Lolcow Andrew Peter Carlson / Anaiah Carlson / Tamarlover / Xtamarlover - Jewish/Christian Wannabe Cult Leader, Stalker, Ugly af, dogfucker, mayor of spitsville

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

How do you think I ruined the relationship? She said when she broke up with me before I contacted her at all that in her view, we can't be friends period, simply because we broke up. So the relationship was already ruined by her before I sent her any messages asking her to change her mind.

Or maybe she figured out you were totally incompatible past the surface level, or she (rightly) realized that you just wouldn't respect her decision (remember when you refused the idea that your last ex was your ex at all because her reasons for breaking it off with you were "illegitimate"?)

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

I'm absolutely not surprised that you ruined your relationship by refusing to understand boundaries and your sheer inability to live with differences in opinion. With that said, at least your rants while trying to rationalize your insane M.O. are very funny. You don't have a bright future ahead of you but at the very least you are funny, for all the wrong reasons.

Also I was 100% willing to live with our differences. She was the one unable to tolerate our differences. I never forced my views on her in any way shape or form. She basically said to me i had to change my views or we cannot be together essentially. I never placed any such requirement on her and I was always respectful of our differences. always. I live with differences of opinion. In every case of people cutting me off, its that they cannot live with my opinions. It has never ever been me not being able to live with their opinions.

Or maybe she figured out you were totally incompatible past the surface level, or she (rightly) realized that you just wouldn't respect her decision (remember when you refused the idea that your last ex was your ex at all because her reasons for breaking it off with you were "illegitimate"?)

no, incorrect. I never refused anyone was my ex. I always accepted people's decisions to break up with me. When someone ends friendship however thats different. I do not accept people's ending friendship. It is something that I will always try to fix. thats who i am.

 

[Jaded Optimist]

It is something that I will always try to fix. thats who i am.

Aka a controlling sociopath.

You keep dodging my question, are you still seeing a therapist?

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

I do not accept people's ending friendship.

This is the central problem. If you cannot accept the emotions and decisions of other human beings under any circumstances on an issue, you are mentally stunted.

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

Aka a controlling sociopath.

You keep dodging my question, are you still seeing a therapist?

No I don't see a therapist. I think I mentioned that plenty earlier in the thread that I stopped seeing one long time ago.

This is the central problem. If you cannot accept the emotions and decisions of other human beings under any circumstances on an issue, you are mentally stunted.

I never said that I don't accept the emotions and decisions of other human beings under "any" circumstances on an issue. There are plenty of instances or exceptions I accept their decisions and emotions. For example, if I don't care much about being in contact with them, I don't bother with them. Further, if I did something to deserve their emotions or decisions, I accept that. But if their emotions and decisions are unwarranted, that is unacceptable. Under the Bible, if someone commits adultery, they are to be executed after a trial by the elders. And I would be the first to stone my adulterous wife. If someone rapes someone, I would be the first to stone them after a trial ruled they are to die. If someone is a homosexual, and the government has a trial and orders their execution, I'd be the first to stone the homosexual. The fact is, as a society we do NOT have to tolerate or accept the emotions and decisions of disgusting or abhorrent people. Anyone who does what my ex girlfriend did to me deserves to be punished harshly. My ex girlfriend doesn't deserve death but she deserves a very harsh punishment. and if we lived in a just society, she would absolutely answer for what she did and receive what she is owed. Unfortunately this society allows for great evil to go unpunished. So she and other people are emboldened to do great wrong to others for selfish reasons. What she did to me was extremely selfish and it is a great injustice that she can just do it without receiving any negative consequences for what she did. Now, in the case of someone like my ex girlfriend, the appropriate thing she should have done would be to talk with me, and then after our talk tell me that she needs time and space to heal from the relationship ending and that perhaps we can be friends when she is ready. That would have been a perfectly valid and reasonable thing to say and do and I would have honored and respected that.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

No I don't see a therapist. I think I mentioned that plenty earlier in the thread that I stopped seeing one long time ago.



I never said that I don't accept the emotions and decisions of other human beings under "any" circumstances on an issue. There are plenty of instances or exceptions I accept their decisions and emotions. For example, if I don't care much about being in contact with them, I don't bother with them. Further, if I did something to deserve their emotions or decisions, I accept that. But if their emotions and decisions are unwarranted, that is unacceptable. Under the Bible, if someone commits adultery, they are to be executed after a trial by the elders. And I would be the first to stone my adulterous wife. If someone rapes someone, I would be the first to stone them after a trial ruled they are to die. If someone is a homosexual, and the government has a trial and orders their execution, I'd be the first to stone the homosexual. The fact is, as a society we do NOT have to tolerate or accept the emotions and decisions of disgusting or abhorrent people. Anyone who does what my ex girlfriend did to me deserves to be punished harshly. My ex girlfriend doesn't deserve death but she deserves a very harsh punishment. and if we lived in a just society, she would absolutely answer for what she did and receive what she is owed. Unfortunately this society allows for great evil to go unpunished. So she and other people are emboldened to do great wrong to others for selfish reasons. What she did to me was extremely selfish and it is a great injustice that she can just do it without receiving any negative consequences for what she did. Now, in the case of someone like my ex girlfriend, the appropriate thing she should have done would be to talk with me, and then after our talk tell me that she needs time and space to heal from the relationship ending and that perhaps we can be friends when she is ready. That would have been a perfectly valid and reasonable thing to say and do and I would have honored and respected that.

Since you are citing the Bible, hear the words of Christ:
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
(Matt. 7:1-6)

You are swine, and have proved this again and again. Have you laid with your girlfriend? If you have, you deserve death by your own measure; 'adultery' as defined by Mosaic law includes premarital sex.
Indeed, if you claim to be a Christian, by your own rationale you deserve death for lust, because any who gaze upon a woman with lust have already committed adultery in their hearts.

But we both know you don't truly believe: the Laws of Moses are an excuse for you to hurt people you don't like and try and rape someone with it being justified. I will pray for your soul, because without intercession it will not go to where you want it to.

 

[Florence]

Is Chris @xtamarlover getting better?

 

[SamTheEagle]

And I would be the first to stone my adulterous wife.

Do you bring this up on the first date, by any chance?

 

[Diana Moon Glampers]

@xtamarlover , would you say your judicial philosophy could best be summed up by this song?

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

@xtamarlover , would you say your judicial philosophy could best be summed up by this song?

Gotta be a trial first before you can stone someone. Otherwise sounds good to me. Of course in a society taught the proper values of what is a stoneable offense, there would be only a small portioj of people being killed. Also j do not bekieve in exclusive stoning, but i also believe in burning, as well as hanging, crucifixion, as well as beheading, stabbing, using any tool that is deserved. The type of crime determines the way someone should die. If someone rapes and then mutilates someone, the appropriate death sentence for that person is to be mutilated to death.

I believe in a literal eye for eye application. If someone intentionally gouges out someone's eye or damages someones eye, they should have their eye gouged out or damaged. Someone who is tortured should be tortured in the same way to the same severity. Etc.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Gotta be a trial first before you can stone someone. Otherwise sounds good to me. Of course in a society taught the proper values of what is a stoneable offense, there would be only a small portioj of people being killed. Also j do not bekieve in exclusive stoning, but i also believe in burning, as well as hanging, crucifixion, as well as beheading, stabbing, using any tool that is deserved. The type of crime determines the way someone should die. If someone rapes and then mutilates someone, the appropriate death sentence for that person is to be mutilated to death.

No man should be executed in the way our savior died, Carlson. Not only is it blasphemous, it is such a horrible way to die that no crime merits it.
Once again, you show your "biblical morality" is an excuse to indulge your sadism (which is quite a grave sin, by the by).

I believe in a literal eye for eye application. If someone intentionally gouges out someone's eye or damages someones eye, they should have their eye gouged out or damaged. Someone who is tortured should be tortured in the same way to the same severity. Etc.

This is the opposite of Christ's teaching. "If a man strikes your cheek, offer him your other cheek also. If a man demands your coat, give him your shirt also."
Your morality is in line with the Assyrians, Romans, and Babylonians- the traditional enemies of Israel and early Christianity.

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

No man should be executed in the way our savior died, Carlson. Not only is it blasphemous, it is such a horrible way to die that no crime merits it.
Once again, you show your "biblical morality" is an excuse to indulge your sadism (which is quite a grave sin, by the by).

This is the opposite of Christ's teaching. "If a man strikes your cheek, offer him your other cheek also. If a man demands your coat, give him your shirt also."
Your morality is in line with the Assyrians, Romans, and Babylonians- the traditional enemies of Israel and early Christianity.

The morality of the assyrians romans and babylonians was similar to the morality of the Israelites. The laws of the Old Testament when compared with their neighboring cultures prove that Israels moral code was almost identical to that of their surrounding nations. They had a few differences, but most is the same in terms of principle and structure and eye for eye retaliation.

Jesus' words are advice for specific situations, not applicable in many situations. There is nothing holy about crucifixion. Thats like saying no one should name their children Jesus or Joshua or Yeshua because the name is too holy. The reality is Jesus became a man, and thus the human things he was subjected to arent somehow holy because he suffered them. We can still use vinegar in our food. And i will relish my vinegar with full knowledge that our lord and savior rejected the vinegar. And i will pound nails into wooden boards too with full knowledge that Jesus died in that way. so what i dont care. I respect his death but the method he died isnt somehow holy cause he died from it. Thats like people who carry around crosses and worship them as if they have power.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

The morality of the assyrians romans and babylonians was similar to the morality of the Israelites. The laws of the Old Testament when compared with their neighboring cultures prove that Israels moral code was almost identical to that of their surrounding nations. They had a few differences, but most is the same in terms of principle and structure and eye for eye retaliation.

Jesus' words are advice for specific situations, not applicable in many situations. There is nothing holy about crucifixion. Thats like saying no one should name their children Jesus or Joshua or Yeshua because the name is too holy. The reality is Jesus became a man, and thus the human things he was subjected to arent somehow holy because he suffered them. We can still use vinegar in our food. And i will relish my vinegar with full knowledge that our lord and savior rejected the vinegar. And i will pound nails into wooden boards too with full knowledge that Jesus died in that way. so what i dont care. I respect his death but the method he died isnt somehow holy cause he died from it. Thats like people who carry around crosses and worship them as if they have power.

Mark 12:28-31

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

That is an explicit and universal command from Christ himself to reject the kind of acts you endorse. Let me also give the full context to the verse I quoted as well:
Matthew 5: 38-48

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even Samaritans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

The entire chapter's context is the Sermon on the Mount, which is explicitly Christ laying out the doctrine of the Christian faith. Here, he clearly and unambiguously states that eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth is against his teachings. So, this:

I believe in a literal eye for eye application. If someone intentionally gouges out someone's eye or damages someones eye, they should have their eye gouged out or damaged. Someone who is tortured should be tortured in the same way to the same severity. Etc.

Is explicitly against Christian moral teaching, from Christ's own lips. Choose one or the other: do you want to hurt people, or do you want to be a good Christian?

 

[Deadpool]

Since you are citing the Bible, hear the words of Christ:
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
(Matt. 7:1-6)

You are swine, and have proved this again and again. Have you laid with your girlfriend? If you have, you deserve death by your own measure; 'adultery' as defined by Mosaic law includes premarital sex.
Indeed, if you claim to be a Christian, by your own rationale you deserve death for lust, because any who gaze upon a woman with lust have already committed adultery in their hearts.

But we both know you don't truly believe: the Laws of Moses are an excuse for you to hurt people you don't like and try and rape someone with it being justified. I will pray for your soul, because without intercession it will not go to where you want it to.

I have to agree. You definitely need to look into forgiveness and grace and not law and punishment when it comes to religion. You talk about being the one to throw the first stone in an execution? I seem to remember a verse about that. John 8:7 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” Are you saying you're without sin?

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

Mark 12:28-31

That is an explicit and universal command from Christ himself to reject the kind of acts you endorse. Let me also give the full context to the verse I quoted as well:
Matthew 5: 38-48


The entire chapter's context is the Sermon on the Mount, which is explicitly Christ laying out the doctrine of the Christian faith. Here, he clearly and unambiguously states that eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth is against his teachings. So, this:

Is explicitly against Christian moral teaching, from Christ's own lips. Choose one or the other: do you want to hurt people, or do you want to be a good Christian?

I have to agree. You definitely need to look into forgiveness and grace and not law and punishment when it comes to religion. You talk about being the one to throw the first stone in an execution? I seem to remember a verse about that. John 8:7 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” Are you saying you're without sin?

First of all the passage from John about the adulteress woman is not part of the original text of John. It was added. Secondly Jesus was not opposed to stoning. He was opposed to stoning on the basis of a sinful witness, since a witness who is conducting a sinful witness procedure cannot be trusted.

Jesus in the gospel said love your neighbor as yourself. He also said we should hate our own soul luke 14:26 "26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. "

So if one should love your neighbor as yourself but hate your own life, then you should hate your neighbors life as well, just as Jesus said to hate your family too.

Secondly the gospel of matthew is the least reliable gospel in my view, containing the most editorial to impose a foreign morality into the text. the point Jesus was making is that eye for eye is not a justification for taking the law into your own hands and not a justification for punishing people because they "deserve" it. Eye for an eye is about true justice. And true justice also requires not harming others without justification and authority. Jesus was an extremist orthodox Jew. Not a new age pacifist gnostic.

Luke 19:27 "But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me" luke 17:2 "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

First of all the passage from John about the adulteress woman is not part of the original text of John. It was added. Secondly Jesus was not opposed to stoning. He was opposed to stoning on the basis of a sinful witness, since a witness who is conducting a sinful witness procedure cannot be trusted.

Jesus in the gospel said love your neighbor as yourself. He also said we should hate our own soul luke 14:26 "26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. "

So if one should love your neighbor as yourself but hate your own life, then you should hate your neighbors life as well, just as Jesus said to hate your family too.

Secondly the gospel of matthew is the least reliable gospel in my view, containing the most editorial to impose a foreign morality into the text. the point Jesus was making is that eye for eye is not a justification for taking the law into your own hands and not a justification for punishing people because they "deserve" it. Eye for an eye is about true justice. And true justice also requires not harming others without justification and authority. Jesus was an extremist orthodox Jew. Not a new age pacifist gnostic.

Luke 19:27 "But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me" luke 17:2 "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

Now who's editorializing?
I've shown your hypocrisy and won't argue with you anymore: it's clear that all of your beliefs are mere fashion to justify yourself.

 

[Anaiah Carlson]

Now who's editorializing?
I've shown your hypocrisy and won't argue with you anymore: I've shown again and again that all of your beliefs are mere fashion to justify yourself.

How did you show hypocrisy? You quoted a couple passages that say lovey dovey stuff but ignore the thousands which say otherwise. I accept the entire bible but i alsp understand the bible has been changed by men to conform it to their ideas thus there is not a perfect harmony in the bible. there are contradictions. But taking the whole thing together you form a coherent original picture which is quite different from what you said

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

How did you show hypocrisy? You quoted a couple passages that say lovey dovey stuff but ignore the thousands which say otherwise. I accept the entire bible but i alsp understand the bible has been changed by men to conform it to their ideas thus there is not a perfect harmony in the bible. there are contradictions. But taking the whole thing together you form a coherent original picture which is quite different from what you said

That's funny, that isn't what the Roman Catholic Church says.
You are the one that pulls quotes about the punishment of sin in Hell and use them to justify sinful acts on this Earth. You are the one who says that Christ does not condemn an eye for an eye when he does with those exact words. You are the one who clings to the OT when Christ makes it clear he represents a new covenant beyond the Mosiac one. You are the one who calls himself "Christian" and acts like a Pharisee.

 

[Deadpool]

How did you show hypocrisy? You quoted a couple passages that say lovey dovey stuff but ignore the thousands which say otherwise. I accept the entire bible but i alsp understand the bible has been changed by men to conform it to their ideas thus there is not a perfect harmony in the bible. there are contradictions. But taking the whole thing together you form a coherent original picture which is quite different from what you said

If it weren't for the lovey stuff Christianity would have died out. Jesus came to take us out from mosaic law and introduce us into grace, so that's what people go with, to make them better people. You choose the nasty stuff to use as a cudgel and beat people into giving you your way.

You also use it to justify you're own violent fantasy's, and vindicate your warped personality, such as punishing your ex. That way it's not because you personally seek to harm , but the Bible says it should be. Also how can Jesus be for stoning but against sinful witnesses. All witness are sinful thus no one can be stoned.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

Sexuality is basically something very holy, so if you abuse it improperly, its so heinous it deserves death. Otherwise, if sexuality was simply just "something fun" you could do with your dick, then it wouldn't be a big deal to use it by force for anything. it'd be no different than playing a video game.

Wait... so you think there's nothing wrong about forcing people to do things they don't want to do if it's not mentioned in the bible? Do you think fondling or kissing someone who's not into you is okay? What about peeping on them in the shower? I don't think those are mentioned in the scriptures.

How do you think I ruined the relationship? She said when she broke up with me before I contacted her at all that in her view, we can't be friends period, simply because we broke up. So the relationship was already ruined by her before I sent her any messages asking her to change her mind.

I'm getting the impression she broke up with you for multiple reasons but she's too tired of dealing with you to elaborate.

Anyone who does what my ex girlfriend did to me deserves to be punished harshly. My ex girlfriend doesn't deserve death but she deserves a very harsh punishment.

A harsh punishment like what, exactly?