It is common knowledge that Christianity encourages lying, gossiping and backbiting. I think this is a silly sacrament, and try to discourage it when I come into contact with the faithful. I also often feel sort of bad picking on the halfwits of Dalrock, but in this case, I’m honestly surprised at the stupidity of these particular contributors. It’s not that I expect better from scroungy Christians, but that these men have struck me as exceptions in the past.
The problem with this childish argument is that “innocent” is subjective and impossible to define. Thus we see scum on Dalrock constantly making up wild, sexually-charged accusations against all and sundry, with no basis in fact. Jesus approves of such stuff, we’re sure, since the target-du-jour is “evil” for winning an argument against the webmaster, or some other shit.
When someone wins an argument against Dalrock, Cane Caldo, or one of the other scroungers, that someone is not “innocent,” and all bets are off.
This is really some next-level sophistry. I’m all for a symbolic read of the more far-out sections of the Bible (virgin birth, transubstantiation, etc,) as it’s asking a lot for a grown man to take some of it at face-value; but, do you really believe that “thou shalt not lie” means deceiving people is cool, provided it’s done outside the courtroom? Fuck’n lol.
As an unbeliever, I find the most valuable parts of the Bible are the practical suggestions about living a clean life, behaving oneself, and getting along with his neighbor. Trying to redefine dishonesty into something so formal that most of us only have the opportunity to do it a few times in our lives is breaking the text.