Israeli ultra-Orthodox MP blames earthquakes on gays

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Bicnarok

Tim Rout
While I'm not sure we can directly connect the homosexual community to middle eastern earthquakes, low moral standards do invite the judgment of God. This judgment can sometimes take the form of various natural disasters.

Jesus said that as judgment day approaches, we will witness an increase in violence and various natural phenomena:

"Don't let anyone mislead you. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Messiah.' They will lead many astray. And wars will break out near and far, but don't panic. Yes, these things must come, but the end won't follow immediately. The nations and kingdoms will proclaim war against each other, and there will be famines and earthquakes in many parts of the world. But all this will be only the beginning of the horrors to come."

Shakyamunison

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Tim Rout
While I'm not sure we can directly connect the homosexual community to middle eastern earthquakes, low moral standards do invite the judgment of God. This judgment can sometimes take the form of various natural disasters.

Jesus said that as judgment day approaches, we will witness an increase in violence and various natural phenomena:

"Don't let anyone mislead you. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Messiah.' They will lead many astray. And wars will break out near and far, but don't panic. Yes, these things must come, but the end won't follow immediately. The nations and kingdoms will proclaim war against each other, and there will be famines and earthquakes in many parts of the world. But all this will be only the beginning of the horrors to come."

This guy has to be a troll of some sort. It's like you actively sought out an irrational religious opinion to endorse in this thread.

Anyway, try finding a causal link between behavior and natural forces first, or any historically confirmed occurrence of such an incident (besides fictions like Noah, which is actually prefigured in numerous religions prior to Christianity) then we'll talk.

Because otherwise, this is just bigotry against others based upon beliefs so outdated that they are silly and barbaric when viewed in a modern light.

Quiero Mota
Are you sure it was that guy, and not a certain elderly, ultra-conservative pastor who lives in Topeka, Kansas?

Tim Rout
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To link natural disasters to a god is ignorance.

Linking natural disasters to God is biblical .

Linking belief in the Bible to ignorance is typical of the lost .

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Linking natural disasters to God is biblical .

Linking belief in the Bible to ignorance is typical of the lost .

No one is persecuting you, but some people use the bible to persecute others.

Robtard
Unfortunately, we have quite a few of those types in America.

There's a fire, an earthquake or a kid skins his knee, "God did it because of the gays".

Robtard
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Linking natural disasters to God is biblical .

Linking belief in the Bible to ignorance is typical of the lost .

It's also moronic, asinine and out of date. I can understand how some bronze-age hut dweller would see everything as supernatural and think God did it. But now, we pretty much know why earthquakes happen, or why lighting strikes, so saying an earthquake was directly caused by God's very own hand and giving very specific reasons for God doing something is both pompous and insane. Who in the **** does he think he is, that he can even begin to fathom why God did something? Can you answer that?

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Robtard
It's also moronic, asinine and out of date. I can understand how some bronze-age hut dweller would see everything as supernatural and think God did it. But now, we pretty much know why earthquakes happen, or why lighting strikes, so saying an earthquake was directly caused by God's very own hand and giving very specific reasons for God doing something is both pompous and insane. Who in the **** does he think he is, that he can even begin to fathom why God did something? Can you answer that?

We also know the mechanical failure that caused Colombia, but Fred Phelps said that God "smacked it out of the sky". And he chose astronauts because they failed to use their powerful public image to speak against gays.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
We also know the mechanical failure that caused Colombia, but Fred Phelps said that God "smacked it out of the sky". And he chose astronauts because they failed to use their powerful public image to speak against gays.

Just to be clear, you're just reporting this as more evidence of stuff like this, not attempting to justify it, right?

Quiero Mota
I don't endorse what Phelps said, if that's what you're asking. I don't believe god had anything to do with the piece of styrofoam that knocked a hole in the fuselage.

SpearofDestiny
lol its always teh gays fault

Tim Rout
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No one is persecuting you, but some people use the bible to persecute others.

Thank-you for your sensitivity in this matter. But don't worry. I wasn't feeling persecuted. smile

And yes, it is exceedingly sad to see how some people misuse the Bible to justify the persecution of others. History is replete with such abuses. When debating in this or any other environment, I do my best to aim at the proposition, not the person. I believe we should be accountable for what we do and say, which is why I use my real name online.

Mark Question
That's very scientific.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Thank-you for your sensitivity in this matter. But don't worry. I wasn't feeling persecuted. smile

And yes, it is exceedingly sad to see how some people misuse the Bible to justify the persecution of others. History is replete with such abuses. When debating in this or any other environment, I do my best to aim at the proposition, not the person. I believe we should be accountable for what we do and say, which is why I use my real name online.

I am so glad. Some people can get tweaked about how aggressive I can be. big grin

Tim Rout
Originally posted by Robtard
Unfortunately, we have quite a few of those types in America.

There's a fire, an earthquake or a kid skins his knee, "God did it because of the gays".

I realize American evangelicals sometimes become preoccupied with their favorite sin -- whether it be homosexuality, abortion, drunk driving, or something else -- but as a Canadian evangelical who sits outside the ebb and flow of American politics, I nevertheless agree with my brothers and sisters that rebellion against God brings judgment.

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness...."

When our governments make laws and engineer extraordinary "rights" that legalize evil, we can and should expect God to respond. That response might be immediate, or delayed. It might involve a natural disaster, or a disease, or economic adversity, or something else. While it is impossible to accurately predict how God will respond to sin, we can be sure that He will respond -- both temporally and eternally.

Mark Question
Besides, everyone knows Poseidon causes earthquakes.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Mark Question
That's very scientific.

If only his approach to religion was as scientific, he might actually make sense.

wink

SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by Tim Rout
I realize American evangelicals sometimes become preoccupied with their favorite sin -- whether it be homosexuality, abortion, drunk driving, or something else -- but as a Canadian evangelical who sits outside the ebb and flow of American politics, I nevertheless agree with my brothers and sisters that rebellion against God brings judgment..



Being Gay isn't a rebellion against God. That's absurd.

Kram3r
Forget this clown. I don't know why people are paying attention to this ****. I mean, clearly anyone with an actual brain knows it's not true. Also, this is coming from a guy who has allegedly accepted bribes so it's clear this guy has no morals.

jaden101
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To link natural disasters to a god is ignorance.

true...linking earthquakes to gays, however, is just common sense...i mean...what else could it be?

Tim Rout
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Being Gay isn't a rebellion against God. That's absurd.

If one is an evangelical Christian, then one acknowledges the Bible as God's verbally inspired, inerrant Word. The Bible makes it clear that homosexual behavior is detestable to God.

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin."

Given your position, it is obvious you do not subscribe to biblical authority. Nevertheless, Christians are absolutely serious when we say that sexual sin, including homosexual sin, constitutes rebellion against God.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by jaden101
true...linking earthquakes to gays, however, is just common sense...i mean...what else could it be?

Ya, but I'm a Buddhist, and you know how we Buddhists ignore common sense. laughing out loud

Robtard
Originally posted by Tim Rout
I realize American evangelicals sometimes become preoccupied with their favorite sin -- whether it be homosexuality, abortion, drunk driving, or something else -- but as a Canadian evangelical who sits outside the ebb and flow of American politics, I nevertheless agree with my brothers and sisters that rebellion against God brings judgment.

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness...."

When our governments make laws and engineer extraordinary "rights" that legalize evil, we can and should expect God to respond. That response might be immediate, or delayed. It might involve a natural disaster, or a disease, or economic adversity, or something else. While it is impossible to accurately predict how God will respond to sin, we can be sure that He will respond -- both temporally and eternally.

Which "extraordinary" rights are you talking about exactly?

Last time I read the Bible, it said something along the lines that God was done punishing men on earth after he flooded it and killed every single living person except Noah and his crew. But now he's shaking things up because people aren't outside condemning gays more? Bible-Thumper, please.

DigiMark007
Word to the evangelical: be careful not to "preach" to anyone, and try not to act like you have a strangle-hold on teh truth. The forum won't take kindly to you, and they'll either make existence annoying for you or ignore you. Discussion is fine, but in the past most people who post an endless stream of Bible passages have been known to be close-minded and condescending. Chances are, you won't listen to reason (Tectonic plate movements creating earthquakes?! Nonsense! It was sinners!) but don't expect others to do the same.

Robtard
Originally posted by Tim Rout
If one is an evangelical Christian, then one acknowledges the Bible as God's verbally inspired, inerrant Word. The Bible makes it clear that homosexual behavior is detestable to God.

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin."

Given your position, it is obvious you do not subscribe to biblical authority. Nevertheless, Christians are absolutely serious when we say that sexual sin, including homosexual sin, constitutes rebellion against God.

If you're going to take the Bible as "God's inerrant Word", then why not use the oldest version of the text, where it doesn't say anything about Homosexuality; just men laying with men?

How can it be "inerrant", if it's been revised so many times? A perfect example would be the Liviticus you quoted.

Also, it's Liviticus 18:22; not 19:22

Tim Rout
Originally posted by Robtard
Which "extraordinary" rights are you talking about exactly?

Last time I read the Bible, it said something along the lines that God was done punishing men on earth after he flooded it and killed every single living person except Noah and his crew. But now he's shaking things up because people aren't outside condemning gays more? Bible-Thumper, please.

Perhaps you need to read the Bible a bit more carefully. Following the events of Noah's time, God promised never again to destroy the whole earth with a flood . Next time, He will use fire .

And by extraordinary rights, I am referring to the right of gays and lesbians to marry, the right of women to murder their unborn babies, the right of schools to hand out condoms to my kids no matter what I think about it, and a countless string of other offenses God will judge our leaders for.

Tim Rout
Originally posted by Robtard
If you're going to take the Bible as "God's inerrant Word", then why not use the oldest version of the text, where it doesn't say anything about Homosexuality; just men laying with men?

How can it be "inerrant", if it's been revised so many times? A perfect example would be the Liviticus you quoted.

Also, it's Liviticus 18:22; not 19:22

18:22 Thank-you. My typo.

And it's LEviticus, not LIviticus. smile

If by the oldest version you are referring to the King James, you would be mistaken. The Wycliffe Bible predates it by more than two centuries.

If by the oldest version you mean the original Hebrew, I'm afraid I took Greek at Bible College, so you're out of luck.

And yes, the text literally translates (as the New American Standard puts it): "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

But the point remains unchanged. God detests the act of one man having sex with another. He reiterates this in Leviticus 20:13, where He adds a death penalty to the offense. Romans 1:26-27 adds lesbian sex to the list of sins, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 makes it clear that sinners -- including unrepentant homosexuals -- cannot gain entrance into God's heavenly kingdom.

As to the doctrine of verbal inspiration: Inerrancy flows from the idea that God is perfect; therefore, as the ultimate author of the Bible, His work is perfect. That said, we attribute verbal inspiration and inerrancy only to the autographs. Subsequent manuscripts and translations can only be substantively inspired in relation to how well they represent the original meaning of a given text.

So then, since Leviticus 18:22 was originally written in Hebrew, any English version I quote cannot be verbally inspired. Nevertheless, any number of translations can accurately represent the meaning of the original. While the New Living Translation renders Leviticus 18:22 somewhat differently than the New American Standard and other formal translations, its meaning is still on point. Homosexuality is sin.

SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by Tim Rout
If one is an evangelical Christian, then one acknowledges the Bible as God's verbally inspired, inerrant Word. The Bible makes it clear that homosexual behavior is detestable to God.

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin."

Given your position, it is obvious you do not subscribe to biblical authority. Nevertheless, Christians are absolutely serious when we say that sexual sin, including homosexual sin, constitutes rebellion against God.


You don't get it.



Gays aren't gay for the sake of rebelling against a fictional deity. So no, it's not a rebellion at all. You are trying to pass off your opinion as truth, and that's where your going to lose credibility in anything you say further on.

Tim Rout
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Word to the evangelical: be careful not to "preach" to anyone, and try not to act like you have a strangle-hold on teh truth. The forum won't take kindly to you, and they'll either make existence annoying for you or ignore you. Discussion is fine, but in the past most people who post an endless stream of Bible passages have been known to be close-minded and condescending. Chances are, you won't listen to reason (Tectonic plate movements creating earthquakes?! Nonsense! It was sinners!) but don't expect others to do the same.

I appreciate what you're saying and I have been careful to respect the rules KMC has stipulated. As I understand it, I am free to debate the issues as long as I do not attack the person. If they wish to penalize me for preaching God's Word, so be it. I do so without shame or fear.

Tim Rout
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You don't get it.



Gays aren't gay for the sake of rebelling against a fictional deity. So no, it's not a rebellion at all. You are trying to pass off your opinion as truth, and that's where your going to lose credibility in anything you say further on.

Certainly, you are free to disagree with anything I share. But let me be clear that I am not here to push a personal position. As an evangelical Christian, I am here to present the message of the Bible in practical, relevant ways. Since the Bible speaks on a variety of issues, some of which run across the toes of social propriety, I present my case as carefully as I can from the pages of Scripture. I stand on God's authority, not my own.

Now I know...you don't believe the Bible is God's Word. In fact, it is clear you don't believe in God at all -- or so I gather from your use of the adjective "fictional". Nevertheless, each of us brings a perspective to this discussion and it is my privilege to bring an evangelical viewpoint.

Devil King
Originally posted by Robtard
If you're going to take the Bible as "God's inerrant Word", then why not use the oldest version of the text, where it doesn't say anything about Homosexuality; just men laying with men?

How can it be "inerrant", if it's been revised so many times? A perfect example would be the Liviticus you quoted.

Also, it's Liviticus 18:22; not 19:22

how can it be inerrant if it was written by flawed men?

SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Certainly, you are free to disagree with anything I share. But let me be clear that I am not here to push a personal position. As an evangelical Christian, I am here to present the message of the Bible in practical, relevant ways. Since the Bible speaks on a variety of issues, some of which run across the toes of social propriety, I present my case as carefully as I can from the pages of Scripture. I stand on God's authority, not my own.



Yeah, but it kinda seems like you think you are the only religious person who has presented his case. We already know what most Evangelical Christians beleive, and ultamately they only say the same thing over and over.

It's like every time a new fundamental Christian joins the forum, he tells us things he thinks we didn't already hear from the last hundred evangelical posters before him.

So for us, it's like "Oh boy, here we go again" roll eyes (sarcastic)



No offense to you though. I'm sure you have your reasons for why you beleive what you beleive and I respect that. But it's annoying when another new member simply repeats the same stuff someone beforehand did.

And we already know that you won't change your mind, and you should know that neither will we. No one on KMC has been converted to Christianity by discussion. So I don't really know what you think you will accomplish here, but whatever it is, good luck.


Originally posted by Tim Rout
Now I know...you don't believe the Bible is God's Word. In fact, it is clear you don't believe in God at all -- or so I gather from your use of the adjective "fictional". Nevertheless, each of us brings a perspective to this discussion and it is my privilege to bring an evangelical viewpoint.



I do beleive in God, but not the way you do.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Linking natural disasters to God is biblical .

Linking belief in the Bible to ignorance is typical of the lost .

"The bible is ignorance."

"No it's not."

"How do you know?"

"The bible says so."


Your logic is almost hilarious in how circular it is.

King Kandy
BTW, just what IS it about Homosexuality that is so immoral?

Robtard
Originally posted by Tim Rout
18:22 Thank-you. My typo.

And it's LEviticus, not LIviticus. smile

If by the oldest version you are referring to the King James, you would be mistaken. The Wycliffe Bible predates it by more than two centuries.

If by the oldest version you mean the original Hebrew, I'm afraid I took Greek at Bible College, so you're out of luck.

And yes, the text literally translates (as the New American Standard puts it): "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

But the point remains unchanged. God detests the act of one man having sex with another. He reiterates this in Leviticus 20:13, where He adds a death penalty to the offense. Romans 1:26-27 adds lesbian sex to the list of sins, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 makes it clear that sinners -- including unrepentant homosexuals -- cannot gain entrance into God's heavenly kingdom.

As to the doctrine of verbal inspiration: Inerrancy flows from the idea that God is perfect; therefore, as the ultimate author of the Bible, His work is perfect. That said, we attribute verbal inspiration and inerrancy only to the autographs. Subsequent manuscripts and translations can only be substantively inspired in relation to how well they represent the original meaning of a given text.

So then, since Leviticus 18:22 was originally written in Hebrew, any English version I quote cannot be verbally inspired. Nevertheless, any number of translations can accurately represent the meaning of the original. While the New Living Translation renders Leviticus 18:22 somewhat differently than the New American Standard and other formal translations, its meaning is still on point. Homosexuality is sin.

I'm out of luck because you took Greek? Great, another KMC scholar.

I'll spell it Liviticus if I like, you worry about getting your passage numbers correct.

Well of course it can represent whatever you like, when you're taking any liberty you like in translation. When you translate the Hebrew passage from 'man with man' to 'homosexuality', as an all emcompassing word, that right there is a flaw, but how can it be flawless if it's God's word you will say. Easy, human error, your human error.

It would seem to me, that if the Bible is truly God's word and inerrant, it wouldn't need to be reworded, no?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
There's a fire, an earthquake or a kid skins his knee, "God did it because of the gays".

LOL...I find this post rather funny because its true! I live in Oklahoma so I hear shit like that sometimes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Bible-Thumper, please.

I see what you did there? wink

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Romans 1:26-27 adds lesbian sex to the list of sins..

That's it...I just can't believe in God anymore after that one....that is just TOO far! mad mad mad mad mad

Tim Rout
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Yeah, but it kinda seems like you think you are the only religious person who has presented his case. We already know what most Evangelical Christians beleive, and ultamately they only say the same thing over and over.
It's like every time a new fundamental Christian joins the forum, he tells us things he thinks we didn't already hear from the last hundred evangelical posters before him.
So for us, it's like "Oh boy, here we go again" roll eyes (sarcastic)

No offense to you though. I'm sure you have your reasons for why you beleive what you beleive and I respect that. But it's annoying when another new member simply repeats the same stuff someone beforehand did.

And we already know that you won't change your mind, and you should know that neither will we. No one on KMC has been converted to Christianity by discussion. So I don't really know what you think you will accomplish here, but whatever it is, good luck.

I do beleive in God, but not the way you do.

You know, in all the years I've spent chatting online and sharing a biblical perspective with others, there have only been a handful that have come to know Christ as a result. I still think it was worth it. Who knows what the Holy Spirit will do in the silence of someone's heart as they read His Word?

As for you having an exhaustive understanding of evangelical theology, it is clear you don't. At least, the words you speak seem to indicate a certain degree of presumptive comprehension. Nevertheless, I am not here to represent all evangelicals, or ANY evangelicals for that matter. I am simply a Christian -- plain and ordinary -- here as an ambassador of my Lord, Jesus Christ. Just as Shakyamunison is free to bring his Buddhist perspective to these discussions, I also bring a different flavor to the conversation.

Tim Rout
Originally posted by dadudemon


That's it...I just can't believe in God anymore after that one....that is just TOO far! mad mad mad mad mad

Now before someone accuses me of misquoting...this is the only part of the above citation actually directed at ME.

"Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made, but not the Creator Himself, who is to be praised forever. A-men. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved."

The Bible is often a stumbling block for non-believers. They find some of its contents interesting and even satisfying, but when they run across a passage that rubs them the wrong way, it can be a real turn off. However, that's part of the Bible's function. It reveals the sinfulness of the human heart and helps to separate the repentant from those who have no genuine interest in the things of God .

Bicnarok
Originally posted by Tim Rout
If one is an evangelical Christian, then one acknowledges the Bible as God's verbally inspired, inerrant Word. The Bible makes it clear that homosexual behavior is detestable to God.

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin."

Given your position, it is obvious you do not subscribe to biblical authority. Nevertheless, Christians are absolutely serious when we say that sexual sin, including homosexual sin, constitutes rebellion against God.

Reading your posts reminds me of some middle ages scenario, burn the witches.

Of course Homosexuality is a sin in Gods eyes, so is adultery, robbery, murder etc... Are you sin free? I doubt it !! so stop throwing stones.

Tim Rout
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Reading your posts reminds me of some middle ages scenario, burn the witches.

Of course Homosexuality is a sin in Gods eyes, so is adultery, robbery, murder etc... Are you sin free? I doubt it !! so stop throwing stones.

Actually, the specific biblical injunction requires that I not judge sins of which I myself am unrepented . While I have many weaknesses to various sins, homosexuality is not one of them.

King Kandy
Originally posted by King Kandy
BTW, just what IS it about Homosexuality that is so immoral?

Tim Rout
Originally posted by King Kandy
BTW, just what IS it about Homosexuality that is so immoral?

In a nut shell, the Bible determines "right" and "wrong" based on the character and desires of God. God's character is holy, and as a consequence He desires people to be holy . God engineered humanity around the heterosexual family unit . Therefore, the biblical definition of marriage must include persons of the opposite gender.

It should be noted that heterosexual sex is also immoral if conducted outside the sanctity of marriage. To this end, both heterosexual and homosexual immorality are mentioned as different, but equal, offenses against God's original design .

So then, in answer to your question: Homosexuality is immoral because God says so.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by King Kandy


Intellectual justification isn't needed for those types. All they need is a Bible passage, and even if it says the most ludicrous thing on the planet, it becomes fact to them without justifying either the Bible's validity nor the belief on intellectual grounds. So you won't get a straight answer from one who is so deluded.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
So then, in answer to your question: Homosexuality is immoral because God says so.

Case in point.

I still suspect troll/sock, but I guess we'll see. Though your prosthelytizing won't work here Mr. Rout, so unless yo enjoy talking to yourself and then being refuted you might think about a new approach or just posting less.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Tim Rout
In a nut shell, the Bible determines "right" and "wrong" based on the character and desires of God. God's character is holy, and as a consequence He desires people to be holy . God engineered humanity around the heterosexual family unit . Therefore, the biblical definition of marriage must include persons of the opposite gender.

It should be noted that heterosexual sex is also immoral if conducted outside the sanctity of marriage. To this end, both heterosexual and homosexual immorality are mentioned as different, but equal, offenses against God's original design .

So then, in answer to your question: Homosexuality is immoral because God says so.
Of course, but there must be a reason God decided that that it was immoral, there must be something inherently immoral about it. If not then he just singled a group out for hell for no reason?

Tim Rout
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Intellectual justification isn't needed for those types. All they need is a Bible passage, and even if it says the most ludicrous thing on the planet, it becomes fact to them without justifying either the Bible's validity nor the belief on intellectual grounds. So you won't get a straight answer from one who is so deluded.

Case in point.

I still suspect troll/sock, but I guess we'll see. Though your prosthelytizing won't work here Mr. Rout, so unless yo enjoy talking to yourself and then being refuted you might think about a new approach or just posting less.

I find it facinating how many of you guys want me to stop posting. What are you so frightened of? After all, according to you my views are little more than meaningless conjecture.

But you're right about one thing: I do look to the Bible as my supreme authority. Human intellect and argument are important. A careful examination of historical evidence is necessary. But in the end, I place my trust in the risen Lord of heaven and earth, not the minds of men.

Tim Rout
Originally posted by King Kandy
Of course, but there must be a reason God decided that that it was immoral, there must be something inherently immoral about it. If not then he just singled a group out for hell for no reason?

There are many examples in the Bible where God gives an instruction, expects people to obey it, but never lets them in on the "why" of it. That said, it is important to understand the nature of the human predicament.

Humans are not destined to hell for committing some particular sin (like gay sex). All sin is equally deserving of punishment. We are all destined for hell because we are imperfect . We inherited this imperfection from our original father, Adam, who rebelled against God and infected humanity with the curse of sin and death .

Even though we are helpless to escape our impending doom, God sent His perfect Son Jesus to do the impossible -- pay the sin debt for every person who would voluntarily turn from sin and receive His free gift of eternal life .

In a general sense, we can understand a few things about homosexuality. Firstly, homosexual sex is a sin . Secondly, all sin is harmful to humans . Thirdly, homosexual sin is completely forgivable . Fourthly, those who do not believe in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins will face the consequences .

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Tim Rout
I find it facinating how many of you guys want me to stop posting. What are you so frightened of? After all, according to you my views are little more than meaningless conjecture.

But you're right about one thing: I do look to the Bible as my supreme authority. Human intellect and argument are important. A careful examination of historical evidence is necessary. But in the end, I place my trust in the risen Lord of heaven and earth, not the minds of men.

Not frightened. Annoyed. People like you have a tendency to dominate thread discussion, and people feel obligated to refute you however they feel like. It detracts from more nuanced intellectual religious discussion than simply quoting Bible verses, and going back and forth fruitlessly between people who don't believe the Bible is God's word, and those who do.

Also, you're still a bigot for these beliefs. Thank goodness current moral perception in mainstream society is more tolerant than these archaic belief systems.

Tim Rout
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Not frightened. Annoyed. People like you have a tendency to dominate thread discussion, and people feel obligated to refute you however they feel like. It detracts from more nuanced intellectual religious discussion than simply quoting Bible verses, and going back and forth fruitlessly between people who don't believe the Bible is God's word, and those who do.

Also, you're still a bigot for these beliefs. Thank goodness current moral perception in mainstream society is more tolerant than these archaic belief systems.

How interesting....

You believe me to be an intolerant bigot, yet YOU are the one who wants to see people like me go bye bye. I don't recall asking you (or anyone else) to stop posting anti-Christian views. The free expression of freely held ideas is one of the core principles of western civilization. I am sorry you feel evangelicals seem to dominate these discussions. Perhaps this perceived dominance lends weight to the value of our arguments?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Tim Rout
How interesting....

You believe me to be an intolerant bigot, yet YOU are the one who wants to see people like me go bye bye. I don't recall asking you (or anyone else) to stop posting anti-Christian views. The free expression of freely held ideas is one of the core principles of western civilization. I am sorry you feel evangelicals seem to dominate these discussions. Perhaps this perceived dominance lends weight to the value of our arguments?

I'm not commanding you to do anything. Wishing that you'd leave is a separate matter, and well within my rights of opinion. It neither harms you nor anyone else. But you're condemning others based upon barbaric beliefs. And if you think that it is merely an opinion, and that such sentiments don't cause untold grief to people in the real world, you're deluding yourself.

So yeah, bigot. In the worst sense of the word.

And the last sentence is just a ridiculously leading question, and also a bit too self-assured. Dominance has to do with the constant spouting of Bible verses, and how intellectual debate takes a back seat to copy/paste tactics that never seem to stop. If I meant "value" I would have said it. As it is, my meaning was the furthest things from such an interpretation.

Tim Rout
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm not commanding you to do anything. Wishing that you'd leave is a separate matter, and well within my rights of opinion. It neither harms you nor anyone else. But you're condemning others based upon barbaric beliefs. And if you think that it is merely an opinion, and that such sentiments don't cause untold grief to people in the real world, you're deluding yourself.

So yeah, bigot. In the worst sense of the word.

And the last sentence is just a ridiculously leading question, and also a bit too self-assured. Dominance has to do with the constant spouting of Bible verses, and how intellectual debate takes a back seat to copy/paste tactics that never seem to stop. If I meant "value" I would have said it. As it is, my meaning was the furthest things from such an interpretation.

Are you under the impression that I am commanding you to do something? If so, you are mistaken. I merely present the message of the Bible and allow people to make up their own minds -- as clearly you have made up yours.

It's easy to call someone a bigot, an idiot, a mindless fool, or any number of other insulting terms that people throw around. But insults are not arguments. Acerbity is not evidence. Pronouncements are not truth. You stand on your opinions and call them logic. I unapologetically stand on the Bible and let it speak for itself.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No one is persecuting you, but some people use the bible to persecute others. im persecuting him for making retarded statements

lil bitchiness
Yeah, so what.

Muslims constantly blame infidels for everything and anything.

Jooz did it!!

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm not commanding you to do anything. Wishing that you'd leave is a separate matter, and well within my rights of opinion. It neither harms you nor anyone else. But you're condemning others based upon barbaric beliefs. And if you think that it is merely an opinion, and that such sentiments don't cause untold grief to people in the real world, you're deluding yourself.

So yeah, bigot. In the worst sense of the word.

Why do people care so much about other people's beliefs (no matte how sickening they may be) if the person isn't going out and doing something dangerous?

Do people seriously get upset over thinking "there are people out there that think I'm a sicko."? Because seriously it's never happened to me.

pr1983
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why do people care so much about other people's beliefs (no matte how sickening they may be) if the person isn't going out and doing something dangerous?

Do people seriously get upset over thinking "there are people out there that think I'm a sicko."? Because seriously it's never happened to me.

yeah, but you're special etc... stick out tongue

Robtard
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yeah, so what.

Muslims constantly blame infidels for everything and anything.

Jooz did it!!

Athiest, Christians and the like are infidels. The Jews are the "evil Zionist".

Mark Question
Originally posted by Tim Rout
But in the end, I place my trust in the risen Lord of heaven and earth, not the minds of men.

Awesome... Let's hear it for the regression of humankind!

Quark_666
Originally posted by Tim Rout
I nevertheless agree with my brothers and sisters that rebellion against God brings judgment.

Yeah, in the afterlife maybe. But natural disasters that punish entire societies? I don't think so. God doesn't resort to that.

Tim Rout
Originally posted by Quark_666
Yeah, in the afterlife maybe. But natural disasters that punish entire societies? I don't think so. God doesn't resort to that.

I'm not sure what authority you're basing that statement on, but the Bible is replete with examples of God using natural disasters to punish people who displease Him. In fact, Jesus specifically predicted that famines and earthquakes would precede the day of judgment . When the Book of Revelation speaks of God pouring out His wrath, this virtually always has a natural disaster attached to it.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Tim Rout
There are many examples in the Bible where God gives an instruction, expects people to obey it, but never lets them in on the "why" of it. That said, it is important to understand the nature of the human predicament.

Humans are not destined to hell for committing some particular sin (like gay sex). All sin is equally deserving of punishment. We are all destined for hell because we are imperfect . We inherited this imperfection from our original father, Adam, who rebelled against God and infected humanity with the curse of sin and death .

Even though we are helpless to escape our impending doom, God sent His perfect Son Jesus to do the impossible -- pay the sin debt for every person who would voluntarily turn from sin and receive His free gift of eternal life .

In a general sense, we can understand a few things about homosexuality. Firstly, homosexual sex is a sin . Secondly, all sin is harmful to humans . Thirdly, homosexual sin is completely forgivable . Fourthly, those who do not believe in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins will face the consequences .

I UNDERSTAND that Homosexuality is a sin. I am asking WHY God chose to classify it as such, when it does not seem to carry any harmful effects. God could declare eating apples as a sin, but in the absence of any inherent wrongness in the act, it would be ludicrous to do so.

Also, a question: did people born before Jesus all go to hell?

Symmetric Chaos
Here's a question: when did Jesus ever condemn homosexuality?

Tim Rout
Originally posted by King Kandy
I UNDERSTAND that Homosexuality is a sin. I am asking WHY God chose to classify it as such, when it does not seem to carry any harmful effects. God could declare eating apples as a sin, but in the absence of any inherent wrongness in the act, it would be ludicrous to do so.

Also, a question: did people born before Jesus all go to hell?

Funny you should call the forbiddance of a fruit "ludicrous". That's exactly the sort of thinking that got the world into this mess in the first place. Do you remember the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ? God never told Adam and Eve why the fruit was forbidden. For all we know, His reasoning may have had nothing whatsoever to do with the chemical content of the fruit itself. That didn't matter. God said "don't eat it", and humans disobeyed. The result was death for all mankind.

Your question is immaterial. You're asking me to offer a humanistic justification for God's sovereign decisions, and there is none to offer. God is God! He has the authority to call any human behavior wrong if He so chooses, and He has clearly chosen to identify homosexual behavior as wrong. And if all sin is by nature harmful, then so too is homosexuality. You're free to disagree if you like. You're even free to disobey, for now. After all, God is the only one to whom you will give an account.

And no...not all people who were born before Jesus went to hell. God introduced the first prophetic promise of His coming Messiah immediately after Adam and Eve disobeyed that first time . Throughout the Old Testament period, He extended this promise, telling people more and more about the coming Redeemer. Those who believed in God's coming Messiah would be saved "on credit", as it were. When Jesus finally arrived and died on the cross, He settled the bill for all who had trusted in Him beforehand. Remember, Jesus is God, and as such He existed prior to His advent .

So then, Old Testament believers were saved on credit, while New Testament believers (and beyond) are saved on debit.

Tim Rout
Originally posted by King Kandy
I UNDERSTAND that Homosexuality is a sin. I am asking WHY God chose to classify it as such, when it does not seem to carry any harmful effects. God could declare eating apples as a sin, but in the absence of any inherent wrongness in the act, it would be ludicrous to do so.

Also, a question: did people born before Jesus all go to hell?

With regard to the question of harm, I am going to segregate my response, since the following is an expression of personal opinion, and not biblical declaration.

As an additional consideration, it would be wise to weigh the effects of sexual sin -- both homosexual and heterosexual -- on the transmission of STDs. While there is some small chance of a person catching AIDS or another blood born disease from non-sexual sources, the probability of being hit with an STD falls substantially when one obeys the Bible. If one virgin man marries one virgin woman, and the two remain faithful throughout their lifetimes, the probability of catching a serious disease through sexual transmission falls to virtually 0%.

We must also consider the extraordinary harm sexual sin inflicts upon a person's emotional health. I can't tell you how many times I've seen teens left nearly suicidal after the break up of a sexualized relationship. This extreme grief is nearly absent from those who abstained from sexual activity. And, of course, unwed girls and women who abstain from sex will never have to worry about unwed pregnancy.

While I have no statistics to offer, I do have the testimonies of countless Christians who live by God's Word every day. Here's an excellent example:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2957472509635178728&q=lika+roman&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Tim Rout
With regard to the question of harm, I am going to segregate my response, since the following is an expression of personal opinion, and not biblical declaration.

As an additional consideration, it would be wise to weigh the effects of sexual sin -- both homosexual and heterosexual -- on the transmission of STDs. While there is some small chance of a person catching AIDS or another blood born disease from non-sexual sources, the probability of being hit with an STD falls substantially when one obeys the Bible. If one virgin man marries one virgin woman, and the two remain faithful throughout their lifetimes, the probability of catching a serious disease through sexual transmission falls to virtually 0%.

We must also consider the extraordinary harm sexual sin inflicts upon a person's emotional health. I can't tell you how many times I've seen teens left nearly suicidal after the break up of a sexualized relationship. This extreme grief is nearly absent from those who abstained from sexual activity. And, of course, unwed girls and women who abstain from sex will never have to worry about unwed pregnancy.

While I have no statistics to offer, I do have the testimonies of countless Christians who live by God's Word every day. Here's an excellent example:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2957472509635178728&q=lika+roman&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 saying that because they havent "sinned" and thus havent gotten diseases is ludicrus, a fallacy and a twist of the truth. it has nothing with following the rules of the bible and is them not having sex. period. it isnt up for debate, ur just wrong.

perhaps you overlooked the the other 6 billion people in the world who have had sex before marriage. im sure they all want to kill themselves to. ya know cause their all 15-16 american teen women too right?

Tim Rout
Originally posted by chickenlover98
saying that because they havent "sinned" and thus havent gotten diseases is ludicrus, a fallacy and a twist of the truth. it has nothing with following the rules of the bible and is them not having sex. period. it isnt up for debate, ur just wrong.

perhaps you overlooked the the other 6 billion people in the world who have had sex before marriage. im sure they all want to kill themselves to. ya know cause their all 15-16 american teen women too right?

Is it safe to drive without wearing your seatbelt?

It wouldn't be for me. I have been involved in several collisions in my lifetime (none of them my fault, by the way) and in each instance my seatbelt saved me from serious harm.

My brother in-law, on the other hand, has never been involved in a serious collision. He could have left his seat belt off all these many years, and he would have been just fine.

Interestingly though, he still buckles up. Why? Because he knows the odds are in his favor that sooner or later he's going to need restraint. Only an idiot would take a stupid chance with his life. And just to make sure even the idiots get it right, most of our communities have some sort of "click-it, or ticket" law.

You really like that word "ludicrous". You paste it broadly across anything your subjective intuitions find disfavorable. Yet for all your wild assertions and audacious posturing, the fact remains that those who obey God live better lives than those who don't. And it is a fact -- proven again and again in the lives of Christians everywhere. Obedience brings blessing. Not always wealth and health that some desire...but blessing nonetheless. You're really missing out.

Robtard
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Is it safe to drive without wearing your seatbelt?

It wouldn't be for me. I have been involved in several collisions in my lifetime (none of them my fault, by the way) and in each instance my seatbelt saved me from serious harm.

My brother in-law, on the other hand, has never been involved in a serious collision. He could have left his seat belt off all these many years, and he would have been just fine.

Interestingly though, he still buckles up. Why? Because he knows the odds are in his favor that sooner or later he's going to need restraint. Only an idiot would take a stupid chance with his life. And just to make sure even the idiots get it right, most of our communities have some sort of "click-it, or ticket" law.

You really like that word "ludicrous". You paste it broadly across anything your subjective intuitions find disfavorable. Yet for all your wild assertions and audacious posturing, the fact remains that those who obey God live better lives than those who don't. And it is a fact -- proven again and again in the lives of Christians everywhere. Obedience brings blessing. Not always wealth and health that some desire...but blessing nonetheless. You're really missing out.

"Christians have better lives", that is clearly subjective, as you have zero concrete proof to back this up, besides, doesn't a Christian's "better life" start after they're dead and they fly up into your magical kingdom?

As far as your seatbelt analogy goes, it is ludicris. We know that buckling-up is safer as it's been proven by accidents to injure rates; we have yet to see anyone go into heaven though. So don't accuse others of blind subjectiveness.

Quark_666
Originally posted by Tim Rout
I'm not sure what authority you're basing that statement on, but the Bible is replete with examples of God using natural disasters to punish people who displease Him. In fact, Jesus specifically predicted that famines and earthquakes would precede the day of judgment . When the Book of Revelation speaks of God pouring out His wrath, this virtually always has a natural disaster attached to it.

I was hoping you'd pounce on this one.

My opinion concerning the mercy of God is largely based off of Genesis 18:24-32. Remember, you are making an argument that God actually sends earthquakes and hurricanes to punish society for not fighting homosexuality.

I just looked up Matthew 24:7.


For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

God doesn't make wars occur. What makes you think he makes diseases and earthquakes happen?

Matthew: There shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes in divers places.
Tim Rout: There shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes because of the gays.

Tim Rout
Originally posted by Quark_666
I was hoping you'd pounce on this one.

My opinion concerning the mercy of God is largely based off of Genesis 18:24-32. Remember, you are making an argument that God actually sends earthquakes and hurricanes to punish society for not fighting homosexuality.

I just looked up Matthew 24:7.

God doesn't make wars occur. What makes you think he makes diseases and earthquakes happen?

Matthew: There shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes in divers places.
Tim Rout: There shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes because of the gays.

Matthew 24 deals with signs of the end times. The book of Revelation describes these last events in detail. Included in God's final judgments are a whole string of "natural" disasters. Here's an example:

"The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of His wrath. Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found. From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible."

The Lord will judge humanity for its wickedness, and that wickedness includes (but is not limited to) the sin of homosexuality. For a more specific example, there is good textual evidence to suggest God obliterated Sodom and Gomorrah for their flagrant homosexual practices . If you are suggesting that Genesis 18:24-31 somehow mitigates this, I can't see how, since Yahweh did in fact blow them sky high.

In addition to personally inflicting disease on the disobedient God most certainly DOES cause wars .

Devil King
Originally posted by Tim Rout
18:22



Romans 1:26-27

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Leviticus 18:22



Originally posted by Tim Rout
.



Originally posted by Tim Rout


Originally posted by Tim Rout


Originally posted by Tim Rout
.





Originally posted by Tim Rout






Originally posted by Tim Rout


Genesis 18:24-31

So, what's the "real" meaning of the 3rd word on the 198th page of the 10th volume of the the 12th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica?

Tim Rout
Originally posted by Devil King
So, what's the "real" meaning of the 3rd word on the 198th page of the 10th volume of the the 12th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica?

big grin I know. It must seem weird. I'm sure seeing all those Bible addresses can even be annoying for some people. But if I'm going to stipulate that the Bible says something, I must be careful to demonstrate where the Bible says it. Anything less would be academically irresponsible.

Quark_666
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Matthew 24 deals with signs of the end times. The book of Revelation describes these last events in detail. Included in God's final judgments are a whole string of "natural" disasters. Here's an example:

"The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of His wrath. Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found. From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible."

Yes, but that didn't come from gays.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
The Lord will judge humanity for its wickedness, and that wickedness includes (but is not limited to) the sin of homosexuality. For a more specific example, there is good textual evidence to suggest God obliterated Sodom and Gomorrah for their flagrant homosexual practices . If you are suggesting that Genesis 18:24-31 somehow mitigates this, I can't see how, since Yahweh did in fact blow them sky high.

You don't get what I'm saying about Genesis 18:24-31? Here...

God was exceedingly merciful to Sodom and Gomorrah in that if he'd found even fifty righteous households he would have sparred the city. That degree of mercy might just have been because Abraham pleaded with him, but you have to give God some credit for the leeway he gives anyway. When he punishes a population, the ratio of evil to good is probably pretty high.

But the point I would like to emphasize is that pointing fingers at a single practice or organization simply piles onto the sin...

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Is it safe to drive without wearing your seatbelt?

It wouldn't be for me. I have been involved in several collisions in my lifetime (none of them my fault, by the way) and in each instance my seatbelt saved me from serious harm.

My brother in-law, on the other hand, has never been involved in a serious collision. He could have left his seat belt off all these many years, and he would have been just fine.

Interestingly though, he still buckles up. Why? Because he knows the odds are in his favor that sooner or later he's going to need restraint. Only an idiot would take a stupid chance with his life. And just to make sure even the idiots get it right, most of our communities have some sort of "click-it, or ticket" law.

You really like that word "ludicrous". You paste it broadly across anything your subjective intuitions find disfavorable. Yet for all your wild assertions and audacious posturing, the fact remains that those who obey God live better lives than those who don't. And it is a fact -- proven again and again in the lives of Christians everywhere. Obedience brings blessing. Not always wealth and health that some desire...but blessing nonetheless. You're really missing out. fyi ive used the word ludacris like maybe 4-5 times in the last friggin year.

2nd tell that christians lead happier better lives to the priests that get mugged and also the ones that rape little boys. i think im leading aMUCH happier life than them

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Tim Rout
big grin I know. It must seem weird. I'm sure seeing all those Bible addresses can even be annoying for some people. But if I'm going to stipulate that the Bible says something, I must be careful to demonstrate where the Bible says it. Anything less would be academically irresponsible. its so sad that you wasted part of your brain memorizing bible references when you could be using that memory to A: remember a girls phone number so you can call her and have unmarrital sec with her. B: remember that being logical is better and quit the christian faith.

dadudemon
Originally posted by chickenlover98
its so sad that you wasted part of your brain memorizing bible references when you could be using that memory to A: remember a girls phone number so you can call her and have unmarrital sec with her. B: remember that being logical is better and quit the christian faith.

great idea!

*memorizes chickenlover's mom's number*


no expression

Alliance
Originally posted by Tim Rout
big grin I know. It must seem weird. I'm sure seeing all those Bible addresses can even be annoying for some people. But if I'm going to stipulate that the Bible says something, I must be careful to demonstrate where the Bible says it. Anything less would be academically irresponsible.

Such stipulation and selective demonstration IS ACADEMICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE.

Devil King
Originally posted by Alliance
Such stipulation and selective demonstration IS ACADEMICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE.

Not to mention that a book as old as the bible is, and has been scrutinized for as long as it has, can be twisted to mean just about anything.

But my real point is that he should try reading other books too.

Quark_666
Originally posted by dadudemon
great idea!

*memorizes chickenlover's mom's number*


no expression

He's the secret son of Chuck Norris. Remember?

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Is it safe to drive without wearing your seatbelt?

It wouldn't be for me. I have been involved in several collisions in my lifetime (none of them my fault, by the way) and in each instance my seatbelt saved me from serious harm.

My brother in-law, on the other hand, has never been involved in a serious collision. He could have left his seat belt off all these many years, and he would have been just fine.

Interestingly though, he still buckles up. Why? Because he knows the odds are in his favor that sooner or later he's going to need restraint. Only an idiot would take a stupid chance with his life. And just to make sure even the idiots get it right, most of our communities have some sort of "click-it, or ticket" law.

Is this an argument for using condoms?

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Are you under the impression that I am commanding you to do something? If so, you are mistaken. I merely present the message of the Bible and allow people to make up their own minds -- as clearly you have made up yours.

It's easy to call someone a bigot, an idiot, a mindless fool, or any number of other insulting terms that people throw around. But insults are not arguments. Acerbity is not evidence. Pronouncements are not truth. You stand on your opinions and call them logic. I unapologetically stand on the Bible and let it speak for itself.

I say that I'm not commanding you to do anything, and you somehow interpret it as thinking that you're commanding me to do something? That...that doesn't even begin to make sense. It's like arguing with deficient AI.

Everything you say is tainted with this kind of confirmation bias.

And yeah, I can call you a bigot if I think you are one....which is rather evident by your opinions toward anyone who doesn't follow your preordained rules (that lack any justification..."Why is the Bible God's Word? Becuase it's the Bible, and God says so." ...it's circular logic). In any case, most systems of morality are uch more loving and accepting of variant lifestyles. Thankfully so, since people have lost their lives, their families, their jobs, their happiness, over such petty beliefs.

Open your eyes and see your own hatred...and you don't have to literally hate a group of people for your beliefs, words, and actions to be hateful.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Open your eyes and see your own hatred...and you don't have to literally hate a group of people for your beliefs, words, and actions to be hateful.

You seem to miss the inherent connotation of the word hatred.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You seem to miss the inherent connotation of the word hatred.

No, I stipulated what I meant. Actions and words can be hateful without a person harboring true hatred, because a convenient cop-out is holding such beliefs but saying that you don't truly hate them, just disagree or feel sorry for them or something. It still has negative consequences in functional reality, and therefore can be hateful.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, I stipulated what I meant. Actions and words can be hateful without a person harboring true hatred, because a convenient cop-out is holding such beliefs but saying that you don't truly hate them, just disagree or feel sorry for them or something.

If a person genuinely feels pity rather than hatred it's not a cop-out it's the truth. Or are you completely dismissing the possibility of him not having a suppressed hated of gays?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
It still has negative consequences in functional reality, and therefore can be hateful.

What do you mean by functional reality?

chickenlover98
Originally posted by dadudemon
great idea!

*memorizes chickenlover's mom's number*


no expression have fun she's 60. she's ALL yours

chickenlover98
Originally posted by Quark_666
He's the secret son of Chuck Norris. Remember? iim so glad you can remember all those facts about me big grin

Quark_666
Originally posted by chickenlover98
iim so glad you can remember all those facts about me big grin

I don't, but some of them are unforgettable.

dadudemon
Originally posted by chickenlover98
have fun she's 60. she's ALL yours

Dude...she's ALL everyone's. smokin'

Alliance
Can we cut the chatter and get back to blaming gays...please?

Quark_666
Originally posted by Alliance
Can we cut the chatter and get back to blaming gays...please?

Tim left. What should I do? respond to all his posts one more time?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Alliance
Can we cut the chatter and get back to blaming gays...please?

Well if you go get the stones we can start having fun.

chickenlover98
Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude...she's ALL everyone's. smokin' ok have fun, careful i think she has aids

anaconda
its rebellion against nature

inimalist
Originally posted by anaconda
its rebellion against nature

aside from it being natural and prevalent all over the animal kingdom...

Bonobo?

anaconda
there are rebels all over the place

Deja~vu
And ruble all over the floor.

Quark_666
Originally posted by anaconda
its rebellion against nature

Lol, I have to feel sorry for homosexuals because they can't pretend it's religiously or scientifically correct.

Of course I would be impressed if somebody made a good case for gaity being a form of evolution too...

Deja~vu
I think everyone should pull out of ever where and let those who want to destroy themselves to do so.

It's only my opinion

---Jane Curtain want to be...

Of course Gilda, my alter ego says..."I'm related to a tape dispenser".

Robtard
Originally posted by Quark_666
Lol, I have to feel sorry for homosexuals because they can't pretend it's religiously or scientifically correct.

Of course I would be impressed if somebody made a good case for gaity being a form of evolution too...

Could be natures way of population control, that and predators.

anaconda
if it was religious correct god would have created Adam and stEve

Deja~vu
Aminals do it... embarrasment

Robtard
Originally posted by anaconda
if it was religious correct god would have created Adam and stEve

Flawed concept, why did God create both man and woman if Adam and Eve were not originally intended to sin (ie sex it up)?

Deja~vu
Who said HE did? Literal reading into concepts of metaphors is just damn ignorant.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If a person genuinely feels pity rather than hatred it's not a cop-out it's the truth. Or are you completely dismissing the possibility of him not having a suppressed hated of gays?


What do you mean by functional reality?

By functional reality, I mean the world we live in. Harbor such opinions, which many do, and it manifests itself as negative consequences for those who are homosexual in the form of violence, abuse (both verbal, physical, emotional, etc.), neglect, hatred, bigotry, etc. Try being an outspoken homosexual in the Bible Belt and you'll see my point. Or don't, because you'd likely end up dead....and I like you. I'd rather not see that happen.

wink

In any case, I only said that his words were hateful. I can't presume to know if he intrinsically hates them or not. But his words tacitly endorse such behaviors if he doesn't learn to be more tolerant of such lifestyle choices, even it's merely on a philosophical level rather than an emotional one.

inimalist
Originally posted by Robtard
Could be natures way of population control, that and predators.

highly unlikely

its probably just a behaviour that was never selected against. For instance, in bison, some men mount MORE men than women during a mating season. However, the abundance of homosexual activity would not prevent the bison from mating.

Many other mammals use sex as a form of communication. 2 dogs will felicitate each other, bonobo monkeys have LOTS of gay sex, and in these groups, the sexual contact is purposeful.

As a form of population control it wouldn't work. One generation with the "homosexual genes" wouldn't pass those genes on. Its possible, I don't buy it though, at least as an explanation. Population control in a sense could be an outcome, but not the selective force, imho.

Quark_666
Originally posted by Robtard
Could be natures way of population control, that and predators.

That's personification of nature, if you ask me.

Devil King
Originally posted by Robtard
Flawed concept, why did God create both man and woman if Adam and Eve were not originally intended to sin (ie sex it up)?

They were married

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Flawed concept, why did God create both man and woman if Adam and Eve were not originally intended to sin (ie sex it up)?

Well here is something that might blow your mind away...Adam and Eve were created specifically to sin and be kicked out of God's presence.

Deja~vu
It's a metaphor put into a story for the polarization and attributes of masculine and feminine.

WrathfulDwarf
You can't blame gays...because "gay" it's "okay"

There! *snap*

Devil King
Originally posted by Deja~vu
It's a metaphor put into a story for the polarization and attributes of masculine and feminine.


It would appear that many christians can not make the connection between the definition of 'metaphore' and the actual execution of that definition, though.

SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by inimalist
highly unlikely

its probably just a behaviour that was never selected against. For instance, in bison, some men mount MORE men than women during a mating season. However, the abundance of homosexual activity would not prevent the bison from mating.

Many other mammals use sex as a form of communication. 2 dogs will felicitate each other, bonobo monkeys have LOTS of gay sex, and in these groups, the sexual contact is purposeful.

As a form of population control it wouldn't work. One generation with the "homosexual genes" wouldn't pass those genes on. Its possible, I don't buy it though, at least as an explanation. Population control in a sense could be an outcome, but not the selective force, imho.


If there are homosexual genes, then it wouldn't be so that only homosexuals possess them, seeing as how homosexuals are born from heterosexuals.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
If there are homosexual genes, then it wouldn't be so that only homosexuals possess them, seeing as how homosexuals are born from heterosexuals.

Are not all homosexuals born from heterosexuals? confused

SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are not all homosexuals born from heterosexuals? confused



I was going to say that, but some homosexuals are born from homosexuals. If a homosexual man has sex with a heterosexual woman, or vise versa, and have a homosexual child, then the homosexual child is born from a homosexual parent.


Just to avoid those details, I phrased myself differently.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I was going to say that, but some homosexuals are born from homosexuals. If a homosexual man has sex with a heterosexual woman, or vise versa, and have a homosexual child, then the homosexual child is born from a homosexual parent.


Just to avoid those details, I phrased myself differently.

But the used heterosexual sex. wink And wouln't the guy be bi then? stick out tongue

SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the used heterosexual sex. wink And wouln't the guy be bi then? stick out tongue


Not necessarily. Many gay men have sex with women either to cover up thier sexuality or to try and be straight. Ask Devil King, he'll tell you.


A bisexual man is a man who enjoys sex with both men and women. He may still have a preference however. Ask SpearofDestiny, he'll tell you.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Not necessarily. Many gay men have sex with women either to cover up thier sexuality or to try and be straight. Ask Devil King, he'll tell you.


A bisexual man is a man who enjoys sex with both men and women. He may still have a preference however. Ask SpearofDestiny, he'll tell you.

I never talk to SpearofDestiny, he's gay. laughing

SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never talk to SpearofDestiny, he's gay. laughing


But he's hott and he has nice brown nipples droolio

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
But he's hott and he has nice brown nipples droolio

puke

SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
puke



Yeah yeah....sure...deny it all you want droolio

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Yeah yeah....sure...deny it all you want droolio

evil face

SpearofDestiny
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
evil face


droolio

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.