hebrews" in the NT is "Santiago." And that's fine, it's a tradition. Like us calling him James. But the Greek (iakobos) would be better transliterated as Jacob.
Your straw man (cope harder) assumes that people don't realize English came about much later??
This is the problem with you people, there is no definable strawman argument occurring. There is no cope, it is not a relevant assertion. You can disagree, you can take issue with the position. But you're choosing to be an asshole. The fact is, 2000 years of fanfic and apocryphal narrative have given you more of your names and titles than canonical scripture. Call your god whatever you want, if they take issue with any particular aspect of the practice they've demanded and generation after generation has modified to comfort - then you will be made aware of it at the appointed hour. Until then, there isn't a single fucking syllable you can utter that changes that reality. Just as there is nothing that can be said to you to convince you that anything but your subjective opinion of the desires of the divine are gospel truth. So fuck it, call your dude whatever you please. But drop the rhetorical faggotry. Search 'logical fallacies' and pick up a couple new words. You can only get so many miles out of strawman. Go in peace to love and serve your personal narrative.
Praise KEK.
canonical scripture
See that's the thing. I know it, and you don't. You sling mud and pat yourself on the back, but I'm the asshole?
Just say you don't believe the scripture was faithful preserved for these years. Believe that there is a substantial textural variant anywhere in the NT... seriously, which major pillar of Christian doctrine is not clear in the consensus text? Any from, say, the Nicene creed that you don't think are supported by the manuscripts?
Fact is you just put all your hate in the cannon, aim it as some jerk like me and conclude that your deeply-held belief that God doesn't exist must be true.
I don't believe the scripture was faithfully preserved all these years. I don't hate canon. I hate the Church and the faggotry of the lay-Christian. I do not have a deeply held belief that God does not exist.
See? That wasn't hard fought, you simply had to ask.
This is why I called you an asshole.
At every level you been a bad faith participant in the dialogue.
You've leveled retorts that are inapplicable.
You've persisted in ignorance despite having been provided a literal definition countering your claims.
You've written-in what you assume my position must be simply because I oppose your bullshit.
Even Kierkegaard understood the necessary absurdity of faith, and that faith was explicitly not the same as knowledge.
That you can pretend to know the divine is not only blasphemous, but indefensible on its face.
You don't know shit.
You know what you have been told.
You know what your family or nuclear influences think.
You know what resonates with you.
But in the end, you simply have a version of faith.
And faith is not rational.
It is definably ignorant.
And that is fine.
At least it was for men far more considered and educated than yourself.
This has been a waste of conversational effort.
Enjoy your personal fiction.
Take care.
(post is archived)